The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-02 00:00:00

I find that, in five out of the seven counties which enjoy the privilege of electing three members each, two were of one party and one of the other. I regard it as a great benefit to to those counties themselves, as well as to the country at large, that there should exist such a disposition not to exclude altogether a very strong minority, but to allow it to have part of the representation. I know it is said that the vote of the third member, the representative of a minority, neutralises the vote of one of the other two. That is not altogether true, because in many instances where the questions at issue are not directly party questions all three members may, and, we find, often do, vote together, although sitting on different sides of the house. I think, therefore, we shall not do wrong in giving three members to some of the more populous towns, as we have given three members to some of the larger counties. (Hear, hear.) I have stated the distribution of seats which we propose to make with respect to counties and boroughs. But there is smother seat at our disposal, and we propose to give it to a learned body which contains within it a sort of representa tion of those who are excluded from the older Universities ..-I mean the London University. (Hear.) I have already said that we wish to make our measure as simple as possi ble. We do not propose, in substituting £6 for £lO, to c hange any of the conditions of the franchise except one— viz., that which makes it necessary to pay the assessed taxes. It appears to us that it is sufficient if a householder pays his poor-rate, and that it would be a needless restric tion to render obligatory the payment of the assessed taxes. (Hear, hear.) The house will also observe that all we pro pose, with the exception of the 25 seats I have mentioned, is in the way of enfranchisement, and enfranchisement with as little novelty as possible. Seeing the objections that have been made and the failures that have occurred in former years, we have sought to confine the attention of Parliament to the question of the franchise, and to such changes as seem absolutely to be required by the number of places which demand and deserve representation, rather than to alter other things which, however objectionable they-may be considered, do belong to our ancient customs and our long-established forms of representation. (Hear, hear.) I believe in so doing we are taking the safest and the best course. At all events, we shall enable Parlia ment to decide upon these questions by themselves, with out having its mind disturbed or its time consumed by the discussion of refinements and novelties. (Hear.) Although I have not succeeded in carrying two measures of reform which I have had the honour to introduce of late years I am by no means discouraged by that fact. For ten years I laboured hard to obtain the assent of Parliament to mea sures of reform before I introduced the Bill of 1831. I laboured in vain, but that did not prevent the success of the Bill-of 1831. (Hear.) I feel sure that if hon. gentle men will apply their minds to the present measure, if they will look upon it as a measure bringing, at all events, a con siderable portion of the working classes within the temple of the constitution, enabling them to exercise privileges of which they are worthy by their character and acquirements, they will agree with me in Viinking that the foundations of the 'constitution will be strengthened, and that we shall hereafter rejoice at having passed such a bill. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—WiII the noble lord have the goodness to state when he proposes to take the second reading of this bill ? Lord J. RUSSELL—I am not sure, but certainly not within a fortnight from the present time, Mr. BRIGHT—May I ask the noble lord whether he has included the four seats which have been so long vacant in his scheme ? Lord J. RUSSELL—We have disposed of all the seats which we propose to take away by the present bill ; and, with respect to the four to which the hon. gentleman has referred, we think it only fair, especially since they have been so long vacant, to give Scotland and Ireland the benefit of them. (Hear, hear.) Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY had the honour of a seat in that house when the noble lord introduced the bill of 1831. At that time he felt that there was a great practical necessity for some change in the representation of the people, but he confessed the case was very different on the present occa sion. (Hear, hear.) But he had not risen to discuss the question of the franchise. What he wanted to know was the principle upon which the noble lord proposed to disfran chise no fewer than 25 towns. The noble lord had given no intelligible reason for that disfranchisement. He might have seized 100 seats instead of 25. Was it come to this, that the rights and privileges of every town in the king dom should be placed at the merey of a majority in the House of Commons ? While a great number of the abuses which had come under the attention of the house was taken no notice of, it was proposed to forfeit one-half of the pri vileges now belonging to 25 of the smallest towns in Eng land. The progress of the discussion would show that the noble lord was creating more anomalies than he was de stroying. Mr. HARDY inquired whether the returns on which the noble lord had founded his statement with respect to borough voters would be laid on the table, and expressed a hope that plenty of time would be allowed hon. members for the consideration of the subject. Mr. BYNG thanked the noble lord for having considered the claims of Chelsea and Kensington, and asked whether under the proposed bill, those who had qualifications for the county on account of property situated within the limits of a borough would still exercise the franchise. Mr. VANSITTART wished to know whether the noble' lord had it in contemplation to make any alteration in the boundary limit, of the present boroughs. Sir G. LEWIS said that the Government did not propose to take the county franchise from the voters referred to byl the hon. member for Middlesex. The question put with! respect to the bsundaries of boroughs involved an important subject, and raised the ulterior question whether it would be desirable to add to existing boroughs certain other small towns in their neighbourhood. (Cries of " No.") But the; Government did not now propose to introduce any proviJ sion on the subject. Sir W. JOLLIFFE asked whether the county franchis4 of £lO was to consist of land and buildings as in towns. Mr. CAIRD observed that, though the noble lord had given an estimate of the addition that would be made by th bill to the borough constituency, yet he had not given th slightest estimate as to the probable addition of voters t county constituency. Mr. WALPOLE had understood the noble lord to inti.l mate that the returns by which he had computed the num4 ber of electors to be added to the boroughs would be laid on the table of the house in the course of that evening oil to-morrow. The noble lord also stated that the payment of rates was to form part of the qualification for boroughs as now, but he wished to know whether the payment of rates must be made by the tenant himself, or whether it might be made by any other person on his behalf. With regard to the general scheme proposed, he thought the • house seemed to be of opinion that it would be very desk. able to postpone any discussion on the matter until the bill was laid before it—(hear, hear)—and the only observation he wished now to make was that the more he reflected on the subject the more he was convinced that the old distine4 tion between counties and boroughs ought to be maintained, and he thought the noble lord would find that it ought to be maintained to a greater extent than the proposed bill provided. Mr. AYRTON stated his belief that under the bill the great majority of the working people who occupied lodgingfi would be excluded from the franchise. He did not desire at present to express any opinion on any other part of the bill, • but he asked whether it was expedient to pass a very small measure of Reform, which would only create considerable agitation without providing the means of allaying it ? Major EDWARDS asked whether, if the bill passed, it would not lead to an immediate dissolution. (Laught er .) Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the measure would causd disappointment to the country, and complained that no ad-I, dition was proposed ti the number of members representing the present metropolitan boroughs. (Laughter.) Sir J. OGILVY said that the bill, so far as it related to the re-apportionment of representation, would greatly dia appoint the people of Scotland. Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the noble lord would inform the house what addition to the county representation would be effected by his bill. Lord R. CECIL asked whether the bill would contain any provision for increasing the number of polling places. Sir G. GREY said the bill contained no such provision. The hon. member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) did not appear quite to understand the condition to be attached to the £lO county franchise in cases where the qualification consisted of lands and buildings jointly. The bill pro posed that the qualification in counties should be of the same character as the present borough qualification, and should consist of houses or buildings held either separately or jointly with land. If the building were a dwelling-house, no question of its value would be raised ; but in other cases it would be required that the building should be of the clear annual value of £5. Thia provision was intended to prevent the creation of fictitious{ votes by running up a few boards so as to satisfy the terms, but evade the spirit of the Act. Of course in the case of . a# dwelling -house there would be no need of any such prove sion. With reg ard to the question of the hon. member (Mr. Newdegate) it was not so easy to give an accurate' estimate of thenumber of voters in counties as of the borough' voters. The n um b er o f occup i ers i n count i es cou ld b e as certained without much difficulty; but this would not be sufficient,because although such a return would show the maximum number of voters to be added under any circum stances, it would not show the deduction to be made in re spect of the conditionwhicli he had just mentioned—namely that where there was a joint occupation of lands and build .of a build ings the buildings should b e certain value. There were already returns of occupi ers in counties, and further information would be given on this subj ec t, but it could not be relied upon for accuracy to the same e x t ent as similar returns for boroughs. Mr. T. DUN COMBE—Having had the honour of a seat ,the Parliament which passed the last Refor m 13i11, and hsving• heard the noble lord propose that bill, I cannot help contrasiing his gallant spirit on that occasion with his very subdued tone this evening. (Laughter.) I congratulat e hon. genttlernen opposite, because no violence can possibly be done to their feelings by the small measure now pro posed. When the old Reform Bill was introduced I remem ber a highly respectable metropolitan banker rising in his P L . Nce behind the noble lord and saying that the scheme ac tual ly took away his breath. Now nobody's breath has been t 'liken away by the present proposal—(laughter) — thou g h 1 4 ,1 me of us seem to be deprived of our powers of speech. We hear mono of the Reformers from Birmingham, and elsewhere coming forward with the schemes about which they have been agitating the country, and which cer- . _ . • _ _ tainly go far beyand that of the noble lord. Twenty-eight years have elapsed since the passing of the Refor. - n Bill, and when the noble lord abandoned the doctrine of finality to which he so obstinately clung, I think we had reason to ex pect an extension of the franchise which would have con ferred electoral privileges on the working classed generally. What has happened within the last few years ? In 1852 the noble lord brought in a bad Bill, to which nobody listened. In 1854 he brought is another Bill, which was ten times better than the one he had just submitted. The noble lord therefore, is not so good a Reformer now as he was six years ago. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) The Bill of 1854 proposed wholly to disfranchise 19 rotten and nomination boroughs, and it also took one member from 33 other bo roughs. (Hear, hear.) We have now a mild measure, by which one member is taken from 25 boroughs, and not a single word is said about disfranchisement. (Hear.) Caine and other pocket boroughs are not • Included in the scheme, and yet formerly the noble lord's principles were that as long as nomination boroughs existed the seeds of a further and a necessary reform would remain sown. (Hear, hear.) Will not nomination boroughs be left after the passing of this Bill? Of course they will, and the noble lord's object mast therefore be to have the question of Reform mooted every session in this House. (Hear, hear.) We want a lodger franchise. (Hear, hear.) It is totally impossible that a Bill which adds only 200,000 voters to the borough constituencies can satisfy the working classes of this coun try. (Hear, hear.) What was the promise—l will say the compact—made with these men in 1831-2 ? They were dis appointed then because they were excluded from the fran chise, and they were told, "Keep quiet; your time will come, and we shall then give votes to the working classes." Depending on this promise, they rallied round the Reformers of 1831-2 for " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," and have been waiting patiently ever since for some thing to be done in their behalf. Bat what will this Fill ‘do for them? I remember that Lord Althorp, who was then the leader of this House, being present at a dinner given by Sir Francis Burdett on the introduction of the Reform Bill, said, "To tell you the truth, I think this Bill but a very poor concern—(laughter)—and the only thing which makes me regard it more favourably is that when the bill was settled by the Cabinet we sent a copy of it to Lord John Russell and Lord Stanley" (now Lord Derby), who were not then members of the Cabinet. (Lord John Russell was understood to make a gesture of dissent.] Does the noble lord mean to say he was a mem ber of the Cabinet ? (Laughter.) I don't know whether my right hon. friend (Mr. E. Ellice) was not there, and if so he will remember the circumstance. "The only thing," added Lord Althorp, "which gives me hopes of the bill is that when Stanley saw it he wrote to me and said, ' What a pretty kick-up you are going to make 1"' (Laughter.) And when he heard that, Lord Althorp did think some thing of the bill. Mr. Stanley was quite right ; there was a pretty kick-up. We had 100,000 men threatening us from Birmingham ; there was a run upon the bank for gold ; there were fires in different parts of the country; a black flag was hoisted from the steeples of the Glasgow churches; and, amid these scenes, the measure was carried. There will be no kicking against this bill, I am sure. (Laughter.) Then, I ask, is this intended to be final, or are we to in troduce improvements in it in a few years ? There is cer tainly one great blemish in it. Not one word has been said by the noble lord about registration. One great complaint now is the difficulty of registration. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said the payment of poor.rates is to be the con dition of registration, but I say that the payment of no rate or tax ought to be a condition of registration. (Hear, hear.) Why, at present it sometimes takes two years be fore a man can get on the register, and I say we ought to have a registration every quarter. (Hear, hear.) As to the proposed redistribution of seats, it is impossible to call that anything like a reform. Another blemish in this scheme is, that no notice is taken of lodgers. There are men paying £lO or £l5 a-year rent, but living in lodg ings ; they have, and are to have, no vote ; these men are respectable mechanics, and educated men, who are quite fit for the franchise. In the metropolis you cannot find such a thing as a£6 house. A house of £2O or £3O is occupied by two or three families, and the head of each of them requires to have the franchise. If you do not give it to them, they will be discontented, and agitation will go on from year to year. What the decision of Parliament will be as to this measure I cannot say, but I am sure, whether it be its adop tion or rejection, it will be a matter of perfect indifference to the great body of the people. Mr. SLANEY thought the bill would be hailed by all thinking men as a very great boon to the people of England. Mr. KNIGHTLEY asked whether the noble lord could state the maximum number of electors that would be added to the county constituencies ? Lord J. RUSSELL—In reply to the question of the right hon. member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wal pole), 1 have to say that we do not propose any alteration as to poor-rates, but the tenant will be obliged to pay them as at present, and have the same facilities for placing himself on the register as at present. In answer to the question just asked, I do not think we should be justified in saying what would be the number of £lO voters in counties. We have returns, but only of those rated between £lO and £5O, which show a total of 381,000 in England, and 415,000 in England and Wales, but I do not think that is quite accu rate, because it comprehends all freeholders who are rated at £lO and upwards. An hon. gentleman has asked whe ther the passing of this measure would render necessary a dissolution of Parliament. Major EDWARDS—This year. Lord J. RUSSELL—What the bill proposes is, that the November registration claims shall be made under the franchises conferred by this measure. When the registra tion is complete, it will be competent, of course, for the Crown to dissolve the present Parliament, and to summon a new one. Mr. BRIGHT, in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble lord, wished to know whether any change was intended in respect of the Compound Householders Act passed a few years since ? That act gave the franchise to the tenant, whose landlord paid the rates, and he wished to know whether it would be applicable to those who would be enfran chised under this bill. Lord J. RUSSELL—WI propose to make no change at all. Mr. BRIGHT thought the noble lord had said there would be a change. He hoped he had been mistaken, for a departure from the present arrangement in that respect would falsify all the promises that had been held out. Mr. ROEBUCK remarked that among the towns which were to receive an additional member each was Leeds, but not Sheffield. (A laugh). He only wished to call the noble lord's attention to the fact that Sheffield had at present a larger constituency than Leeds. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CON INGHAM viewed with alarm one striking cha racteristic of the bill, and that was the redistiibution of the seats to be taken away. He entertained grave doubts whe ther the Liberal party would gain by the transfer of mem bers from small boroughs to counties. Leave was then given to introduce the bill. THE REFORM BILL FOR IRELAND. - _ Mr. CARDWELL—I rise, Sir, to state the nature of the changes which the Government propose to make with regard to the Parliamentary representation of Ireland. I shall do so with great brevity, and I shall notenter into questions of argument, but state as shortly and as well as I can the effect which those changes will have on the constituency of Ireland. Although we adopt the same views for Ireland which my noble friend has laid down for England, the house is well aware that the law whichregulates the qualification of elec tors in Ireland is framed on a different model from that of Great Britain. The act pasq)d in 1850, which put an end to many controversies of long standing, and which has given, I believe, general satisfaction in its working, is the basis of the law which is intended to operate in Ireland ; and that tenement valuation, which is now making progress towards completion, it is proposed to apply to the consti tuency in Ireland ; since Ireland enjoys, in that respect, an advantage whi c h G reat Britain does not enjoy, giving her freedom from thvwoasbleuoaleti o o n f . h l e v s h awhichWhat kingdomi t s w ap o nr u o l pdo uniform, found td o inin applying clear, o andintell t ig o i t b h le e fixeslr el a n t d b e i s q t n o change a lificetio n t he in counties provisiono at of h x t l2 e , act an d o ft to subs t i t ute which for it £lO, and in boroughs to change the q ualification of 8 a nd substitute for it £6. That change b ein g propose d , illomsed, we should be desirous to know what e ff ect that c h ange produce on the county and on the borough constituencies. At present, in Ireland, upon the past registration, the coun ties collectively have a constituency of 174,000. If we were to add to that constituency all those who are on the rate books at from £l2 to £lO, the total addition, I think, would be 40,126. But ifyou apply to that the correction which I think will be found to be a right and necessary correction, for the purpose of deducting the females, minors, double occupa tions, abAences, and other cases, so as to bring tho number of ratepayers down to the number at which the constituency will be, you will then have an increase of 30,000, making on the whole, therefore, a constituency of 204,000. Then with regard to the boroughs, adopting the same rule, yo u have in the present boroughs a constituency of 30,700, and the first addition of ratepayers would be 7,557; but making the corresponding correction of the returns, the number would be 6,655, making up a total in the present counties and boroughs of 240,000. That is the way in which tLe £lO and £6 franchises will operate in boroughs and coun ties. On this part of the subject there is a change of no great magnitude, perhaps, which the Government think it right to make in the borough franchises. At the time of the Reform Bill there was a different law applicable to freemen in England and Ireland, and it is proposed that the law re garding freemen in this country shall come into operation in Ireland. With regard to any change in the different constituencies of Ireland I will now explain the views of the Government. Ireland is a country not generally inhabited in large towns. A much smaller proportion of the whole population of Ireland reside in towns than if you take Eng land or Scotland. At present 32 Irish counties return 64 members, 33 boroughs return 39 members, and one univ,:r sity returns two members, giving a total of 105 members. Now, applying to Ireland therule whichhas been laid down with re&ard to England namely, that no town with less that 7,000 inhabitants shall return two members to this house, you will not find in Ireland a single borough to dis franchise. There is not in Ireland a single borough return ing two members whose population falls very much short of 30,000. I think Wexford, which is the smallest, at the last census had a population very nearly approaching 29,000. There are therefore no means of obtainin. , additional seats to dispose of by applyi ng to Ireland the tile that has been TWE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 2, 1860. applied to England, 11.0 r, on the other hand, are those bo roughs of the size oil Birkenhead and. Staleybridge which have no representative e. But there are two constitu encies in Ireland, on a county and the other a city con stituency, which, in, 'point of population, of property, and in the number of elec tors, stand entirely apart from the other counties and the other cities. Those are the great con stituencies of Cork and i,the city of Dublin. We propose that there should be for the county of Cork and for the city of 'Dublin three members es . .ch, obtaining seats from the four in England which by act of Parliament are now unappro priated. Two of these sea is will be given to Ireland for the purpose of giving to the gi 'eat county of Cork and the city of Dublin one additional ru ember each, making three mem bers for each of those caustituencies. The claim of the Queen's university to hay.'a a member naturally arose for consideration when the claim' of the London University was allowed, and I should hive fel,f:tutremely glad if it had been in my power to ask the house .tc' express its approbation of the 4ueen's University in Irels lid, by assigning to it a re presentative in this house. I hope the day will come, and that it will not be many years be,rore it comes, when Parlia ment will think it right to give the Queen's University in Ireland a representative in this I louse, but at the present time, looking to the small numbs r of years during which the university has beenestablished, and what is the govern ing consideration at present, namay, the number of its graduates, lam afraid it would not be right to make any such proposal now. The total number of graduates being only 260, I think it impossible at the present moment to give a member to that university. There is' .another subject con nected with Ireland on which we prop, me to legislate in the present bill. I had the honour to-night, to present a petition signed by a large portion of the peers .3f Ireland, who com plain of the position in which they sten d under the clause of the Act of Union, which defines their le gal position. They ask why, if it is thought constitutionally right that it should be open to them to represent constituenci es in Great Britain, with which probably . they have less natural connexion than with the constituencies of their own conntry, they should be shut out by express enactment from representing their friends and neighbours with whom their interests are asso ciated. We propose to remove that disqualification. (Hear, hear.) We propose to enable them to stand towards their friends and neighbours, the constituencies of Ireland, in that relation in whieh they now stand to the constituen cies of England. With regard to matters of a purely administrative character—l speak of the time occupied in county elections, and polling-places, and matters of that kind, tending to diminish the expense and excite ment connected with contested elections—those mat ters are regulated by a different act of Parliament, and therefore I do not propose in this bill to make any alte ration whatever on that subject. What therefore is pro posed on the part of Ireland is shortly this—to make the county franchise £lO, and the borough franchise £6, and to give to the great county of Cork a third member, and to the city of Dublin a third member, drawn from what were formerly seats in England, and to remove the disqualifica- , Hon now operating on Irish peers ; and I trust that by this measure we shall give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, and increase the value and efficiency of the representation of that part of the kingdom. Mr. WHITESIDE said this would be the fifth reform bill they had had for Ireland. When the Union was carried 200 seats were abolished and some boroughs bought up. In 1827 Sir R. Peel thought it right to change the old fran chise. He changed the old county franchise into a £lO freehold franehise. They then had the Reform Bill of 1832, and then the bill proposed by the friends of the right hon. gentleman, which gave a £l2 occupation franchise for coun ties and £8 for boroughs. He thought the right hon. gen tleman had given no reason why that law should be changed now. One thing had t seeped the attention of the right hon. gentleman. The county of Cork was divided; there was a west and an east riding. He thought the right hon. member fell into an error in giving a third member for the whole county, and he supposed that he meant to give the additional member to the west riding. Mr. COGAN asked whether there was to be any disfran chisement of the freemen, or whether those who were already possessed of the franchise would be allowed to keep it. He believed that at present in the city of Dublin that franchise acted most injuriously. He must express a feeling of sur prise at the proposition to admit Irish peers as members of that house. The Irish peers had a right to elect represen tative peers to sit in the other house of Parliament, and if in additien to that they could sit in this house, they would have a great deal of power. He would merely throw out the suspicion whisk he entertained, and wait for the ex pression of the country's opinion. Another question which he wished to ask the right honourable gentleman was, at what time the measure would probably come into operation ? He understood that there must be a registra tion of voters under the bill, and that registration would probably take place somewhere about next November. Would the voters then placed upon the list have to wait s i x months before they could exercise their franchise ? Mr. DAWSON wished to know whether the qualifica tion was to be a rating or an occupation one ? Mr. VANCE wished to contradict, in the most unquali fied terms, the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that the freeman franchise had a most injurious effect upon the representation of Ireland. He was perfectly sure that the Protestant freemen of Dublin, and he might say of Cork also, had always exercised their franchise for the benefit of their country. (Cheers and laughter.) No case of corrup tion had been made out against them for the last quarter of a century. (Cries of oh.) He regretted as well as his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Whiteside) that the right hon. gentleman should have been advised to make any change in the first franchise after the number of Reform Bills that they had already had for that country, and he did not de spair of inducing him, after discussion, to retrace his steps. Mr. SCULLY, following the example of the hon. mem ber for Middlesex, begged to return thanks to the right hon. gentleman for the additional member which be pro posed to give to Cork, for he (Mr. Scully) was now the sole representative. He returned thanks, however, for the county, and not for himself, because the additional seat would only increase his chances of failure at every subse quent election. (Laughter.) Mr. BLACK (who was received with laughter, and cries of wait I) said that as hon. gentlemen from the sister coun try seemed to object to have two additional seats which had formerly belonged to England given to Ireland, he shorid be happy to accept them for Scotland, which had not got quite her fair share of the representation. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. LONGFIELD expressed his surprise at the proposi tion for removing the disqualification from Irish peers. What petition from any part of the United Kingdom, "nu merously and respectably signed," which was now the usual formula for all petitions, had been presented asking for such an alteration ? He could not but regard the proposal as a " fancy franchise," and as altogether uncalled for. Colonel GREVILLE considered the proposal to give this new privilege to Irish peers an extraordinary one. In Ire land a £lO county franchise was equivalent to a £l2 fran chise in England, and a £6 franchiseto a £7 10s. franchise. Although, therefore, there was a-nominal equality between the two franchises, there was not a real one. (Hear.) Lord R. CECIL said he had listened in vain for the reasons which had induced the right hon. gentleman to give two of the four vacant seats in England to Ireland. Was it because Ireland was more populous or more wealthy, or that the Irish members were more useful in that. house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. MONSELL said that the propositions with regard to the Irish peers struck him as most extraordinary, and he believed it would give great dissatisfaction in Ireand. (Hear.) An Trish peer was neither fish nor flesh in his own coun try ; but to give him the power of representing the people when he was represented himself in the House of Peers was a most absurd proposition, and one which he imagined would not be accepted in that house. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with his hon. friend near him, that the proposed franchise for Ireland would not establish more than a nomi nal uniformity between the two countries. (Hear.) Mr. MAGUIRE cordially agreed with the right hon. gentleman as to the absurdity of the proposition with re gard to the Irish peers. The people of Ireland had not their fair share of representation in that house, taking popu lation and wealth into consideration. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. LEWIS said that, on the mere introduction of the bill, it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of the proposition for enabling Irish peers to sit for Irish counties or boroughs, which the hon. member for Dungar van described as a revolutionary measure; but he wished to explain to the house the reasons why the Government made that proposition, leaving the house to judge whether these reasons were not sufficient, and whether the Conser vative susceptibilities of the hon. member for Dungarvan were not prematurely awakened. The Act of Union, in the 4th Article, c on t a i ne d a prov i s i on which declared that any person holding a peerage in Ireland should not be disqualified from representing any county or borough in Great Britain ; but that as long as he so continued a member of the House of Commons he should net be entitled to the privilege of peerage, or to vote for the election of peers in Ireland. Such were the securities which the Act of Union provided against the privilege of the peerage being abused in the case of Irish peers having seats in that house for English or Scotch counties or boroughs. That house was led for many years by the son of an Irish peer (Lord Castlereagh), who sat for the county of Down. Aicer the death of his father he became inelig ible to sit for an Irish county, but he sat for an Engli s h bo rough. That was a remarkable instance of an Irish poor possessing the right to sit and vote in tke English House of Commons. The.objection, therefore, that there would be a confusion of rights if an Irish peer, while he was a mem ber of that house, were entitled to vote at an election o representative peers was wholly inapplicable, inasmu c h as by the provision which they proposed to introduce the Go vernment were merely extending the rule which now existed with respect to England and Scotland to Ireland. They deprived no person of his rights; all they did was to say that the disqualification which now attached to Irish voters, of not being allowed, if they thought fit, to elect an Irish peer as their representative, should be abolished. That was, in fact, the whole extent of the proposal. Col. DICKSON thought the clause relating to this matter would be very strongly objected to in Ireland. It was a common complaint in that country landlords had too much territorial influence over their tenants, and this proposal would tend to increase that influence. lie believed the Go • vernment would not find a single Irish member in favour of it. that_cdhe man.pis e edependent there dhe not Numbers na Sir J. SHELLEY said there was one objection which applied to both the bills which had been proposed, namely, w o • n as ti ? . : p p a r y o l vi ne s n io t n o f f o r r a m te a s. ki y e t t h h e ou v g o h t t e t n h o at lo e n ve g r e y r i s b r e a r t a e o d f s p h e o r u eo ld ne b , en e t n it o le w d d te isf e r x an er e c h is i e se t d he si fran - because they happened to be out er of town, when the ra n t! ' were payable. Too much power was now placed in the hands sirl o v f . s collectors. o TiR E VILE said severalfranchise members had men tioned htohne. ~naenn proposal to reduce the coun ties from 12X to £lO. H e wished Irish t okn o w Nv h for et h whether the proposed that any portion of the new Irish franchise should have reference to houses or tene me3llltrs..CA RD WELL said the basis of this bill was the re' duction °taw franchise in counties and boroughs, but 'i l l i a n fl other respects it would be in conformity with the bil l he might troduaed by his right hon. friend (Sir W. Somerville.) As - regarded freemen, the English law with respect to then, limited the power of taking up the freedom to birth and servitude. The Trislt law had other elements, and it was proposed to assimilate it to the English law. With regard to :el but t r h egi e s i t i r o a p t e i d on t l i vo e u b ld ill ta w ke oi e l t l f d ec r t e , ceive the f ire the usual period for the revision of v itbit o ele t eyt e ot r aio l naseas'ns : e % tg ' nN i uv t tili h nbi regard to the reason why the Government had proposed to give two new members to Ireland —one to Cork and one to Dublin—he begged to say that, according; to the last census, the county of Cork had 563,000 inhabi tants, its income tax valuation was £834,000, and the num ber of electors was 15,895. Comparing these figures with those relating to some of the largeconstituencies of England, he thought there was ample reason for the proposed addi tion. Again, the city of Dublin contained a population of 254,000, its income tax valution was £989,000, and the num ber of electors was 10,660. If Birmingham ought to have a third member Dublin might well claim the same advan tage. The object of the Governrueut was, he repeated, aim ply to give Irish electors a freer choice with regard to their representatives. Leave was then given to introduce the bill. THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE then rose to move for leave to bring in a bill further to amend the laws relating to the representation in Parliament of the people of Scotland. He said he would commenee his remarks by stating what the Government proposed to do with the remaining two seats. By this bill it was proposed to add one member to Glasgow, and another to the universities of Scotland. He hoped the house would agree that these two seats had been well and justly selected, and ho hoped they would turn out bene ficial to the country. As regarded the alterations proposed' to be made in the franchise, they would be assimilated as nearly as the condition of the country would allow to those in England. He proposed an occupation franchise:of £lO in counties and £6 in boroughs. But, along with that, he also proposed to simplify the registration. (Hear.) In Scot land they were in the position of having a complete valua tion from year to year, which showed at onoe who were the proprietors, the tenants or occupiers, and the value of all preperties. They made an experiment in this direction some years ago, but he proposed to go a great deal further. He proposed to take the valuation roll as the basis of the franchise. (Hear.) By that they would get rid of some of the machinery of the Reform Bill, because the valuation roll would itself be the register, and the whole business of the registration would be conducted by the assessor of the county or borough. (Hear.) The appeal court might thus meet in October or Nov., and have very little to do indeed. With regard to the property franchise in counties, which had been hitherto £lO, a considerable pressure had from time to time been employed to introduce the 40s. franchise ; it was, however, after the best consideration, not thought desirable to do that ; but according to the proposition he had to make, it was intended to reduce the property franchise in counties from £lO to £5, which, allowing for certain de ductions, would be almost equ i va l ent to M. The great danger of a property franchise in Scotland was the creation of fictitious votes. Even the £lO franchise was used to a large extent for that purpose; and it was obvious that, when the franchise was reduced to £5, the facilities for creating fictitious votes would be still greater ; therefore, in order to obviate that difficulty, he nroposed to introduce a clause of residence. (Hear.) He did net know that he had any further observations to make to the house, and he should now move for leave to bring in the bill. (Hear.) Mr. BAXTER protested against the injustice of the re distribution of seats for Scotland. He might be allowed to say that the whole reasoning of the noble lord the member for London on that part of the subject struck him as being singularly fallacious. Bat he. could not understand why, if Dublin was to have an additional representative, Edin • burgh should be left out. He begged to give notice that in the event of the house assenting to the second reading of the bill for England and Wales, it was his intention to move that it be an instruction to the committee to disfran chise four or five more English seats, in order to take steps towards giving Scotland that justice to which she was entitled. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him that the principle upon which the Government were proceeding was a desire to promote a uniformity of the franchise in the three kingdoms, with one important exception. He appre hended by what fell from the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland that the franchise in Ireland was to continue as it had been hitherto, the rating. In Scotland the franchise was to be determined by the valuation roll, which they were told would approach as nearly as possible to a rating franchise in England. He, therefore, felt sorry that the noble lord had determined to make an exception in this important respect. He had long been of opinion that a county franchise upon rating would simplify the registra tion very much, and he trusted the Government would even now take that subject into consideration. (Hear.) Sir J. FERGUSSON said the subject of reform occupied a much more prominent place in Scotland than in England, and he was of opinion that the proposal of the Government would be viewed by reformers in Scotland as a very mode rate measure indeed. Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to say a word or two in reply to the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) as to the bases upon which the Government proposed respec tively to found the franchises of England, Ireland, and Scotland. The subject of value had been attentively con sidered by the Government before they made these pro posals ; and- they made them as they now stood for the following reasons :—ln Ireland the valuation of all tene ments was a Government valuation, founded on a uniform principle, and, therefore, there could be no diffi culty in adopting it as the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise. The franchise was defined by the amount at which the tenement was rated. In Scotland the franchise was not a rating franchise, but according to the clear yearly value of the holding—the amount set down on the valuation roll. This was found to a great extent in the income tax assessment, and was tolerably uniform throughout the whole of Scotland. When such a standard was in existence it was unquestionably most desirable that it should be acted upon. The right hon. baronet, who was such a thorough master of all our rural economy, would not attempt to deny this. But in England, unfortunately, no such uniformity of valuation existed. Sir J. PAKINGTON—But the law requires it. Sir G. C. LEWIS—Yes, the law requires that the rating should be upon the value; but, as a fact, they knew that no control was exercised over parish officers, and that there was a different mode of rating in different places—that in. some parishes certain deductions were made, whilst in others the rating was made up to the full value ; so that if a Par liamentary franchise was so bestowed where there existed such inequality, great injustice would be done. He would very much like to see an amendment in the present law in this regard ; and indeed had a bill prepared on the subject, which, however, there was not much chance of passing whilst Parliament was so much occupied. His desire in passing such a bill, however, would not be to found the present measure of reform upon it, but solely having regard to the present mode of assessment. Mr. CAIRD agreed with his hon. friend the member for Montrose that the proportion of additional members allotted to Scotland was not what justice required. He must express his opinion, however, that the proposed registration of voters was a great improvement on the present system, and that it should be self-acting was also of the greatest impor tance. Mr. BLACKBURN concurred in thinking that the fran chise in the three countries should be as nearly uniform as possible; but this was not secured by the proposal of the learned lord. Scotland ought to have 70 representatives at least. The addition of two was not sufficient. (Hear, hear.) Four at least ought to have been added. He wor'd give no opinion as to the amount of property franchise—whether it was too high or too low—but it ought to be the same for England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He should be glad to see the 40s. county franchise extended both to Scotland and Ireland. Mr. KINNAIRD warned the Government against not satisfying Scotland. The Scotch members were a compact phalanx, and, under the leadership of the Lord Advocate— (a laugh)—might be very troublesome unless their reason able demands were complied with. Mr. B4ILLIE asked whether additional polling places were to be provided in Scotland. The LORD ADVOCATE said that additional polling places would be provided. With regard to residence, he did not mean to enforce it when the property was above £lO. Neither did ha mean to deduct the feu-duty. With respect to the complaints which had been made by members from Scotland, he thought that Government, having four seats to dispose of, had acted most fairly in giving two to the largest city and county in Ireland, one to Glasgow, and one to the Scottish universities. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. Lord W. GRAHAM Suggested that there should be a new valuation in Scotland. MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL. Mr. MACKINNON moved fora select committee to take into consideration the provisions and practicability of the 11fasters and Operatives Bill; and whether any alterations or improvements could be made in the said bill. After some remarks from Sir G. C. Lzwrs and Lord J. MANNERS the motion was agreed to. THE SERPENTINE. Mr. COWPER moved that the select committee on the Serpentine do consist of the following members :—Mr. Cowper, Lord J. Manners, Sir J. Shelley, Mr. Bl ac kb e - n , Sir M. Peto, Mr. Joseph ocke, Mr. Walter, Sir J. Paxton, Lord Fertnoy, Mr. Byng, Mr. A. Egerton: Captain Arch dall, Sir F. Smith, Mr. Beach, and Sir W. W. Ridley. Power to send for persons, papers, and records—five to be the quorum—which, aft er a division, was agreed to. REFORM BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the Reform Bill amid the cheers of the house, and it was ordered to be read a second time on Monday, the 19th inst. :CUSTOMS ACTS. The house went into committee on the Customs Acts. Upon the article with regard to cotton manufactures, Mr. NE WDEGATE said he should be obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the value of the importations of manufactures of hosiery which had hitherto entered into this country, under the present duty. The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER replied that the principal articles imported had been cotton fringes to the value of £46,000 in the year 1858, 123,000 pair of cotton gloves, 187,000 pairof cotton stockings, 86,000 cotton socks, and £36,000 in value of other cotton goods. He be lieved the whole of the goods imported could not be over £50,000. Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the people of this country would not benefit much by the introduction of artificial flowers. Mr. AYRTON regretted the Chancellor of the Exche quer was moving these items without giving any assurance to the working people of the country that he had carefully considered the position of the persons engaged in these small handicrafts in England as compared with the position of persons similarly engaged in foreign countries. He should 'se glad to learn that ow working classes were not prejudiced by the arrangement. It might perhaps be said that they must sacrifice their interests as other classes had been called on to do in other respects ; but there seemed to him to be a great difference between the working popula tion and those classes who had been invited to make sacri fices. Sir 3. PAKINGTON could not allow this schedule to pass without recording Lie protest against the waste of revenue which the Government were about to make. Looking through the whole of the schedule, it was im possible to imagine a more wanton waste of our resources. In consequence of what passed at the close of the debate on Tuesday night, it seemed to him that the question was how far it was worth their while to sit there discussing these articles. After considerable difficulty they obtained from the Government on that evening a statement to the effect that the rejection of any one article would vitiate the treaty. He therefore thought that it was a waste of time to discuss the different items, and to consider whether it was wise or desirable to adopt them. On the other hand he could not help hoping that, without regard to the effect upen the treaty, the present schedule would be debated in reference solely to English interests and to the question how far it war de . sirable, as a matter of English policy, to abandon a large revenue by remitting the duties on such articles as clocks, corks, embroidery, artificial flowers, leather manu factures, gloves, musical instruments, oils, silks, and watches. (Hear, hear.) These 10 articles, which were com prehended in the schedule, yielded upwards of £400,000 a year; and ought we to part with that large sum when we were increasing our direct taxation and retaining the pre sent duty on tea and sugar ? The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted in his despatch that the arti cles which were not articles of necessity would not be dealt with by the Government in their financial arrangements. The noble lord also spoke of the collateral effects of the treaty. What would be the first of these collateral effects F If he could trust the intelligence which had reached London that day, the first collateral effect was likely to be the seizure of Savoy by the Emperor of the French. (Hear.) And he was disposed to agree with those eminent aithori ties both in and out of the louse who declared that a colla teral effect of the treaty would be, instead of its creatiag good feeling and encouraging friendly relations between ' England and France, to strengthen the war party in France. (Hear, hear.) He must add th a t , v i ewing these remissions as they affected British interests and English policy, they appeared to him to be a wanton waste of re venue on articles which were not of general consumption, and upon which there could be no objection to derive re venue. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was entirely for the right hon. baronet to judge for himself whether it was a waste of time or not to discuss the articles proposed for remission. The right hon. baronet and himself might perhaps come to the same conclusion upon that sub ject, though he was afraid upon very different grounds. (A laugh.) He had thought that the doctrine of unrestricted competition had been conceded by the right hon. baronet, but now he found it stiffly contested by him. The right hon. baronet denounced the surrender of this revenue obtained by differential duties as a wasteful proceeding. He (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) did not think it was convenient now to discuss the general principles upon which the finan cial scheme of the Government was founded. He was con tent to argue that there existed very strong reasons for the removal of these duties. But the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets and the hon. member for North Warwickshire de murred to the Government proposals on two different points of view. The hon. member for North Warwickshire com plained of their parting with duties levied on articles of luxury, and the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets re gretted that they were abandoning duties on articles raised by handicraft, and not by the great capital of great estab lishments. These were two questions totally and absolutely distinct. With respect to articles of luxury, it was a great fallacy to suppose that differential duties levied on such ar ticles were better than other differential duties. It was a proper thing to consider when they were raising revenue whether or not they should first select articles of luxury, but when they came to the question of imposing differential duties on articles because they were articles of luxury, they then involved themselves in the some folly and evil as if they were not articles of luxury. Why should they give to one class the power of obtaining a higher price or profit than another ? It signified not a rush what the article was, or whether it was one of luxury or not, It was a bad and unjust principle as between English workers. The true principle was to give to the purchaser perfectly free and unrestricted choice of all articles of industry; but by differential duties to secure a particular price to a particular class of goods, as compared with another class of goods, be cause they were articles of luxury, they generally failed to accomplish the object they had in view, did positiue mis chief to the very people th e y i n t en d e d to benefit, and did that which was decidedly wrong, because they created a mo nopoly in favour of a particular class. But the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets said there was the case of handi crafts and of needlewomen. Now, to talk of protection to needlewomen by protective duties was just as rational as to talk of protecting the peasants of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire by the corn laws. (Hear, hear.) The condition of our needlewomen was a melancholy fact in the state of English society ; but with respect to foreign labour they had nothing to fear, for unhappily they were much lower already through the competition of English labour than they would be if ex posed to foreign competition. (Hear, hear.) He confessed that he should have thought that the hon. gentleman who represented the Tower Hamlets was well aware by that time of that fact. He must know that they were entirely beyond the reach of any legislation. With regard, however, to the class of people who made artificial flowers and embroidery, he hoped the case was different. The wages of those em ployed in embroidery were not, he trusted, low, and he had no reason to suppose they would be lower. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets said that the abolition of protection worked in a totally different direction in different cases. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not award of that diversity of experience, and he had yet to learn in what case within the limits of this country protection had been abolished without a great benefit resulting. There had been paraded. before the house the question of corks, and if hon. gentle men now revived it he would undertake to show that it was the most wretched case which had ever been brought upon the floor of the house. (Hear, hear.) And with re gard to the nine other articles, not a single voice had reached him either from masters or workmen against the pro posed abolition of duties. He might remind the committee that, besides all the general principles which led them to the conclusion at which they had arrived, they had in N Lew a great reform of the customs administration and a great reduction of establishmenta. Even where it appeared, on fr6it inspection of the tables of revenue, that £lO,OOO or ' £20,000 was realised by one of these articles, that did not show the real profit which it yielded. They were all arti cles of a nature to require very minute investigation, which entailed a very great deal of delay and expense. For these reasons he hoped, and felt perfectly convinced, that these votes would receive the approval of the committee. Sir J. PAK INGTON explained that he had not objected to the repeal of these duties on the ground of their being differential duties, but because, in the present state of the finances, it was a wanton waste of the resources of the coun try to part with upwards of £400,000 of revenue derived from these articles. Mr. NEWDEGATE had heard with much pleasure the able speech of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, which made him think the old Tories were going to be joined by the Radicals again. (A laugh.) Political economy had indeed been turned into a car of Juggernaut, and driven over the people. Everything was sacrificed to a blind de termination to abolish import duties, for the sake of the ab stract doctrines of a school, or of a few large interests. This ought not to be. In answer to a question as to whether any time would be allowed, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was proposed that the reduction or abolition of these duties should take effect immediately, but there was no informa tion to lead him to suppose that any injury would be done to any class by the immediate operation of the change. The next article in the list was that of artificial flowers. Sir W. Joliffe, Mr. Steuart, and Lord J. Manrkers reite rated the same objections which had before been taken to the sacrifice of revenue by the repeal of those differential duties, which would not make the articles any cheaper. Mr. CRAWFORD could not admit that taking off the duty would have no beneficial effect besides reducing the price to the consumer, If articles at thi s sor t, di sp l ay i ng French *taste and skill in design, were allowed to come in, it would be the best possible thing for those people in this country who were engaged in the manufacture of these commodities ; for they would learn more taste and skill in competing with the French manufacturers. Mr. VANSITTART wished to know whether the whole course of this legislation was for the protection of our own people or of the foreigner. Lord W. GRAHAM asked whether there was any in spection of things imported into this country ; for, if he was rightly informed, things had been imported into this coun try which would greatly shock the modesty of the Chancel lor of the Exchequer. Th 3 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that there was an inspection to prevent the admission of the articles the noble lord referred to. in answer to a HoN. MEMBER, who asked a question with regard to linen yarns, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he believed that the duty on linen yarns in France was for merly from 10 to 20 per cent. We had no specific conven tion on the subject of any one article of manufacture; but he understood it was the intention of the French Govern ment to follow the course which was taken in England, and place the duty on half manufactured goods in subordinate relation to fully manufactured goods. He therefore in ferred that as the duties on linen would be reduced to be tween 25 and 30 per cent., for the safety of the linen manu facture of France, the duty on linen yarns would be reduced in proportion ; and consequently, without being able to give a pledge on the subject, his expectation certainly was that the duties on linen yarn would be reduced to as low a point as that at which they stood before 1842. The item wus then agreed to. On the item of opera glasses, Mr. VANSITTART asked if the Berlin opera glasses were to be admitted to the same privilege as those of France The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there would be no distinction. The item was agreed to. On the item of silk, Sir J. PAXTON said the interest of the silk manufacture was so large that he trusted the committee would give him their attention for a little time while he brought the subject as clearly as he could before them. He believed that there were about 30 towns and villages employed in the manufac ture of silk, but Coventry, Macclesfield, Derby, Spitalfields, and Manchester were the chief seats of the manufacture. From all these places, he believed, except Manchester, there had been petitions to that house against taking off the duty on silk; but from Manchester his hon. friend the member for Birmingham had presented a petition for the remission of the duty. Now, on look'ng over the duties on silk, he found that none had been levied on the kind manufactured in Manchester. Last year the duty on silk amounted to £387,000, and £166,000 of this was levied on articles simi lar to those manufactured by his constituents at Coventry; and, therefore, he thought they had a right to be heard on this question. The silk manufacturers at Coventry had been for the last month in a depressed condition. As soon as the announcement of the treaty was made the Mayor of Coven try and a deputation of the inhabitants waited on him (Sir J. Paxton) and his colleague, and the mayor said he could hardly be answerable for the safety of his city if the duty were taken off. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) did not altogether concur in the dismal forebodings of the mayor; but still the eh see would undoubtedly strike a great blow at the prosperity of the town he represented. Nor must the committee suppose that it was a place which had not pro gressed with the times. In 1821 the population of Coven try was 21,000; in 1859 it was 42,000. In 1840 there were in it 18,000 persons employed in the silk trade ; in 1860 there were 28,000. In 1840 there were 4,732 small hand looms ; at the present time there were only 500, but of large steam looms there were 6,550; and while in the former year the production of silk ribbons was 795,000 yards, it was now no less than 2,300,000 yards per annum. (Hear, hear.) The tax on silk had never been considered a burdensome one; and even the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, in whose steps the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be treading, had declared that, so long as customs duties were levied at all, the duty on silk ought to be retained. The tax was 16 per cent. ; and the trade of Coventry would have been content to surrender half of it at once, and the other half in soy en or eight years, by which time they might be prepared to meet the shock ; but, as it was, they considered that their industry had been bartered away for a French treaty, under which they got no equivalent. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) believed that he was as good a free-trader as any man in the house, and his constituents were also free-traders. (Derisive cheers.) They were free-traders, and they were willing to give up the Irotective duty they enjoyed provided that their own productions were admitted into France on equal terms. (Hear, hear.) He begged to move the following amend ment :—" That it is inexpedient to reduce the duties on silk manufactures without making provision forthe simultaneous admission of English manufactured silk and ribbons into France on equal terms." (Cheers.) Mr. MASSEY said the hon. baronet had not moved his amendment in precisely the terms of his n . otice ; but th oug h he had no w om itt e d all specific notice of the treaty, which the committee were not considering, the motion had clearly a substantial reference to the engagements of that treaty. It did not therefore appear to him to be one that he could filly report to the house, and he should therefore decline to accept it. au fam Mr. AYRTON suggested the following addition t o th e original motion, in lien of the amendment: "being mn ct es of, or imported directly from, anycountry which permits the free importation of the silk manufactures of the United Kinealoin." (Hear, hear.) Sir J. I' AXTON eagerly accepted this suggestion. Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know if the resolution as now put was in order. Mr. MASSEY—Yes; certainly. Mr. S. BOOTH hoped the right hon, gentleman would not give way to the appeal now made to him. The people of Coventry were very good free. traders some 14 or 15 years ago but now they were desirous of having that indgl 4pw , e 4 .1 tended to them which they refused tq others under similar circumstances. He trusted that all these remnants of pre• tection would he given up, The remission of the duty on silk was one of the most important in the treaty. It was one from which a great many people would derive consider able benefit, and it was one of the last upon which the right hon. gentleman should give way. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the hon. gentleman who spoke last spoke as a Conservative. He (Mr. Newdegate) was practically an older Conservative than the hon. gentle man, and be should advise him, if he intended to stand well before the country, not to encourage an internecine war between the various interests of the country. He himself had cast aside the friendship of eminent statesmen, but he did so on no narrow grounds. He did so because he believed it to be unwise for this country to be dependent on foreigners for its supply of food. He deprecated the principle of now turning round upon other interests because they had sup ported the abolitiou of protection to agriculture. (Hear, hear.) With regard to silk, Mr.Pittretained prohibition in its favour. Was Mr. Pitt an ignorant and benighted states man ? Mr. Huskisson retained a duty of 33 per cent. ; and Sir R. Peel retained a duty of 15 and 10 per cent. These statesmen were of opinion that such an amount of protection was necessary to counterbalanc e the natural advantages pos sessed by France with regard to silk. This duty was one most easily levied, and it was one with regard to which the right hon. gentleman, who had a deficiency of £5,000,000 to make up, would complain of as an ignorant impatience of taxation. The remission of duties which had taken place formerly were accompanied by great distress. Mr. Hus kisson's measure was passed in 1826, and in 1831 Mr. Brocklehurst stated before a committee that the silk weavers were ina poor, ragged, and miserable condition. In Coventry £40,000 had to be distributed amongst the poor people in addition to the peers rate after that measure had taken effect, and in Nuneaton two-thirds of the people were out of work. Let it not be said, then, that these free trade measures had not produced distress Let him remind the hon. member for Birmingham that last year, in reply to a communication f rom certain working men, he stated that so much was this country mixed up with the miserable com plications of foreign affairs, that he was not surprised at the wish of the people to emigrate. Now, he would ask that hon. member and that house, was not this treaty a severe taste to our people of the misery of our being mixed up with foreign complications ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. A. TURNER observed that the hon. member for Coventry (Sir J. Paxton) had stated that all thti silk trade were unanimous against that part of the treaty which re lated to silk, with one exception—Manchester. He (Mr. Turner) was proud to say it was so. (Hear, hear.) It might be said that this treaty or budget was such a Man chester treaty or budget that the people of Manchester were bound to support it in all its particulars. He was glad to say that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had ex pressed a unanimous opinion in favour of this budget. (Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a memorial on the same subject, dated November, 1852, which had been presented to the right hon, gentleman the member for Buckingham shire from the silk trade of Manchester. The memorial set forth that their trade was in a depressed condition, that the workpeople were not fully employed, and that that branch of manufacture was almost stationary. They went on to say this was owing chiefly to the limited nature of the fo reign demand for their goods, and they were of opinion that was attributable to the high protective duty, owing to which they could not compete with the foreign manufacturer, and that threw the manufacture almost entirely into the hands of the French and Swiss. Now he (Mr. Turner) was of opinion that if the Manchester manufacturers of silk, cot ton, or any other branch could not maintain their position against competition with foreign nations, it was time for theta to turn their attention to some other branch of busi ness, and he firmly believed that instead of their being in jured by competition, they would be stimulated, as they had always been by competition, to renewed exertions in trade. (Hear, hear.) Sir E. GROGAN, as a representative of a city which car ried on a rather extensive trade in silk, would give his sup- port to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry. Mr. BRIGHT would not long take up the time of the house. The hon. gentleman the member for Warwickshire laid very heavy charges at their door—that they had no principle of justice and no feeling of benevolence towards a portion of our people; that, indeed, was but the very least of what he said during a long speech. Another conclusion his mind seemed to have arrived at was, that he (Mr. Bright) and others could influence the legislature of France. Well, he must say he found it quite hard enough to do his duty towards his constituents in his own country. As for the amendment, it in effect was, that we were not to take any thing free from France or from any other country, unless France or that other country took something, or every thing, or anthing from us. Suppose we were to apply that principle to corn, what then ? As regarded France, n ow there was a sliding scale i n the importation of corn. They had no sliding scale here, but if the hon. gentl eman carr i e d his resolution he would b e quite in order, and it would be a consistent proposition to propose another resolution that we were •to have no more cattle or corn from France unless France consented to have corn and cattle from us. (Hear.) He believed the people of Coventry were labouring under a great delusion in thinking that (to use a favourite protec tionist term) they should be "inundated" with French silks. Nor could he see why the French people might not suffer themselves to be led away by a similar fallacy that they would be inundated with the silks of Coventry. He could not see that the same articles would be exported from France to England and from England to France without being a profit to the manufacturers in both countries. The Coventry manufacturers bought their silks as cheaply as the French manufacturers bought theirs, the latter also in many cases buying in China and in Italy. Well, in what other element of cost was there such a difference ? It could not be said we were not superior to France in power of ma chinery. A phantom haunted many of late regarding the sending of our coals to France, Well, at any rate, we had our coals for our manufactures on the spot, and so consi de"ably cheaper. In cotton and in all other manufactures the machinery producing power was cheaper than in any other country. Well, another element in the cost of production was the wages of labour ; but here too any one conversant with the condition of France of late years must know that the wages of labour there as well as here were on the increase. (Hear.) As to the respective abilities of the French and English workmen, he had never spoken to any gentleman able to form a judgment on the subject who was not of opinion that an English workman in any depart ment of mere labour, not design, was superior to a French workman. (Hear.) As to design and skill, there was no ap preciable difference between the two countries. There were many trades in this country which were furnished with French designs by Frenchmen residing in England, and indeed a man might easily bring from France the best and newest designs, were he so inclined, at little or no cost, in his carpet-bag or portmanteau. His hen. friend the mem ber for Coventry spoke of the increase in prosperity and population of Coventry during late years. Well, but did not this show the great enterprise, industry, skill, and capi tal of her manufacturers, and their vast command of machi nery power—all tending to establish what no one could doubt—their complete success. He ventured to say that if his hon. friend came here in ten years to come, as he (Mr. Bright) hoped his hon. friend would, he would admit that the progress of the trade in Coventry was even greater in the interval. Protection not only made arts and manufac tures wither and decay, but it also seemed to enfeeble the mind and reasoning powers of those who were subject to its influence. (Laughter.) In its advocates there was an utter want of logic, an absence of faith, and a giving way to ter ror—of which even children ought to be ashamed. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche quer had challenged any member to point out a single class of operatives or capitalists which had been deteriorated during the last ten years by the changes which bad taken place in our legislation ; and, indeed, it must be surmised that the few who still upheld such principles practically every day of their lives condemned them. He was glad to hear a member for an agricultural county (Mr. Sclater, Booth) say that the principles which had been applied to ag • riculture might be applied to manufactures. He (Mr. (Bright) thought the argument irresistible. Events had shown how false the prediction of the working of those prin ciples had been in the case of the land, and that they had been not pernicious, but eminently beneficial. Therefore he hoped the right hon. member for Coventry would take courage, and when he went down to his constituency tell them that he had great reason to think those dangers had been much over-stated, and he trusted that in future meet ings nis hon. friend would have the satisfaction of telling them that though he had made this final and hopeless effort, he must then congratulate them that they had en tered upon the field of enterprise opened to them in the proposal now laid before the house. Mr. AYRTON rose amid loud cries of , g Divide." His hon. friend the member for Birmingham had never been able to induce the working people of England to adopt any of his dogmata, nor the people of the United States his no tions of free trade. There was no people in the world who had ever adopted those philosophic dogmata of free trade, which, though striking in the ab s t rac t, were no t ap plicable to the condition of all classes under all circumstances. t France, above all other nrtions, stood by protecti t o h n re ul l ( c i prohibition, and yet its silk trade had increased school. head. this s e v i a m b a l e . talkedw thin not shortot logic, p r io but absoluteof years . n o T n h s e e n se ne:r Manchester yegnreetoahnt t The application of abstract tion__ on the circumstance would lead in s t o h m e e or e Y as un es h d t e r o r e e t v h 4.m ginable hardships. There was na production of silk. It was said whil e silk goods such hat couldwere imneptortbeed sent mt there. France Bu th t ethesamgoeodskiinmdpoortfed from France were manufactured of the best kinds of French silk, and were used by the wealthy, who did not complain of the duty. But the commoner sorts of silk, made of China silk, were manufactured as cheaply here. (H ear, hear.) He asked what, if all the silk manufactories were s t hu ey t up to morrow, would become of the peopl e ? Why h go into Lancashire and obtain employment in the cotton trade. Well, who would profit by the transaction? (Ironical Hear, hear's.") Why the manufacturers of thenorth. He should not wish to see one interest sacrificed for another, and therefore should support the motion of his hon. friend. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said he was anxious before the committee went to a division to say a t f i e o w n .w It words had on beenthe important asserted thatsu subject jtehcet presentunder their propositioncon sid considera tion. freeeeeratsneths meats which e srmke e cl o eao m idsfeeht m t, ow e bhco n uoam d : ndGt recommended ao d etbstwynee t etep o ei the notice of the committee under the hrsnonhetnmherdi that entered s u :lllv Governments fi h ont a ot that er t t h bse e iet nwtvaoepket political England enn s avgtlhhl engage the merits m i gd a t e a h gr nie e td y s i n th t a h t e st m at o e s m t e e n x t p w li a ci s t e m n a e n w n h er ie t h o i l n , r f a o n rin ce. was the t r h e eN ve co ri vm e of the fact. (Hear, hear.) The proposition to which he invited hon. members' to assent was made on n o w o n t. r r e e n e d e e n d t toth years,e m and as being calculated mitsonoywnwinithelhites—le;aslarteioe n ha itself to prove highly beneficial to the coutry. If, iherefore, the proposal was one which in itself was good and sound, no sufficient r eason, he should contend, for rejecting it was to be fonnd in theitetrateetcateistryichnubeemdy;stance that it was m a d e th rough weretll e m es e o d ut l e h u l e t e t o n o f m b a m a( : e f t tpenra prepared of ahr eo s ad v r h .t) i o c h Na dn o nw t i t e „ r hi leabenefits befor brought f orward by ' the hon. member for Coventry with great moderation, when the peculiarity of his position was taken into account; but it was one to which, neverthele ss , the Go vernment did not deem it consistent with their dutyk to accede. The committee was probably aware that as re garded the great article of ribbons theduty levied in France was lower than that whichwe levied on French silks. It was a duty amounting to 7 per cent.—or somewhat at the rate of 3s. per lb. —on the value of the goods, wbo shich we impo se d, while nominally 15 per cen t. the dutys in point o f f act considerably more upon the silks which we imported. The whole question had, however, bran argued upon the broadest grournls in the course of the discussion, both by the hon. member for North Warwickshire and the honourable member for the Tower Hamlets, who had taken the committee back one or two generations into the past - (cheers)—and who had put forward views and opinions which, if they were hood for anything went t o th e very root of the course of legislation b which we had been pursuing for the last 18 years. (Hear, hear.) It alight, indeed, after the speech which they had just heard, be very fairly said th a t th e h on. mem b er for the Tower Hamlets was a Protectionist —(hea r , heat)—nav ; s ome thi ng more than a P ro t ect i onist, for he seemed to be an advocate of the principle st setting up State ws rehouses such as those which he had pointed out were established in Lyons, in which by the providence of Government a supply of the raw material was provided f or th e manu f acturer , ( Hear, hear.) The original tape of the debates on free trad e h a d, i n fact, been regiyed the speech of the ho n . g en tl eman , by whom the hon. member for 'Warwickshire who had hims e lf gone tolerably f ar i n t h e direction of protection, had been com pletely di s t anced. (Hear, and laughter.), He was quite sure, if the mind of the hon. member for Warwickshire was capable of admitting sentiments so ignoble as those of mor tification at finding himself outdone in a career which he believed was especially his own—(a laugh) —he must now be suffering tortures hardly to be described at seeing him self so completely distanced by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. (Laughter.) The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had displayed qualities which would have been invaluable at an earlier day — (laughter) —but he was afraid that new they were completely thrown away, like flowers wasting their sweetness on the desert air. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon. member had caught, he would not say th e s l ang, but the whole vocabulary which belonged to the days when the sanctuaries of protection were assailed by the profane hands of Mr. Huskisson. Free trade, he said, was all theory, and the views he advanced were those of a practical man. And then he talked of the heartlessness of the adherents of free trade. (Hear, hear.) This was exactly the language used in the debates of 1825, when Mr. Huskisson, now pointed to with approval as a model wise legislator, was accused not only of being a hard hearted metaphysician, but of having the sentiments of the devil in his breast. (Laughter.)S,With the exception of the reference to that particular personage, the speech of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets quite came up to anyof the denunciations previously pronounced. He drew a sad and deplorable picture of the sufferings of those whose labour had been displaced, but naturally forgot to inquire whether any labour had been Lica as id (Hear, hear.) The hon. member spoke of the difficulties incidental to the trade, as if when protection existed in that branch of industry it was a Paradise, and every m an was sure o f a fair day ' s wages for a fair day's work. He seemed to think that the silk trade and protection had always existed together. But what was the truth of the matter ? The silk manufacture took root in England centuries before the time of protection. (Hear.) It flourished in England in the 17th century, and it was only after it came to be protected, in 1697, that it began to droop, and to depend on legislative aid. (Hear. hear.) Was there suffering then—no displaced labour ? Had the hon. member no compassion for the evil fortune which attended his favourite system ? In 1765 "the weavers went down to the Houses of Parliament in a body, to make personal application to the members, representing their wretched condition, and praying for the total prohibition of foreign goods. Parliament reduced the duties on raw and thrown silk; dealers in foreign goods countermanded their orders, and the weavers were appeased." In 1766 smug gling was carried on to a greater extent than ever, and 7,072 looms were out of employment—all this at a time when the system recommended by the hon. gentleman was in the fullest vigour. (Hear.) In the same year the import and sale of foreign silks and velvets was totally prohibited, with the exception of those brought from India; but, in 1769, in that happy state of things when there ought to have been nothing but contentment and peace, the weavers formed combinations to compel their masters to raise their wages, committed various acts of violence on the property of their employers, destroying their looms, &c., and in the riot several soldiers as well as weavers were killed. " Constant disputes still continuing between employers and employed, an act was passed in 1773 which enabled the weavers of Middlesex to demand a fixed price for their labour, which price was to be fixed by the magistrates ; masters and men were restricted from giving or receiving more or less than the fixed price ; the manuacturers were liable to heavy penalties if they employed weavess out of the district ; the weavers also were restricted, under heavy penalties, not to employ, at any one time, more apprentices than two. This law remained in force until 1824. In 1784 additional duties were imposed, and in 1786 the silk trade was expressly excluded from a treaty with France. In 1793 4,000 Spitalfield looms were quite idle, and at the end of the war the Spitalfield weavers were again involved in suffer ings far more extensive and severe than at any former period, two-thirds being out of employment." That was the system which prevailed when the principles of the hon. member were in operation. (Cheers.) After that there came a change, and the men who made it were exposed to all the charges of heartlessness which the hon. gentleman thought himself entitled to pronounce on the vast majority of the House of Commons. (Cheers.) He had described the effects of the system the hon. member pa tronized ; and he asked had there been 7,000 or 8,000 looms out of work since that period ? Had there been any soldiers or weavers killed in carrying out that blessed system of trade regulations he advocated ? (Hear, hear.) Look at the facts of the case. In 1820 our imports of raw silk amounted to some 2,000,0001 b., and in 1859 they amounted to 9,920,0001 b. In 1820 the exports of British manufactured silk goods came to £371,000, in 1859 they had risen to nearly £2,500,000. (Cheers.) And in the face of all that the hon. member came down to the house and claimed for his statements and principles the name of facts, experience, prudence, and wisdom, and dared to charge the majority of the house not only with error, but with heartlessness for sooth. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman in commencing his speech expressed a hope that the committee would listen with patience to his remarks, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was glad they had done so, for he believed it was the last dissertation of the kind they would ever have within the walls of the British Parliament. (" Oh, oh I" and cheers.) The last of these prohibitive duties was now about to disappear from the tariff, and the opportunity they had just enjoyed was a rare one, and he should have been sorry if any momentary imp ittience had deprived them of the prac tical lessons they had just learned. (A laugh, and " Hear, hear.") It was not because of the French treaty that the present vote should be adopted. It was not a small and in significant vote, as comparatively speaking many of the others were—it was a large vote and a large measure, in volving a considerable sacrifice of revenue, and affecting the interests of a great and extensive trade. If the committee thought it a bad vote on its merits, let them reject it; but let them remember that if they did they would repudiate all the principles on which they had been acting for the last 20 years (" Oh," and cheers), and the adoption of which, in stead of displacing labour and bringing classes and indivi duals to distress, had multiplied the comforts of the work. ing man, and increased not only his sense of self-respect, but his loyalty as a member of society and a subject of the Queen. (Cheers.) Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to state that the vote he was prepared to give on this question did not rest on the ground of protection, and that he had no spmpathy with the arguments or views of either the hon. member for Coven• try or the Tower Hamlets. (Hear.) Those two hon. mem bers gave their vote in support of the Budget of the Govern ment, and now they found that the Budget pressed upon their own constituencies (hear, hear) they came forward and raised their voices in behalf of interests to which he thought they must feel themselves they had put it out of their power to render any real service. (Hear.) The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had invited the committee to die. cuss this vote upon its merles, and he had therefore a right to consider whether there did not exist serious financial ob jections to the proposal of the Government. He must, how ever, take decided exception to the right hon. gentleman's statement that they could not reject the proposal to re peal the silk duties without reversing the policy of the last 20 years. He thought they were perfectly entitled to pronounce their opinion whether, in the pre sent state of cur finances, they ought to repeal a duty which brought into the Exchequer not less than £300,000 a year without pressing on any in terest in the country, and which was fairly derived from taxation upon the rich. He should, therefore, oppose the proposal simply on financial grounds, as most improvident under existing circumstances. (Hear.) Mr. BALL amid cries of " Divide !" urged that the committee should have more time to consider so important a subject. He felt the more disposed to insist on this as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had statel that this was to be the last time when such a question should be dis cussed. If it was so, let them linger upon it and compose themselves for the irretrievable end everlasting ruin pro vided for them by the right hon. gentleman. He moved that the chairman report progress. Lord PALMERSTON really hoped that, as the hon. gentleman who moved the adjournment had refreshed him self and now seemed in the lull possession of his faculties— (a laugh)—and able to state at any length he pleased his objections to the question before the house, he would con sent to withdraw his motion. He certainly should se the motion for reporting pro gress. oppo The committee then divided, when there appeared— For reporting progress 2& ""'••••• Against it .....233 Majority —205 Mr VANCE, as the hour was late, and many hon. gen tlemen were anxious to deliver their sentiments on this question, begged to move that the chairman now leave the chair. (" Oh, oh !") for the speedy Mr. R. W. CRAWFORD earnestly appealed to the committee not to prolong tho suspense which was paralys ing the silk trade. (Hear.) An urgent memorial, praying settlement of this question, had been in trusted to him for presentation by many of those London firms whom the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets now characterised as hard-hearted, but whom that hon: gentle man was exceedingly happy to wait p the ti me o f an election. (" Oh, oh Ind on, cap in hand, at ") The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also Pointed out the evil of protracting the stagna tion which had already lasted for three weeks, and assured honourable gentlemen who wished to pursue that discussion that they should have an opportunity of doing so to-morrow (this day), on the bringing up of the report. Mr. BALL said he had made his motion entirely upon the solicitation of these who had helped to retui a the hon. member for the city (Mr. Crawford) to that house, and who apprehended perfect ruin from the measure which their re presentative now sought to press on. Mr. ELLICE, sen., as one who had voted in the mino rity, recommended the hon. member for Dublin to withdraw his motion. Mr. AYRTON, in making the same suggestion, ex plained, amid the impatience of the house, that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in a very "fascinating" v ei n , had indulged in r e p eated misapprehensions of his observations.' He also added, in reply to the hon. member for the city, that he had never canvassed a single elector in the city of London, except to promote the return of that hon. gen tleman himself, or that of the noble lord the Foreign Se cretary. Mr. VANCE then withdrew his motion. The house divided— For the amendment .................. 68 Against 190 Majority .... —122 The resolution was agreed to, and the Chairman was ordered to report it to the house. QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL. This bill passed through committee. THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE brought in the Scotch Reform Bill, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday, the 19th inst. The house adjourned at 25 minutes past one. BIRTHS. BLACKER.—On the 29th ult., at Thorpe Parsonage, near Peterborough, the wife of the Rev. R. S. C. Blacker, of a son. STEWART.—On the 29th ult., at Granton House, Edin burgh, the wife of Lieutenant Duncan Stewart, RN., of a son. MA T:DE— MARRIAGES . S TERL IN G. —On the 24th January, at Colombo, Lieut.-Col, F. C. Maude, Royal Artillery, C. 8., eldest son of Captain the lion. F. Maude, R.N., to Pauline S. Sterling, only daughter of the Hon. Paul Sterling, Acting Chief Justice, Ceylon. DEATHS. L NCOWE. —On the 28th ult., at Bath, Henry Prescott Blencowo, Esq., of Thoby Priory, Essex. KINGSLEY.—On tho 29th ult., at Chelsea Rectory, the Rev. Charles Kingsley, rector of Chelsea, aged 78. SOUTHWELL.—Onthe 29th ult., the Lord Viscount South. well, K.P., aed 83. lONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YO N(3 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The 'Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, i 4 0 county Of Middlesex, Friday, March 2, 1860, i