The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-05 00:00:00

which they have introduced and in the time of introducing it, the character of the house is also implicated bythe mode in which they deal with that measure. (Hear, hear.) Now, air, there are two different questions which arise ; first, with regard to the substance of the measure, and next,with regard to the time in which we propose now to proceed with it in committee, With regard to the substance of the measure I will only mention one point, but it is that point on which during the second reading almost all objection rested, and upon which the description of its being a -measure destructive- of property, giving ignorance power over intel ligence, tending to confusion in the state, was based. Wh at I speak of is the borough franchise; and that frau- I et& o f without now mentioning particularly the rate at which it is proposed to be placed, is intended to be conferred with a view, certainly, of giving more power in the repre sen'tation of this house to the working classes. (Hear, hear.) Te) that proposition two objections of different kinds have b een made. It must be admitted, I think, , ,without entering Into what was done in 1832, that at the present time very .few persons belonging to the working classes have the right to vote. An hon. gentleman, at present the member for the West Riding, stated in the course of our discussion in the past year, that though he had many men in his employment of great intelligence, householders of good character and great respectability, in whom he entirely confided, not one of those men had a right to vote. Other statements have been made by other hon. gentlemen of a similar kind. Well, then, is it the objection that some of the working classes should be admitted to the franchise, or is it the objection that this bill would give such a power to the working classes, that they would overwhelm the rest of the consti tuency, and thereby have an undue influence over property? (Opposition cheers.) With regard to the first objection, I should say that so long ago as 1852 the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks said he was pleased--I do not quote from "Hansard," but I have it perfectly from memory— he said he was pleased that I admitted that the working classes ought to have the franchise. Again, when we wero discussing the measure last year, the proposition which:was made by me to the late House of Commons, and which was carried by a majority, was in the first place that the trans - fer of the freeholders' votes from counties to boroughs ought not to be made, and in the next place :that the bill did not contain a reduction in the borough franchise ; that is to say, the objection was that there was not an admission of the working classes by the bill. Well, parliament was dis solved upon that vote and. the government returned here. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks stated on a former occasion that the Government to which he be longed and of which he was the leader, had made up its mind that there should be a reduction in the borough fran chise, and that he was prepared to assent to a reduction, accompanied with such provisions as would guard the safety of our institutions. The right hon. gentleman spoke, and I hope he still Speaks, as the organ of the great party oppo site. I have seen it stated, I have seen it in print, that the right hon. gentleman has no longer the confidence of that great party. (Murmurs from the opposition.) I will state • where I have seen it. I have seen it in the periodical which is supposed to be the organ of the Conservative party, the Quarterly Review. I was happening to be coming to town, and I read in the Quarterly Review great abuse of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was not surprised at that. There was also great abuse of myself, and a number of motives were invented for me by this ob scure writer. That I was not surprised at either. But as I went on to read I was very much surprised, for I found this organ of the Conservative party declare the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, for certain faults im puted to him, unworthy of the confidence of the Conserva tive party. (Cries of "No, no," from the opposition.) I quite agree with that expression of dissent from that opi nion, because the right hon. gentleman has won his way to the high position which he holds—(cheers from both sides of the house)—by great ability in the conduct of public affairs, and whenever it has been his fortune to pass from that side of the house to this and to lead the house, his conduct in the management of those affairs showed that he was fully qua lified to conduct the business of the country. Therefore I am taking note of the opinion of the right hon. gentleman as still possessing the confidence of the great conservative party. (Cheers from the opposition.) Well then, I say, with regard to the question whether or no any of the working classes should have the franchise, and whether there should be a reduction of the borough franchise for that purpose, we have not only the affirmation of the liberal ma jority of the last Parliament, but we have the consent and the co-operation of the right hon. gentleman the organ of the party which was last year in office. The present Govern ment have introduced a bill which they thought did not carry the franchise lower than it ought to be placed. You may decide if we have had too much confidence, too much faith, in the working classes whose houses are at a moderate rent. That you may say, but that is not a question of prin ciple—that is a question of degree; and, indeed, if you dis sented altogether from the reduction of the franchise, it is quite clear you ought to have opposed the second reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.) You did not do so ; and therefore I conclude that you are ready to consider the question of the reduction of the franchise. Therefore I am justified, I think, in asking both sides of the house to go into committee, be cause, the principle being admitted, the question is to what degree the principle should be carried. After due delibera tion we have propoeta the fianvialae syslvira, t. the bill. I have heard many objections to that franchise. I have heard it stated that it would in effect overwhelm property and in telligence. That again is a question for the committee. This I will say, that if you will propose any measure that has been mentioned this evening, either by raising the fran chise by making it a rating instead of a rental franchise, or by raising the amount of rental, or in another way which has been mentioned this evening, by admitting a great num ber of voters who are distinguished by the possession of pro perty or a high degree of knowledge rather than as belonging to the working classes—any proposition of this kind shall be fairly considered by us in committee, and I certainly will not take the course of saying that we are completely wedded in our opinion to the franchise that we have proposed. I think if we fairly agree in committee to a franchise that the house should prefer, it will then be our duty to say whether we think the bill, with such an alteration, would be a valu able bill, and to declare, though we might not think it a change for the better, whether we could adopt it. I will not speak, there is no necessity to speak, of other parts of the bill. There is no necessity to speak of the county fran chise. I will only say that I think we are in a position to go into comnrittee on the bill to decide that important ques tion. If you object altogether to a reduction of the franchise it was your duty to have opposed the second reading, and' to have refused altogether to refer the matter to a com mittee; but having agreed that the second reading should pass without opposition, it is now the duty of the house to consider in committee what are the particular propositions which the Government have to make. Well, now I will take the first objection which is made in regard to the fran chise, and that is an objection which an hon. friend of mine is about to raise by moving "that in order to obtain a safe andleffective reform it would be inexpedient and unjust to proceed farther with the proposed legislative measure for the representation of the people until the house has be fore It the results of the census, authorised by the bill now under consideration." Now, I must say that, without imputing any desire to cause delay, I cannot re concile that motion with any wish to have a bill for the extension of the franchise. (Cheers.) It would be three years before the census would be before the house in an authoritative form, and it is proposed that for three years we should not go into this question—that whatever may be the et......estances, whatever the demand, however strong the feeling may L., there shall be no amend ment in the representation of tb... people for three years. And now with regard to the borouos. franchise. One may say that the objections to the borough and the county franchise comprise all the objections to the bill. During the six nights' debate on the second reading those were the objections that were raised. And how does the census of 1851 bear upon these objections ? We have re turns—you find fault with them, but we have returns up to the year 1858-Lwhich do not depend on the census of 1851, but on the rate-books for the year 1858, and you might have them to a later period. Therefore, the main question in dispute has nothing to do with the census of 1851, and this amendment is a Mere evasion—it is a mere putting off on a very hollow pretence that which is the question before the house. (Cheers, and " No.") Can any man contradict me ? Neither the £6 borough nor the £lO county franchise is in any way affected by the census. You may say that the £6 holder is too poor, that he is ignorant, and will be bribed, but when you have got the new census you will be no wiser as to the character of the £6 and the £lO voter. There is only one part of the bill that it does affect, that relating to the distribution of seats. We have taken a certain num ber of seats from boroughs with a population under 7,000, not because the number of 7,000 was absolutely and geo metrically and arithmetically necessary in order to entitle a borough to return two members, any more than in the bill of last year the number of 6,000 was, in the opinion of the late Government, necessary to return two members ; but have taken the boroughs at the bottom' of the scale, and have said it was desirable that places with a large popula tion which are now insufficiently represented should have some of the members which the smaller boroughs are now entitled to return. There might be a transposition of one or tno of those boroughs, but no one can alter their posi Hon. They are the boroughs which have the smallest po pulation, and have the smallest importance. It may be that one borough has gone up 500 and another gone down 500, and if we wait till the year 1863 we shall arrive at the fact as regards the one borough or the other ; but as regards the material interests of the country, as regards the great question of representation, it has no importance. I have made all the observations that I wished to offer on this question as on a question affecting the character of the house, and not as saying that the opponents of the present Government were bringing forward objections to the bill for purposes of delay. (Hear.) If hon. gentlemen opposite xa y, "Here is a dangerou s an d a revolutionary we do not think it our duty to ent er t a i n, " I believe, which the ic public might think that opinion hasty, but they would at all events regard it as sincere. If, h owever, the y say that, though they have already entertained th e bill and iven it a second reading, they will not proceed with it any further, alleging the paltry pretence that in three years they would have more information as to the amount of population in certain boroughs, then I say that nobody will believe there. -(Cheers.) I now come to the other excuse, which I h ave seen madefor not proceeding with the measure, viz., that we arriyed at the 4th Jane, and that it is too- late to eater into committee, because we must take into consideration the remaining estimates for the year. If the question was with regard to the army or navy estimates I could understand that argument, because those are estimates of very great im portance; but I cannot conceive how hon. gentlemen can say that they are in such haste to consider the miscellane ous estimates that they cannot proceed with a measure of such importance as the amendment of th : representation. Recollecting what had been done in former sessions I have looked to see at what time the miscellaneous estimates were considered in those years in which there was no dissolution, and I find that in 1851 they were considered on the 7th, the 11th, the 14th, and 17th of July; in 1853 they were consi dered en the 4th, sth, and Bth of August ; in 1854 on the 3d, 6th, 7th, 25th, 2 th, 27th, and 31st of July; in 1855 on the 26th, 30th, and 31st of July, and on the Ist and 2d of August; and in 1858 on the 9th, 12th, 14th, and 15th of July. It has latterly, therefore, been the custom, when there was no dissolution, not to consider the miscellaneous estimates till a much later period than the present ; and with regard to some of the years I have enumerated, it cannot be said that there were pending any measures of such supreme import ance that the house was required to put the estimates off till the last moment. No doubt those estimates give rise to very interesting discussions—debates, for instance, upon education in Great Britain and Ireland, upon the principles of religious liberty as regards the regium donum, upon ques tions of criminal justice, upon the application of the fine arts to the houses of parliament, and matters of that kind, but although those are interesting topics of discussion, it has not been in the power or the inclination of the house to 1 effect any great reduction. I remember an occasion on which the house refused a grant to obtain two pictures of Sir Edwin Landseer, which would no doubt have been ad mirable pictures of animals by which a part of the House of Lords might have been adorned. On another occasion it refused the salary of a gentleman who had been sent abroad by the trustees of the National Gallery to choose pictures ; but if I were to state the economy which has been effected during the last seven years at £2,000 a year I should be ex aggerating. (Hear.) I cannot believe, then, that there has sprung up all on a sudden such a zeal for economy, or that the spirit of reduction and retrenchment should so suddenly have seized the house that they cannot wait till July to consider the miscellaneous estimates. (Hear.) lam told that during the last year or two a change has been made in our financial system by which there ii not so large a sur plus left in the exchequer ; and that in order to allow the civil service estimates to go till July or the beginning of August, it may be necessary for the Secretary to the Tree • sury to ask from time to time, as he did the other day, for some moderate votes on account. But that is merely a ques tion of detail; and it is a question which would not post pone the consideration of the miscellaneous estimates to a period at all later than the usual one. (Hear.) I can only say, therefore, of this excuse as I said of the other—if the house were to represent that it was seized with such a sud den zeal for retrenchment on the civil service estimates, and on the estimates for education in Ireland, for the fine arts and similar matters, that it would not go into commit tee on this bill—l believe that even if it reduced the votes, its sincerity would be very much mistrusted, and it would not be believed that the neglect of several years had been followed by a sincere and sudden retrenchment. On the contrary, it would be attributed to a desire to get rid of this bill without having the manliiiess to say that the house did not wish to pass it. (Cheers.) With regard to the time at which we have arrived I will remind hon. members that we are only at the beginning of June, and that our ses sions usually go on till the beginning, the middle, or even the end of August. There is no reason why there should be an earlier prorogation this year. Indeed there is no time positively fixed for our adjournment. We are not like the American Congress, the session of which is restricted within certain limits ; and if we have important business before us there is no reason why we should not settle it, and why the House of Lords should not undertake it, as they have undertaken many other measures in other times, at a period when it would be perfectly possible to give it their consideration. (Hear.) I have now stated the reasons why I think the house should go into committee on this bill, and should decide the various questions which will come before it. I have argued on other occasions that if we post pone these questions, there would be an uncertainty—that at least we must all admit—as to any other period at which another measure could be brought in. You have decided to give this bill a second reading, and you have decided that after six nights' debate, and if another bill were brought forward in another session, you would have to go through another debate on the second reading ; you would have all those arguments repeated, and probably with the same re sult. That would involve a consumption of public time and a delay which would be perfectlyunnecessary. (Hear, hear.) And what might be the time at which the question would be re-opened ? You might have, as you have now, a time of tranquillity when you are at peace with all the nations of Europe ; but it might also be a period of commercial dis tress. (Hear, hear.) It might be a period when war ap peared to be threatening this country ; when men would be very loth to enter upon such a question; and certainly when they would not be able to give it a dispassionate considera tion. If you can but make up your minds as to what your franchise should be, if you can adopt either the proposition of the Government, or some other proposition which might seem wiser or more fitting to improve the representation, and at the same time woula De consistent sena me bit' , in 1 of your institutions, let the house calmly consider it. We have done our duty in bringing the question before you. (Cheers.) It is for you to dispose of it; but do not forget that the language which has been used with regard to the £6 householders, with regard to the poorest of those who would by their means have the franchise, has been such, that though in a time of prosperity it might well pass away, if it came back at a time of commercial distress, it might well cause irritation. (Hear, hear.) I have alluded to an article in a periodical which is generally supposed to repre sent a great party ; and this is thew ay in which it speaks of the effects of this bill—" Some say that the publicans are to be our masters ; others the trades' unions. It is a blessed choice—between debauchery and crime." (Hear, hear.) Phrases such as these sink in the mind. I believe that among the working classes there are many men to be found of greater intelligence and equal integrity with householders of £lO. (Hear, hear.) Many of the latter are beershop keepers and small shopkeepers ; and I believe that workingmen in many cases have fully as much intelligence and as much integrity. (Cheers.) When it is sail that if you adopt this bill you will be governed by debauchery or crime, can such language produce any effect but irritation ? If you go on to consider the details of this bill and to settle what your franchise should be, what has been said will have but a passing effect ; but if you leave this question open by the declaration that has taken place—eloquent as that declaration may have been—you will have dug a ditch between the working and the richer classes, of which you may have occasion to repent. (Hear.) I therefore seriously and earnestly ask the house to go into a consideration of this bill. If you think that its provisions are rash, put in better and more secure ones in their place, but do not, when you have such a question before you, attempt to evade or conceal its importance. Such a course will not produce any feeling of trust in your sincerity, or respect for your deci sion. (Cheers.) I beg leave to move, sir, that you now leave the chair. Mr. DISRAELI was not surprised, after the lengthened period which had elapsed since the noble lord had last ad dressed the house on the subject of the bill, that he should hava gone at some length into a statement of its principles and of its present position. The noble lord appeared to him, however, to have spent a considerable portion of his time in giving reasons why the Conservative party should have consented to the second reading, and then to com plaints against them for having allowed it to be read. The noble lord had stated accurately enough, though not with perfect accuracy, the observations which he (the right hon. gentleman) had made so long ago as 1852. Being then a Minister of the Crown he had certainly expressed his opinion after a measure of reform brought forward by the noble lord had recently failed, that both in that measure, as well as in me act or 166 Z, tne claims of She working classes had not been considered. That was an opi nion which he had not expressed merely in 1852. It had always been his opinion, and in 1859, whatever differences of opinion there might be as to the means by which he en deavoured to carry it into effect, there was no doubt as to the sincerity of the attempt which he made to give, in some measure, representation to the working classes. (Hear, hear.) Then the noble lord said that after the general elec tion he (the right hon. gentleman) had recognised, on the p hroe a ui r n t g of sg in.th favour e T l h a o o te se Government, the verdict of the country as o f n tsomethat side reduction of th the house the did not franchise w i in sh bo roughs. o- for. one moment to shrink from the admission they had made but circumstancesthe d e duet i i o u n q s u w e hi s ti ch on were he b er e nol elord h somewhat acl drawn inconsistent. o It might be necessary to admit the principle of the bill, which they had done by voting for the second reading ; but it was not consequent upon the opinions which they had expressed, or the pledges, if the noble lord chose, they had given, that they should approve of the general policy of the noble lord. The noble lord said that all but the principle of the 'bill was a mere matter of detail ; but the noble lord seemed to have quite forgotten that he had assumed a line of rea soning which no minister before him had adopted. He came forward and introduced a bill based upon the principle of numbers ; and documents had been placed in the hands of hon. members of which the noble lord would not for one moment pretend to say that the accuracy had been upheld. In another house, so important had these returns been con sidered, that the labours of an eminent committee had been incessantly devoted to their examination ; and if they were to believe rumour, the result of their lordships' investigation was in accordance with the generally received opinion. (Hear.) But the whole policy of the noble lord depended upon the fact. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord proposed to entrust political power to a certain number of persons ; and it was, therefore, important that the probable number of those to whom the franchise would be extended should be ascertained. The noble lord could not, therefore, be sur prised if hon. members who were willing to see all classes directly represented should recoil from a measure which was perhaps founded upon a grave inaccuracy, and which might, therefore, entail upon the country most serious con sequences. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had not suc ceeded in establishing any charge of inconsistency against those who sat on those (the Conservative) benches. They were not enemies of the working classes ; on the contrary, the policy of the Tory party had never been unfavourable to those classes, (Load Conservative cheers.) They had THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE I .' 5, . 1860. always regarded the franchise as a privilege to be exercised for the benefit of the country; and when a class was put- ting forward a claim to it they conceived that they had not merely to ask whether that class might enjoy the personal privilege which they sought, but whether it could be given them without conferring on them a predominant power which would not be for the general advantage. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, then, had not succeeded in establishing any fair ground of complaint against the Parliamentary con duct of the Opposition; but if he complained that his mea • sure had been fully and severely examined, then he must remind the noble lord that on his own side there had been critics as able, as eloquent, and as assiduous' as on the other. (Cheers and laughter.) He could understand the tone of ' the noble lord if he were about to fulfil that im portant programme with which he began the session ; he could understand the noble lord if he had told them that the bill was an essential part of his policy, that the objections to it were of a trifling character, and that even if it were necessary to sit six months with out a prorogation to carry it, carry it they should. But was that the course adopted by the noble lord to-night ? When the noble lord talked of the paltry opposition which was made to his measure, and of a paltry course of conduct, the house might be interested to observe what the noble lard had done. Ha commenced the session by three measures of representative reform—the representation for England, Treland, and Scotland—all were to be amended, and the representation of England was to be made the re presentation front which the others were to be fashioned. The noble lord was stern and stiff as to the conditions upon which these amendments in the representation of the coun- try were to be accomplished. The noble lord remembered that in opposition he gave a programme which led to a de cision —(hear) —which forced the country to what was pro bably a premature decision—he remembered that he defined the amount of the franchise upon which he called for a re form of the constituency. But what had the house heard to-night? Two of the bills were to be given up, but with regard to the other the house might do what it liked with it That high policy which had displaced Ministers and dis severed parties had melted away, and so long as the house would only shovel the measure out of the way, anything it might do would be acceptable. Well, continued the right hon. gentleman, it may be very discreet, it may be very wise to-night to give these moderate counsels, and tempe rate measures, when one of those Ministers who ought to regulate the public conduct of the House of Commons—when one who has just now occupied such a position, and has given an address which is still fresh in the remembrance of Parliament and the country—when that Minister declares that fair conduct is to be looked upon as paltry. We have listened, I am sure, with no hostile feeling in a very calm house to the statement of the noble lord, who has chosen well his position and selected well his words. Every one must have felt that the plan which the noblelord has recommended to us to-night offers a most strange and startling contrast to the counsels which were offered upon these benches — (cheers) —with regard to Parliamentary Reform in the tone and temper in which these measures were brought before us when Parliament first met, But is this all ? The state ment of the noble lord must not be looked upon merely with regard to the conduct of ministers or the circum stances of party conflict in this house. The question is too deeply interesting for accessories of this nature. After all this fanfaronncufe in opposition, and the deeply ma tured schemes, in the responsible position of a minister of the Crown the noble lord comes forward to. night and pro poses that we should reconstruct the constituency of Eng land, totally omitting and neglecting any reconstruction of the constituencies of the two sister kingdoms. To say nothing less of it, is this a constitutional course ? I will not say it is a politic course ; but it isqa way of cutting the Gordian knot which this house will, I think, hardly sena tion or admire. (Cheers.) We have always heard that if this question of Parliamentary reform is to be brought for ward, it is not to be brought forward piecemeal, but pro viding for the three countries pari passu, and there were sound constitutional reasons for such a course in 1832, which no one could dispute. But if two of the measures are to be abandoned, and one to be continued, what becomes of the claims of Scotland and Ireland to increased represen tation ? We have been always told by their i epresenta tives that we cannot decide with any satisfaction to them the settlement of the English constitution without taking their claims into consideration. What will the gentlemen from Ireland and Scotland say when they are told the re form of the constitution of England is to be finished in the month of June, 1860, and the consideration of theirs is to be postponed to another year. What will become of those claims to increased representation of which we have heard so much ? (Cheers.) I may remind the house that no hon. gentleman of Ireland or Scotland will be able to urge those claims with any effect when the question of England is passed. But suppose, notwithstanding the " tranquil" condition of public affairs—a description of the pre sent state of things which, coming from a Secretary of State, must be most assuring to all who hear it—suppose that tranquil state of affairs is changed in the course of next year. What then will be the state of the Scotch and Irish representation ? (Cheers.) It may be inconvenient, it may be impossible, to amend the representation of Scot land and Ireland next year. Notwithstanding the all-per vading tranquillity of Europe, the noble lord may find troubles next year which will so absorb and en_ gross_public illl DV v,,upy talc ut.vlll,lVll Vt tile v Vet "taLtlellt that the noble lord who now holds the office of Secretary for Foreign Affairs may not have time to amend the repre sentation of Scotland and Ireland. But what with regard to England ? If the English representation is amended, are you to have a partial dissolution of Parliament ? (Cheers.) Are the members for England from the new constituencies to be elected, and must we have the mem bers elected by the old constituencies of Ireland and Scot land ? Or, in the conflict of our difficulties, will you avoid the solution by having no dissolution whatever ? In that case, we who sit here will sit as a condemned Parliament. Session_after session, year after year, great bodies of our countrymen will say—" This man calls himself the mem ber for Buckinghamshire—(cheers and a laugh)—but he is nothing of the kind." lam thankful to say I can bear the test as well as most men, but I am sure will be embarrassing to gentlemen on both sides of the house. (Laughter.) But for what length of time is Parlia ment to be in this uncertainty ? I cannot agree with the noble lord in those sanguine views which have been enun ciated by his faithful adherents—by the friends of Parlia mentary reform—regarding the state of the country at this moment. I have never been an alarmist. I know there are exaggerations of danger which may lead to depression of public feeling—just as they may on the other hand increase a high patriotic tone of feeling. But taking the calmest and gravest view of public affairs, I think I am justified in say ing that matters are going on which should excite the anxiety and engage the deep attention of the country. (Hear, hear.) Is this a period when Parliament should be left in the dislocated state in which the plan, I will not say the policy, of the noble lord, contemplates leaving it. I can not believe that the house can sanction this plan of dealing with the representation of England without at the same time dealing with the representation of the sister countries. I do not believe the house will run the chance of leaving the representation of Ireland and Scotland to be considered by the Legislature, with the prospect of meeting next year amidst great dangers—when it will be impossible that the country should look up to the house with respect or confi dence, an act having passed which signifies that the repre sentatives of the country are not competent to their duty or not worthy of their trust. This is a grave position. The noble lord has had more to do than to make a few common place observations upon going into committee of supply. He has had to make some of the weightiest statements that have over been heard in this house. That we should re form the constituency of England without reforming the constituencies of Ireland and Scotland is a proposal which was never made by a minister before. (Cheers.) And is there anything authorising so unwise and disastrous a course ? On the contrary, the noble lord does not contem plate accepting and enacting the policy which he recom mends. "Whatever he may have said of the working classes he has no conviction of the necessity of the measure he has brought forward ; t he has no confidence that, if carried, it word I accomplish and fulfil his purpose. He says to us, " If you don't like this proposition, suggest something else, and I give you to understand your proposal shall be received by the Government in a candid and disinterested spirit." (Cheers and Laughter.) 'What does that mean ? (Cheers.) It means that there is no policy. (Prolonged cheers.) Giving up Ireland, giving up Scotland, coming to the members for England, and asking them to place themselves in the despicable position which I have described—upon any terms which the house can scramble together for the occasion—all this proves no conviction of the necessity of this measure—no confidence in the provisions of this measure. But the noble lord upon this subject, as from the first, exercising a fatal influence—as I said to him at a time when I stood opposite to him as he sat on these benches—both to this question and to his own reputation, was induced to recommend a policy in opposition which he has found it impossible to accomplish as a Minister—but is hazarding the safety of the country in order, not even that he may realize his fair expectations on this subject, but that he may terminate them in a manner which if nothing dignified, is hardly respectable, and recognise in them an unwise, an immature—l will even say—a factious policy. (Cheers.) And then the noble lord turns round with much indignation upon some of his supporters, who have abso lutely been so presumptuous as to conceive some different means of extricating himself and his colleagues from the painful position which he occupies. One gentleman thinks it would be just as well that we wait until, in the most authoritative manner, we have accurate information as to the amount of the population. Then the noble lord thinks that his policy is compromised by his own con duct. If the noble lord had not proposed to give up the marrow of his bill, when he had generally confessed that he proposed to do it—although he did not propose to agree on any terms to the franchise, yet he laid it down as an indispensable condition—but if the noble lord had not proposed to do this—the statesman who comes forward with a plan for the amendment of the representation of the peo ple, and founds his measure upon population—with what face and reason can he turn round and reproach his sup porter who says, "If this be the principle on which the measure is to be founded, let us have the most ample, the most authentic, the most novel, the most recent informa tion." Now, sir, I make these comments upon the remarks of the noble lord. I think they are fair and just ones. My own opinion is—yielding none of those positions which I have formerly advanced in this house on Parliamentary reform, and believing, as I hope I may on this subject, that I am, notwithstanding the Quarterly Review, expressing the opinions of those gentlemen who sit on this side of the house—(cheers) —l am not afraid to say I think it would be most impolitic at this moment to attempt a sets lement such as that projected by the noble lord. (Cheers.) If the noble lord had the power indeed to deal comprehensively and completely with the subject —if the noble lord had said " I have here a comprehensive bill for England, Ireland, and Scotland ; the principles and conditions upon which _ _ . we propose that power should be allotted in these countries have been long considered and deeply matured—by them we mean to stand or fall"—in bringing forward such a policy, even perhaps with impending war and impending revolution, we feel that it might strengthen the common wealth, might increase the public courage, and animate public spirit in England—we might think the noble lord and his colleagues rash, we might think them ill-advised, we might think the Occasion full of danger, but all must admit that it would fit least be a policy assured and deter mined by eminent men—which they undoubtedly were— and entitled, if not to adoption by the country, at least to respect. But when at a moment of undisguised danger, at a period of most certain peril, the noble lord comes forward after all with no policy, but with a compromise which, to use his own epithet, I must characterise as paltry—l see no safety in such a course—l recognise no security in such a proceeding ; but i feel that at a moment when this house should stand on high, and this country should be united, we are recommended to try a course which may enfeeble the one, and may dishonour the other. (Loud cheers.) Mr. MACKINNON moved "that in order to obtain a safe and effective reform, it would be inexpedient and un just to proceed further with the proposed legislative mea sure for the representation of the people until the house has before it the results of the census authorised by the bill now under consideration." As a general supporter of the Go vernment, he felt himself placed in a somewhat awkward position in proceeding with the motion of which he had given notice, but he believed the bill was neither popular in the house nor in the country, and he therefore felt it his duty to state to the house the reasons which had induced him to adopt the course hehad taken. In 1831 he introduced a motion in precisely similar terms, and although a majo rity of the house at that time were pledged to reform, he was only defeated by a majority of 74. The bill, however, did not pass until the following year, when the census was really taken. He thought no real object would be attained by pushing forward the present measure with:railway speed. The higher and middle classes were altogether opposed to the bill, inasmuch as they would be swamped by numbers, and so far as the lower classes were concerned, they were entirely indifferent to it. For some years he had had consi derable intercourse with the working classes in connection with a bill he had introduced for arranging differences be tween masters and operatives, and he could honestly and conscientiously state as the result of his experience, that the lower classes were not in the slightest degree anxious that this bill should pass. In point of fact he had received a letter from a well-informed and sensible man, Mr. Humphries, of Kentish-town, a member of the central committee of the National Association of Trades in London, in which he said: " Seeing the use which some parties seem desirous to make of the working classes in order to secure the passing of the bill of Lord J. Russell, allow me to assure you, that se far as I am able to judge of their feeling in the matter, they are perfectly indifferent about it, and for all the excitement or agitation that exists there might be no such measure before the country. In London, if there is any feeling at all upon the matter, it is rather against than in favour of the bill, because it entirely and intentionally excludes the most thoughtful, sober, and intelligent portion of the mechanics of our metropolis, simply from their inability to do more than occupy apartments, though many of them pay £l5 or £2O a year rent. A reform bill which purposely excludes that portion of the people from its operation cannot be V ery captivating to them, and therefore the House of Commons need not be surprised at the evident apathy and indifference of the working classes at Lord J. Russell's Reform Bill. Nay, further, their very silence is not so much indifference as it is positively contempt. The only demonstration made by the working classes arising out of the bill was that in Hyde-park on Sunday, the 15th of April, when, in no very complimentary language, they denounced it as a sham, a delusion, and a snare. There is another point to which I wish to call your attention, and that is, the appeal of Mr. Bright to trades' unions to send delegates to attend before Parliament. This, however, is a vain and empty appeal. Mr. Bright knows very well, if he knows anything of trades' unions, that political questions are rigidly excluded from them, and for this reason, that if they were permitted to form part of their discussion, discussion would lead to dis sension, and dissension to disunion—a consummation which no doubt would be highly gratifying to the hon. ourable member for Birmingham, but which would be regarded as a great calamity by the working classes. You may depend upon it that there is no danger of the trades' unions responding to the appeal of Mr. Bright, The same be said with regard to benefit societies. The hundreds of thousands of working men forming these institutions are all strictly forbidden and prohibited from introducing at their meetings any questions of a political character, so that these societies are not likely to endanger their existence by becoming the tools of any political agitator. (Hear. hear.) •• - -----e caws., --- -- ••••• are., ea to imaeane t nat the rower classes cared about this Reform Bill ? He had been told by one hon. member that he should vote for the bill because the Lords would be sure to throw it out. (Hear, and a laugh.) He was riding up from Hertfordshire the other day, and he saw in a green field some innocent sheep enjoying theirpas- I ture ; but presently he saw them put up in a pen; and he said to himself, " Why, that is like the member for Bir minghana, driving us up to his Reform Bill." (A laugh.) Was it fair that those individuals who had little or no educa- 4 tion and no property, should legislate for the people of Eng land ? He had presided as chairman over the Masters and Operatives Committee, and one of the witnesses examined before that committee was Mr. Potter, secretary to the Build ers' Union. Mr. Potter stated, in answer to a question, that he corresponded indirectly with 600,000 operatives, who had a central committee in London. Let the house consider for a moment the great danger of such a combination of people hay ing the franchise, acting under one head ; would they not swamp the upper and middle classes altogether—(hear)—and might not the result be that the Chancellor of the Exche quer should entirely take away all indirect taxation ? (Hear, hear.) Why should :the house deprive officers in the army and navy, solicitors, and engineers, of the fran chise, and give it to those men ? Less than 100 years ago it had been said in that house that the power of the crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. Now, he said the power of the ;crown had decreased and ought to be supported. (Hear, hear.) The Emperor Na poleon said to the Italians, "If you don't fight for your liberty, you don't deserve it; and ho (Mr. Mackinnon) said to the House of Commons, "If you, gentlemen of England, don't preserve your constitution, you deserve to lose it." The hon. member concluded by proposing the amendment of which he had given notice. Sir H. STRACEY seconded it. Sir G. C. LEWIS said it would not be necessary for him to trouble the house at any length in answer to the obser vations of his hoe. friend (Mr. Mackinnon). The most racy portion of his hon. friends remarks was that relating to a letter which he read to the house, and which had been ad dressed to him by members of the working classes or some of those committees connected with trades, who constituted themselves the representatives for the time of the working classes. He understood that letter to assert that the bill before the house was "a sham, a snare, and a delusion," the result of which he understood to mean that this bill, professing to enfranchise the working classes, did not con fer upon them any essential political power. Unless that was the meaning of the letter, it seemed to him totally des titute of meaning or applicability. (Hear, hear.) The plain and obvious tendency of that letter, which his hon. friend had paraded as a great reflection of the esoteric feelings of the working classes, was in fact that is did not go far enough, and did not include in its provisions a suf ficient number of the working classes. There was One expression which fell from his hon friend which it was di& ficult to comprehend—namely, that this bill excluded all the "thoughtful" :portion of the working classes. He (Sir G. Lewis) 'professed himself unable to comprehend how the author cf that letter reconciled it 'that a £lO or £6 franchise included all the thoughtless portion of the work ing. classes. (Hear, hear.) He should now address himself to the subject of his hon. friends motion, which had for its object to postpone the consideration of the bill till the census of next year should be taken. Now the results of the census could not be in the hands of Parliament in time to found any legislation upon it in the course of next session; there fore the necessary consequence of postponing the measure till after the results of the census were known, would be to enable legislation upon it next session impossible. (Hear, from the Opposbion.) That might or might not be a matter of congratulation to hon. members opposite--he merely stated it as a fact that those who gave a vote to postpone the measure till after the results of the census were known, would postpone it till beyond the period of next session. (Hear.) With regard to that matter, there was one very obvious remark to be made, that the census had no bearing what ever upon that part of this bill, which turned almost exclusively upon the question whether the borough franchise should be limited to £lO or X 6. (Hear.) Therefore the ground of postponement which was now alleged applied exclusively to that portion of the bill which was not the main subject of dispute in that house. With regard to the question of the census, so far as it related to the transfer of seats, there was no clause in the bill which said that all boroughs under 7,000 population should be dis franchised. That was merely a circumstance stated in de bate by his noble friend in introducing, the bill, and all he asked the house to do was to transfer seats from certain boroughs to other boroughs or to counties. (Hear, hear.) It was stated as a ground for making a selection that those fell within the line of 7,000. But there was no charm in the number of 7,ooo—(hear, hear, ironically) —more than there was in the number of 6,000 proposed by the late Go vernment. They must take some number upon which the franchise should be based; whether it should be 7,000 ac cording to the census of 1851, or 7,500 according to the cen sus of 1861, it could not be material. But what was ma terial was whether the boroughs selected for disfranchise ment in part had a population relative to other boroughs. If it should turn out that the boroughs selected stood in a relative position to other towns it would be perfectly imma terial whether the highest town was 7,100 or 7,200, (Hear.) And unless it should be maintained by argument that the relative position was likely to be materially altered by the coming census, the ground for postponement must fail. He denied that any hon. gentleman could show that the smallest reason existed for a postponement until after the next cen sus should be taken. (Hear, hear.) The facts before the house were not likely to be altered by waiting or by fur ther delay, and he therefore thought it` - would be trifling with the measure if they made this a pretext for postponing it. He believed it could be equally well considered now as in 1861. Indeed he believed that if the house had any option, it would be better to adopt the census which was taken when there was no prospect of a reform bill being in troduced, than a census which might be tampered with when they knew that it might affect legislation. He had F consulted the Registrar-General on the subject, and he said he should have far more confidence in referring to the fran chise in the census of 1851 than upon the one of next year upon which to found a reform bill, because he thought efforts might be made to cause returns which might not be accurate, and which might be laid before Parliament in that state. He would not say that frauds would be perpe trated, but in such a case at such a time inaccuracies might arise. (Hear.) Upon the merits of the matter no case had . _ been shown for the postponement of the bill until the census of 1861 should be placed in their hands. If the House of Lords should be of opinion that the bill was founded upon just principles, and if it were desirable to take a limited po pulation as a ground for partial disfranchisement—as in the bill of last session and in this session—no case could be made out for postponing legislation until next year. (Hear.) The census of 1851 afforded a most clear and efficient basis for the calculation. He would therefore entreat the house, if they seriously proposed to deal with the bill, and if they were not merely looking to this motion as aineans of post ponement, but were ready to discuss this bill upon its merits, and to entertain the question of disfranchisement upon the basis of population, to reject this motion without waiting for another two years to elapse, and until the census could be in their hands. Supposing some hon. members thought they should discuss the elements of property and the number of voters as a ground of disfranchisement, still all those facts were in their possession, and the questions could be raised in committee. The Government had con sidered these alternatives before making their propositions to the house, because he was aware it might be said that if they took the numbers of voters instead of population, they would arrive at a different result; still it would have been called a vicious principle, and the basis of population w uld have been urged by hon. members. (Hear.) There could be no expectation that they would arrive at unanimity upon this subject, and the question could only be decided by a majority of voters when they got into committee. No use ful object could be obtained by delay. All the material ele ments for legislation were in their possession, and the coun try would hardly believe that the house was seriously bent upon the consideration of reform if they assented to the motion of the hon. member for Rye. Sir H. STRACEY said if there were any use in the census at all, they would do wrong in legislating when a bill like this was based upon numbers and population. Be ing based on population, surely the greatest accuracy would be given by the census, and at the present time they found that the greatest possible inaccuracy prevailed. The hon. and learned member for Marylebone had shown that to be the case. No doubt, if any one of the amendments were carried against the bill, the noble lord would feel greatly obliged to the hon. mover of it. (Hear.) He should have thought that the mental capacity of the voter would be made a point if consideration in giving the franchise, but that was not the case in this bill. The hon. member for Birmingham said he regarded the bill as a stepping-stone to universal suffrage. Mr. BRIGHT said he expressed his opinion in that house and out of it, and he asked the hon. gentleman to show that he had ever said anything in favour of universal suffrage. (Hear.) Sir H. STRACEY said the hon. gentleman declared he regarded this bill as an, instalment, and he understood thereby that he meant universal suffrage. But perhaps the hon. gentleman meant only household suffrage. Mr BRIGHT said that when he spoke of the bill as be ing an instalment he recerred to a further distribution of seats. (Oh, oh.) Sir H. STRACEY was sorry if he misrepresented the hon gentleman. But the hon. gentleman was a democratic leader of that house, and he was sorry to see the occupants of the treasury bench dependent on such support as the hon. member for Birmingham could bring them for their position in that house. He believed that some of them would be glad to see this bill disappear altogether. Although they might support the measure by their vo' es, he thought he could see by the faces of some of them that they thought differently. (Laughter.) He might say of them " Video meliora proboque ; deteriora sequor." He heard some of them compared to so many Chevaliers Bayards, but if it could be said of them that they lived sans peur he believed they would never die as he did, sans reproche. (Oh, oh.) Mr. GREGSON considered that this was the very best time for passing a Reform Bill when they had no disturb ance at home, and were at peace with Europe. Mr. BARROW believed it was desirable that a bill should pass, but then it ought to be a bill that was likely to last for some years, and not a bill, as this was, which would last for only a few months. He was as anxious as any man could be that mere suould be 50,.0 change in the representation, but he wished it should be a permanent one, and he feared that no permanent change could be effected without fuller information. Sir F. GOLDSMID trusted that hon. members would permit of the measure being settled this session. Mr. BOVILL and an Herr. MEMBER on the Ministerial side rose together, and for some minutes disputed the at tention of th© chair. Finally, the former hon. and learned member proceeded to address the house. "What, he said, were the materials to which the Government might have looked in considering the disfranchisement of boroughs ? Were they to take mere population, ; men, women, and children, or were they to take the number of voters in re lation to the whole number of inhabitants ? There might be objections to that test—but were there ,no other ? Population was tried in 1331, but it was found imprac ticable, and in 1832 the Government of the day deter mined to proceed upon the relative importance of the boroughs. Let the house observe how the Government schema affected the boroughs of Tavistock, Tiverton, and Tamworth. Tavistock was not to be interfered with ; at present 433 electors returned two members ; 59 would be added by this bill, making 492. The borough of Guildford, with 723 voters, was to be deprived of ono of its members. Why was that ? (Hear, hear.) Guild ford had increased in population and importance. The number to be added by this bill would be 207, making the electors for Guildford 930—nearly twice the number of elec tors at Tavistock ; and yet it was proposed to leave Tavistock its two and take one away from Guildford. (Hear.) The bill would give two additional members to the 14 now returned for the county and boroughs of South Devon, while one was taken away from West Surrey. Tiverton had now 526 voters, 242 would be added by the bill, making 768. Tiverton retained both its members, though Guild ford, with 930 voters, lost one of its representatives. Tam worth, witks2o voters, would have 98 added. Sir R. PEEL--I beg to assure the hon. and learned gen tleman that that return is entirely erroneous. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. BOVILL said he relied on the same return for Tam worth as for other places. He understood that the Govern ment maintained the accuracy of the returns ; but if they were inaccurate, the case for postponement was stronger. Tamworth would, under the bill, have 618 voters, a smaller number than Guildford had now. (Hear.) Sir It PEEL again rose and said—The hon. gentleman is stating what is incorrect. (Cheers, and cries of " Order.") The SPEAKER--The hon. baronet will have the oppor tunity of replying to the hon. and learned gentleman after wards. Mr. BOVILL said the comparisons he had made showed the fallacy of the test adopted by the Government—that of population. That test had been at first adopted under the Reform Bill of 1831, but it was afterwards abandoned. To take a population of 7,000 instead of 6,000 as a test of dis franchisement, was to proceed on no principle at all. He understood the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) to admit that the question of a £6 franchise was not a prin ciple of the bill, but one that might be settled in committee. The only principle of the Government appeared to be, that as the late Government had proposed a population of 6,000 as a test of partial disfranchisement, and a £lO franchise, the present Government would propose 7,000 as the mini mum, and a ;e6 franchise. They could not proceed in com mittee on that; but why, it was difficult to understand ; and yet they were now asked to proceed in committee with out any information. He should certainly support the amendment. The bill was not considered satisfactory by anybody—not even by Ministers themselves. (Hear, hear.) They ought to proceed on certain fixed principles—namely, to look to the relative importance of boroughs. Tf they did that they would find a test which was acted upon, and with success, on a former occasion. If they adopted that course no one would have a right to complain, but they must first have information to work upon. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRINES did not think it at all necessary or expe dient to postpone the bill until the census of 1861 was taken. Mr. M. FARQUHAR entirely concurred with those bon. gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the motion. He believed the house had not sufficient information before it upon which to legislate. Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate ; which was agreed to. The debate was then adjourned to Thursday. On the next order of the day for going into committee ex the Irish and Scottish Reform Bills, Mr. BLACKBURN said he had come up fresh from Scotland, and he wished to know whether the Government intended to proceed with the bill for the reform of the repre sentation of the people of Scotland ? Mr. WHITE SIDE observed that he had heard the noble lord the Foreign Secretary announce that he would confine himself to the bills for England and Ireland, and that the bill for Scotland would not be proceeded with. After a few words from, Mr. CoLLINs, Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that what he had before said was, that the English bill would be pro ceeded with in committee, and that they thought they would not have time to go on with the Irish and Scotch bills, but they might as well now be appointed for com mitted on Thursday. He might observe thut' the late Government did not introduce any measure at all with respect to Scotland. The order was then postponed until Thursday. SUPPLY. The report on supply was brought up and k: reed to. SHERIFF COURT HOU ' 4 ES (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the order of the day for going into committee on this bill, The LORD ADVOCATE moved that the bill be et- 1 mitted on Tuesday, the 12th, at 12 o'clock. Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to facilitate busineo as much as possible, but he thought the first morning sitting ought not to be proposed surreptitiously in a whisper ester midnight. Mr. STEUART hoped the proposition of the learned lord would not be agreed to. The LORD ADVOCATE said there were several Scot) 3h bills waiting for committee, and he had fixed them all tel be taken at a morning sitting. He informed the hon. men 4, er for Stirling of his intention to move that the bill be taken at a morning sitting. Mr. BOUVERIE remarked that if hon. members would neither agree to going into committee on a bill after twelve o'clock, nor agree to a morning sitting, he did not see how the business was to be got through. Sir J PAKINGTON observed that the complaint was, that almost in a whisper the Lord Advocate proposed to take the bill at a morning sitting. Mr. BUCHANAN thought that it was better to take Scotch bills in a morning sitting. After a few words from Lord C. HAMILTON, Sir G. LEWIS denied that there had been anything sur reptitious in the conduct of the Government. Mr. DISRAELI and other members opposed the motion ; on the ground that it should not have been made without due notice. They would consent to the consideration o the Scotch bills on Friday. The house divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority for the morning sitting —l3 TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. _ _ Mr. CARDNVELL proposed to take the adjourned de bate on the second reading of this bill at a morning sitting on Friday next. Mr. WHITESIDE objected to this proposal. After a brief discussi• n, in which Mr. Cogan, Lord Claud Hamilton, The O'Donoghue, Mr. Longfield, and Mr. Dis raeli took part, Mr. CARDWELL then proposed that they should pro ceed with the adjourned debate this day (Tues , ay) with the view of adjourning the debate to a morning sitting on Friday, should it be necessary. After a few observations from Mr. P. O'Brien, Mr. Hassard, and Lord Palmerston, the proposal of Mr. Card well was acceded to. • THAMES EMBANKMENT. Mr. HENNESSY moved that the select committee on the Thames Embankment consist of seventeen members, and that Lord Fermoy and Mr. Joseph Locke be added to the committee. Sir J. PAXTON said that personally he had no objec tion to either of his hon. friends who were proposed to be added to the committee ; but in accordance with the usual practice, the committee had been composed of fifteen mem bers, and it would be productive of great inconvenience if the arrangement was now altered. Mr. W. COWPER also opposed the motion, which was supported by Colonel KNOX. The house divided on the question that the committee consist of seventeen members, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority —2B The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad journed at twenty minutes past one o'clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. June 4. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.) NOTTIDGE V. PRINCE. This was a bill by Mr. Ralph Clarke Nottidge, who was the administrator of his late sister, Miss Louisa Jane Nottidge, against Mr. Henry James Prince, now the head or proprietor of the Agape mone, in the parish of Spinxton, near Bridgwater, in Somersetshire, for the purpose of recovering from the defendant a sum of £5,728 7s. 7d. New Three per Cent:- Annuities, on the ground that it for med part of the personal estate of Aliss L. J. Nottidge, and that sum had been transferred by her into the defendant's name by the exercise of undue influence on his part over her, and when she was, in fact, under his spiritual ascendancy, and in a state of religions delusion with respect to him ; believing him to be the Tabernacle of God on earth, and that God's spirit dwelt therein, Prince's original spirit being extinct. Prior to December, 1845, three of the sisters of the late Miss Louisa Jane Nottidge became members of the society called the Agapemone, in which there is no observance of the Sabbath, no practice of public or private pxeept only that hymns or anthems of praise are sung ; no usage of prayer or intercession with the Almighty, and in which it is held that prayer is useless, as the day of grace is past, and the day of judgment has arrived. In December, 1845, Miss L. J. Nottidge herself became ono of the disciples of Mr. Prince, who then and now declared himself to be the servant of the Lord, and was and is still preacher of the above doctrines. Miss Not tidge, who was then about 41 years of age, went in that month to reside in the neighbourhood of the Agapemone, where the plaintiff alleged she was under Prince's influence. After some difficulty Miss Nottidge's bother and brother-in-law suc ceeded in taking her to reside with her mother, and as Miss Nottidge appeared to her friends to be tray symptoms of insanity, they called in medical aid, and the result was that in November, 1846, she was, upon the usual medical certificates, placed in confinement, the chief ground upon which the opinion of her insanity was based being that she alleged that Prince was God Almighty, and that he had the power of conferring immortality upon her. Miss Nottidge remained in a private lunatic asylum until May, 1848, when she was released by order of the Lunacy Commissioners. Those gen tlemen in one of their reports said that Miss L. J. Nottidge admitted that she did not now pray to God, for that there was no use in it ; that she acknowledged that she believed the Tabernacle of God was upon the earth, that Prince was that tabernacle, and that the spirit of God dwelt therein, Prince's original spirit being extinct. In another report the Lunacy Commissioners said Miss Not tidge, in answer to their inquiries, had said that she was satisfied that there was no such person as Prince, but that the spirit of God dwelt in his body ; that she believed the spirit of God was now on earth, and that it resided in the body of Prince. The Lunacy Commissioners stated as their reasons for liberating Miss Nottidge, that, although no material improvement had taken place in her mental condition, and her extraordinary and irra tional notions on the subject of religion, which they regarded as delusion, were irreconcileable with soundness of mind, were unabated, yet beyond those delusions she had exhibited no other indication of insanity ; and her bodily health had been latterly giving way, and there was Much reason to appre hend that it might be seriously injured by the pro longation of her confinement. On the day of her return she was met by Mr. Thomas, who was one of Prince's followers, and had married one of her sisters, and was by him brought to London, when they, on the day after her return, went to a stock broker's respecting the transfer to Prince of the stock then standing in her name. Not knowing the exact amount of stock in her name, she was then unable to make the transfer. She immediately left London for the Agapemone, and having in the meantime ascertained what amount of stock she had in his name, she procured a power of attorney, and accordingly made the transfer now called in question, 13 days after her release. Miss Not tidge died in July, 1858. The defendant said that Miss Nottidge had frequently, prior to her confinement, offered to give him the above stock, but that he had always refused to accept it ; and that she made the transfer to him without any solicitation on his part, and without his know ledge. He also denied that Miss Nottidge was under any delusion with respect to himself, and claimed to be entitled to the stock transferredinto his name for his own benefit. The above is a general outline of the case, which is at present only part heard. Mr. Malins (with whom was Mr. W. Knox Wigram), for the plaintiff, occupied the Court the whole day, and had not concluded his address. Mr. Bacon and Mr. Smale appear for the de fendant, Prince. COURT OF DIVORCE. (Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Mr. Baron Martin, and Mr. Justice Willes.) SHEPPARD V. SHEPPARD. Dr. Tristram conducted the case for the peti- tioner. This was a case for a dissolution of marriage, in stituted by Mrs. Sheppard, on the ground of her husband's adultery, coupled with desertion without cause for two years and upwards. The respond en t was a pork-butcher. Th e marriage took plac e on the 30th July, 1846, and the parties afterw ar d s echabited at variou s places, and lastly in Royal Mint-street, Minories. Previously to May, 1851, the respondent had several . quarrels with his w if e and wished her to go t o her father's house, but she always declined. In that month, how ever , b e sa i d he had sold his business, his stock in trade, and furniture, and that she could not remain in the house any longer. The petitioner a ccor di ng l y we nt to her father's with her child, and shortly afterwards her father received a letter from Shep- pard, stating that, having had frequent disagree ments with his wife, he had now sold off his furni- u and they must pa r t, f or if th ey li ve d toget h er ai )1 - Ter, he was af ra id h e s h ou ld comm i t Some crime for which he wou ld h ave to suffer. He of fered , to furnish t wo rooms, and allow her ten t iiym e , l e, shillini .1.8 a week, but said that was all he could do for her He had not fu rn i s h e d two rooms, ne i ther • had he made the petitioner any allowance, and on more th an one occasion he had positively refused to ta k e her back again. It appeared from the evidence that after the separation the respondent Their lordships the employ of a p or k b utc h er at Wool wich, an d while th ere co h a bi te d w i t h a woman, w ho PUS( d as his w if e . iordships p ronounce d f or t h e di vorce, w i t h wenteostsi,nia LINDSAY v. LINDSAY. Mr. Collier, Dr. S pinks conducted the case for the petitioner. This was a ease by Mrs. Margat:et Lindsay for a dissolution of marriage, on the ;roes,. - Id of her hus band's adultery and cruelty. The nuirri'ge took place in 1834, at St. Andrew's Church, Tiymouth, and they coh a bit e d t oge th er u ntil March' 1838, when Mrs. Lindsay was obliged to leave he hus l.and in eons , quence of his habitual adultery and cruelty. She then instituted a suit in the ConslF to rial Court of Exeter for a divorce a menses, et thc l ‘ro, which was granted by a decree dated 19t111 Ap.ril 1839, and the parties had lived separate ever - sine'. When the new Court was established, a suit v,7as instituted for a dissolution of the marriage. Mr Lindsay had gone to Australia after the decree of the Consistorial Court, but it was believed he had since returned to England. The depositions taken in the former suit were read in the present instance. From the evidence it appeared that Mr. Lindsay was a midshipman in the navy at the time of his marriage ; he then be came a sporting man, drank a good deal, came home late at night, and soon after the marriage com menced a course of habitual adultery with women. of the town at Plymouth. He swore at and abused his wife without any provocation at all, and among other acts of cruelty he used to pinch her in bed., hold her down by the throat until she was nearly strangled, throw candlesticks at her, and knock her down. On one occasion he was going to a fancy ball at Devonport dressed as a brigand, and be cause his wife declined to go in a similar dress, he grew outrageous, took her and her mother by the throat, and held them both against the wall until their screams brought people to their assistance. He had also dragged the petitioner out of bed, and struck her until her nose bled, and then he had gone into a spare bed-room, and sat at the open window playing on the bugle for some hours. The depositions with regard to the adultery were also read, and they fully established the case set up by Mrs. Lindsay. Their lordships decreed the dissolution of the marriage, with costs. SALERS AND li.EENAN IN MAN- CHESTER. Yesterday afternoon the two redoubtable cham pions of the P.R. exhibito themselves at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, on which occasion, not withstanding the high price of admission (10s., 55., and 2s. 6d.), there was a good attendance. The entertainment consisted, btesides a sparring exhibi- tion, or " set to" between, Sayers and Heenan, of athletic and acrobatic feats by Messrs. Murray and Hyer, and the ceremony of presentation of belts. There was a band also prehent. Mr. J. M. Morris presided and read the ad dresses. Of course the great thing was the sparring, by which both men showed their tact, talent, and science. Six rounds were sparred. In Round 1, both men severe well up, and after some hitting and stopping?-, Heenan's long arm suc ceeded in reaching Tom's nouth, and the latter fell, not through the blow so \ much as a step on the platform, for at the time hes was struck he was giv ing back. 2d Round—Heenan was again on Tom's face. 3d Round—A good deal of feinting, and at last Sayers lunged out, hit Heenan on the face, and nearly knocked him down. 4th Round—Blows exchanged on the face. sth Round—Sayers on Heenan's face again. 6th Round—The hitting was really grand in this last round. Three several times did Heenan hit Sayers on the forehead, and as many times did Sayers hit Heenan. Both men came to close quar ters, and then retired, whereupon they were loudly cheered and recalled. COUNTRI' MARKETS. COLHCESTER—JUNE 2. The weather is very unsettled, with heavy rain to-day. A ,small supply of wheat, and last week's prices advanced from is to 2s per qr. Spring corn unchanged. Wheat, white s6s to 63s Beans, Mazagan..37s to 40 . 4 red 48s to 54s Middle & small 40s to 44s Barley 36s to 50s White peas 3Bs to 40s Oats 2os to 28s Grey.. 38s to 40a IRD-JUNE 1. d' wheat to-day, and the best tes ; inferior not dearer; but firm. Oats and barley were Peas, Partriage 41s to 42s White 41s to 439 Boiling 4ls to 449 Dun 36s to 399 Beans, Tick 4ls to 449 Harrow Ticks 44s to 47 9 Mazagan 38s to 403 CIIELMSFO: There was a short supply of samples realised is on late rat a dull trade. Peas and beans at late rates. Wheat. white 44s to 59s red 43s to Ms Barley 37s to 47s Chevalier 4ls to 51s Grinding 31s to 36s Malt 61s to 67s Chevalier 64s to 69s Oats 31s to 40s KIRKALDY-JUNE 2. Here to-day we had moderate supplies of wheat, with sales slow at fully late rates. Oats in small supply sales quick, at late rates. Only one parcel of barley. Wheat Barley Oats First.... 50s Od —s Od 28s Od Second .. 55s Od —s Od 31s Od Third .. 58s Od Od 32s Od COAL MARK (Prim of Coal per Ton at s. d. ET—JUNE 4. the close of the market.) Walls End. Byass's Bebside West Hartley ....15 9 Davison's West Hart- s. 0• Heugh Hall 16 0 Stewart's 17 6 Eden 16 0 Acorn Close l6 0 8yr0n....16 0 Eden Main...l6 0 Wharucliffe l6 0 Hetton l7 6 South Whitworth 15 0 Haswell..... 17 9 Thorpe Framwellgate l6 0 Russell's Hetton 16 6 Tunstall Carway and Duthyn Malting 22 6 :, 49—Sold, 40. ley ....15 Holywell 15 Howard's West Hart- _ ley _ 15 9 Tanfield Moor Butes l3 3 Lambert's West Hart ley 15 9 Wylam l5 6 West Hartley l5 9 Llangennech 2l 0 Walls End. South Hartlepool. 16 0 Belmont .. l5 3 Ships at marker THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and. Mauritius (via South ampton).. .. .. Juno 10. Do. (via Marseilles) June 4. Bahamas and Havana (via New York) June 7. Canada, &c. (via Cork) .. .. June 7. Cape of Good Hope, &c. July 1. China, Penang, an Singapore (via S'ampton) June 18. Do. (via Marseille) June 12. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. June 10. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) June 18. Do. (via Marseilles) June 12. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) • • . • June 4. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. .. June 5. Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto June 11. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. June 4. United States, California, &c. (%ia Cork) .. June 6. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe . • June 10 West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. June 14. SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.—During the week ending Jude 2, 1860, the visitors have been as follows :-- Mornings, 12,443; evenings, 7,380. Total from the open ing of the Museum, 1,476,350. B 1 It 1' H 8. DAVENPORT.—On the 3d inst., at 11, Charterhouse-square, the wife of Captain Devonport, of a daughter. lIEUBEILT.—On the 2d inst., at Vauxhall, the wife of the R ev . G. W. Herbert, of a daughter. WINTHROF.—On the 3d inst., at Botley, Hants, the wife of Commander George Winthrop, R.N., of twin dangl' ters. MARRIAGES. BROWN—SHERWOOD.—On the 31st ult., at Cheltenham, Lieutenant-Colonel Salim: 1 James Browne, Indian Army, to Lucy, second daughter of the Late R. C Sherwood , Esq., of Suffolk Lawn, Cheltenham. KNIGHT — WEDLAKE.—On the 2d inst., at St. Pancras Church, Cha r l es C o ll ar d Knight, Esq., to Katharine Isabel, third daughter of the late H. B. Wedlake, Esq., of the Temple, solicitor. DEATH S. B REWERTON.—On the 2d inst., Malvern M. Brewerton, Esq., of Croydon, aged 31. COLLINSON.—On the 30th March, at sea, on board of her Majesty's s hip ll ermes , Li eu t. T. B. Collinson, R.N oldest son of the Rev. 11. K. Collinson. LEM lITON.—On the Ist inst., at Bafford House, near'Chel tenham, General. Sir David Leighton, Bart., K.G,8., of the Indian Arny, aged 86. MOORE.—On the Ist inst., at 9, Clarges-street, James C. , . Moore, of Corswall, Wigtonshire, N.B , aged 98. SI - calm—On the Ist inst., at Painswick, Gloucestershire, Colonel George Stuart, aged 75. TORRENTS.—On the 2d inst., at 16, Porchester-terrace N., Kensington-gardens, John Samuel Torrens, Esq., late a Judge of the Smlder Court, Bengal. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNu of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Time Sun Office, No. IV , Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count/ O f Middleser, Tuesday, Awe 6, 1860. f