The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-08 00:00:00

lation. until the results of ti le census of next year were as certained, and thus by a c spice which had been by no means unusual in the cou xa 3 of that debate, they were met on the motion for going i nto ►committee, by an amendment the evident intention .of of hich was to defeat the bill altogether. (Hear, hear.) The honourable and gal lant baronet, however, the n 1 .ember for Ayrshire, could not be content with that. It w( mid have met his views if the English bill had beenwith& -awn, but nothing would satisfy him but the indefinite ad.} ournment of the debate itself. Well, with regard to the 7 rithdrawal of the two bills, did the hon. gentleman dou'et t hat if he and other hon. gentle • men would help them to g o into committe, and to consider there the details of the English bill, it would be possible to pass it ? (Cheers and 'atwitter from the Opposition.) The Irish and Scotch bills were withdrawn because, simply, there was no time to pass t them. And why was there no time? That was a gut tstion. he did not stop to answer. (Derisive laughter from tl ie o,pposition.) Well, they were told at the same time 1 t there was no enthusiasm in favour of this bill among - the people. (Cheers from the Opposition). That was true to a great extent if they adopted the standard of 1' B 32, and the reason was that the abuses which culminated in that year were, to a great ex tent, swept away by the measure then passed. (Renewed cheers from the Oppositii m.) A nation did not stir until it had good and sufficient ground for its doing so, and he should be sorry to see t' be nation stirring from a sense of oppression. (Hear, hear...) He was glad that they were now living in a time wh en they were free to discuss the question without excite raent, and nothing could inspire them with greater hope I !or the future than that fact. Let them, therefore, profit I )3 , present tranquillity before they got into troublous times„ wi'dch even next year might over take them. He would orJy now say that he hoped the house would not think: of committing itself to a motion destitute of substantial meaning, but consent to do its best for the satisfactory settlement of the question before it. (hear, hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE. said it appeared to him that the hon. and learned gen' Item= who had just spoken on this question with the ability which distinguished him, had affected to misunilerstand the question before the house. That question w as substantially this—whether the Go • -vernment, after proposing to Parliament a measure con signals .r r.rtf4, and pc.,,-.:4-tiTie the subject to stand for several, months in that position, were to be allowed to cause tw o of those bills to disappear, in order to reappear at another time, and under circumstances which might in volve thenecessity of further debate in that house. (Hear.) The noble lord assured the house some time ago that an Irish and Scotch bill should be brought in, but now they .disappeared, and he thought the English bill should dis appear also. The hon. member for Lanarkshire wished to have more members for his county, but if the English bill - passed that would be impossible. The noble lord at the head of. the Government, who was one,of the most enthu siastic reformers of the ago—(laughter)—could inform him of that fact. He thought the noble lord had quite enough to du at the present moment without touching their old Constitution. He had to keep Russia quiet, to console Belgium, to lament over Switzerland, and to conciliate or confront France as the case may be, instead of introducing - these Reform Bills. No doubt the noble lord was right in introducing the three bills together; but he wished to know why it was that course was departed from in the present ine tance. Mr. BRIGHT said he did not know that he was wiser than:anybody else with regard to , the aim of that discus sion ; but with regard to its object there could be no mis ;take. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") They had one amendment tripping up another. (Hear, hear.) The first was moved by an hon. member at that (the Ministerial) side of the house, and proved rather tempting to hon. gentlemen op posite ; but having since examined it, they came to the conclusion that to move the rejection of the bill on such grounds would be false and injurious, and they therefore ;got up the amendment brought forward that evening. (Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) Last year the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire proposed a bill on this subject, and the right hon. gentleman either thought the question an important one. or he played false to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman thought it so important that he proposed to add 500,000 electors to the constituency of the United • Kingdom. He knew that the right hon. gentleman said, and his supporters repeated, that he did not take these 500,000 electors in a gross lump, as the noble lord proposed to do by this bill. (Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Op position.) The sight hon. gentleman informed the house - that his plan was to select all the good men everywhere, cad from these good, intellectual, and reverential and Con servative eitiv.ens make up this body of 500,000 men to add to the present electors. The question which he (Mr. Bight) would like to ask was this :—Where did these .500,000 men live? They did not live in housys above £lO 'rental, because they had already the suffrage. They did not live in houses with a rental between £lO and £6 a-year, because they would be enfranchised by the bill of the noble lord . These intelligent gentlemen were not citizens—they vmre net heads of families ; they were not householders. .They were not of the number whichthe noble lord intended to include by his bill, but were to be found , somewhere else, chaps living in tents, by some ingenious mode of fancy Itittanehises, which was to pick them out. The right hon. -gentleman oven stated that he would go further than his bill proposed, and would reduce the franchise in the borouglls ; and more than that, he admitted the claims of the w orking classes to the franchise, and said that he would them with generosity and sincerity. (Opposition e.:taeers.) He was glad to hear there was anybody on that side of the house animated by the same feeling. (Renewed cheers) More than that, the right hon. gentleman was understood to have given a distinct pledge to certain mem bers of the house, not that he would do just that, but that Ihe emuld do it in this particular shape, if he was enabled !leering forward a bill again; that was, if the present Go ernment were not able after the general election to dis lodge the right hon. gentlemen from office, he would bring in a bill giving a £lO rental franchise to the counties, and a£6 rental franchise to the boroughs. (Hear, and cries of "Oh, oh!") Mr. DISRAELI was sorry to interrupt the hon. gentle- Imam while speaking, but his generalargument was founded won a statement which was entirely fallacious. What tt.be hon. gentleman had stated with regard to the words used by him in that house was correct enough, but any thing the hon. gentleman had said which he had heard from hearsay, he (Mr. Disraeli) begged to ray was perfectly un founded. (Opposition cheers.) He had never made a state ment directly or indirectly at ail inconsistent with what he lad stated in that house. (Renewed cheers from the Oppo tion.) • Mr. BRIGHT said that if what he had stated was cor- rect, he should not hold it to be inconsistent with the sen. timents expressed by the right hon gentleman in the house, He had his information from speeches which had been de livered by members of that house in various parts of the teountry after the last session of Parliament. (Loud cries 'of " Oh, oh.") He of course would not hold the right hon., gentleman to that statement after what had just been We, —(hear, hear)—but at the same time the house wotild ad mit that when members had stated it elsewh.n.e. (No, no, Name, name, Order, order.) Well, it 'would be very easy to read extracts from the speectes. (Renewed tieis of " Name, name," " Where; w.'aere," from the Opposition.) lie was willing to take P:ie atatemeptt`f the right hon. gen tleman, that there was some mislinderstanding with regard o it, but if hon members Wished to hear what was said in one speech tie could easily refer to it. Ina speech made by the hon. memtoor for Snnderland (Mr. Lindsay) in August :last year, he stated in the most explicit terms that one of the considerations on which he had given his support to the Government of Lord Derby was this—that in regard to Re- Zorm, the late Government should declare that they were - prepared to bring in a bill which should :provide for the borougbs a £6 rental franchise, and for the counties a £lO rental franchise, and that at least 30 of the smaller boroughs should be disfrPnchiSed. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) These were the coo ditions of the hon. member when he gave his consent to oppose the party move headed by Lord John Russell . C 4 tr tain JERVIS—That statement was contradicted at tha 'time. (Hear, hear, and a cry from several members on tly, Opposition, " By Lord Derby.") Mr. BRIGHT said—Coming on this session, the right hon. member for Bucks had been himself to a certain point not inconsistent with this statement, because if the house would remember the tone and the matter of a speech deli vered by the right hon. member on the question, they would find that his intelligent judgment led him to the conclusion that it might not be evil to endeavour to settle the question this session, on the basis proposed by the pre sent Government. Did not the right hon. gentleman say ho should move no amendment on the second reading ? (hear, hear)—and - farther, he went on to say that he doubted extremely whethea: he should think it necessary or desirable to offer any amendments in committee. (Hear, hear.) All this had been to - him (Mr. Bright) eminently satisfactory, • because it showed that the man most eminent on the Op position side of Cie house, the man most competent to form an opinion, and, the most far-seeing as to the Views and wants of th e co entry, did not materially differ with her gri Js eved ' ow n Gove rnment on thi s i m p or t an t su bj ect. R e I taken another to find that the right hon. gentleman sad mrse—a course not into which he Is led by his Party , but' into which he had been cl*: .ad been "even by the more violent ( if hi s cuinentSupp42r-ters. (Hear.) looked at the e positten of the rig: And when he how clearly:eeatmus,t ,ec‘ —when ho felt At hon.. gentleman what ought to be done with regard to this ' the right hon. gf mtlernan w as sii"°"ject, he lamented that -oat able to persuade his fol lowers, to a courE e as enlig,ht oi and as sensible as that he was prepared to take hie ise e l h f_. e (Rear hear.) He had la mented to see ti at, into. a the right hon. n(lftters undertasked gentleman was " t° Urind of brarzeof with that heaves ed stre ngth." hon. members o ppos.fte the, if theymfoalnloywodrLth.lle :;„ .: 1 3 gra sur e e n i of the right le In. gentle man on questions they would fi rLd that they ` 11 "e se c t ae,ed son with the wi shee and the true kterests of more people. Be should like to ask ti me attention of the houst4 points. Withaut going ,to the census of 1861 they e Octu a few that the population of ~he kingdom would be shown by next census to be 30,000,000, and they all knew yththaet 7,500,000 of those we se men of 21 years and upwards. They also knew that at p . resent not more than 1,000,000 could come up to vote, s Ad they kilow.thit CYtni 4g916,94 THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY -EVENING,' JUNE 8, 1860. those who were in the army and navy, and for those who were incapacitated from pauperism or crime, that there were 6,000,000 of men to whom parliament had not con ceded the right of suffrage. Now, the bill :of the noble lord proposed to make a slight advance—it 1 reposed to open the door to, it might be, 300,000, and on a very ex treme calculation 400,000, throughout the Matted King- dom. He believed it would be 300,000, and believed it would not be 400,000. Well, if it were 300,000 it was only opening the door so far, that 1 in 20 of those now excluded would be allowed to come in. Did they think that any body could believe that the terror and alarm they had en- Pressed were well founded ? It was utterly impossible. He did not believe that any man in the house or out of it who was told that 1 in 20 of these persons was admitted to vote could honestly say that that was a measure perilous to the country or to the constitution in any sense. He thought he might take that to be almost agreed on. There were some things which had been asserted, and he wished to allude to one or two of them. It had been asserted during this discussion, over and over again, that the admissionof this number, and therefore, he might almost say of any number of men over the 1,000,000 was to give up the representation of the country and the power of Parliament to classes altogether unworthy of it ; and if he might adopt the language of the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertfordshire, which he employed in one of the most eloquent and elaborate speeches ever heard in that house—aspeech of which every word had been considered over and over, and therefore, it was not delivered off-hand in the heat of debate—in that speech it was asserted that to open the door to 1 in 20 it was to hand over the Parliamentary government and power of the United Kingdom to what he designated as poverty and pas sion. He could not allow himself to speak of that phrase of the right hon. gentleman in language which constantly came to his lips when he spoke of it. But the noble lord the mem ber for the city the other night quoted from an article in a periodical which was assumed to represent hon. gentlemen opposite. He was rather surprised to find the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire appeared'to take some offence at it, for he (Mr. Bright) believed that the noble lord honestly thought that it was most friendly and most complimentary to him. Such he (Mr. Bright) understood to be the tenor of the observation. It was said —he knew not with what truth—that that article was written by the noble lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil). He be lieved the authorsht_was first indicated by the tone of the noble luta wl4li- rv s ord to tho soneral policy of the right hon. gentleman. In that article he understood the author to say this, that the course of policy , they were now using—that the result of such a measure as'this would leave the Government of the country the blessed choice between debauchery and crime. He referred to the public houses. Now as the publichouses at this moment were 10 per cent. of the whole number of houses, seeing that as they were all now admitted to the franchise if this bill passed, and half as many electors as now were admitted, it was clear that the proportion of publichouses would be reduced from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. Now he would ask the house to . consider those three statements—the one made by the right hon. member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Lytton) another assumed to be made by the noble lord, and the statement of the right hon. gentlemad, that there was danger that persons admitted to the franchise would combine and conspire against all the institutions of the country. Now he would ask, what did that argument lead them to. Why, it led them to this, that six-sevenths—that six millions of seven—of the grown men of the United Kingdom are suffer ing and passionate, according to the arguments of the right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire. They are sunk in debauchery and crime—that was the argument of the Quarterly Review; and that they are ready to combine against all the existing institutions of the country, and against all the classes above them, was the prime and sole argument of the long speech of the right hon. gentleman the leader of gentlemen opposite. Well, if that were the case, he (Mr. Bright) was free to confess that he should despair of the future of this coun try ; but he would undertake to show that house that the tes tituony was not worth the slightest credit. He would under take to say that he knew a great deal more of the working classes, and especially of those in the north of England, to whom this bill would more especially refer, than the right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, or the author of the article in the Quarterly Review. Excepting the many sessions in which he had the honour—it might be honour—but certainly the ill fortune to spend in that house, he had for thirty years at least been in daily communication with those classes—he had lived amongst them ; many of them were his play mates when he was a boy ; he had super intended their labour, and had paid their wages. He had had as great an opportunity as any man in that house of knowing what were the opinions and wishes with regard to 'those great political questions which that houle had to discuss. (Hear, hear.) At that moment they had a season which was not very favourable. They had very cold weather for the month of June, the rain fell incessantly, and if that inclemency continued throughout the month, the cycle of good harvests would be at an end, and they would come to the time of two or three bad harvests. Let them further conceive, not a war—hon. gentlemen opposite always seemed trading in war—he supposed some political party policy was to be carried out in the fear of war. It was not eo much war on the Continent that they had to fear as insurrection and revolution, and insurrection and revolution abroad lighted up the fire of great excitement in England—(hear)—and it could not be avoided as long as men were men, and had the sympathies of men. Why, there was the noble lord (Lord Elcho) who sometimes sat below him—he (Mr. Bright) did not know where he then sat—he supposed he was with the volunteers. (Laughter.) What did the noble lord say, addressing those gentlemen who were to defend the country against an imaginary foe. He talked about the lion-hearted Garibaldi ; and he said, "he goes to snap the chains which bind the tsicilians." He (Mr. Bright) did not object to the phraseology.; but when they found a man who had never said a syllable about giving a vote to one of his countrymen, expressing this enthusiasm for the achievements of Garibaldi and the liberation of Sicily, what must be the effect of those events abroad upon the great mass of their countrymen, who were supposed not to be under so much mental control as the noble lord or other members of that house f He (Mr. Bright) said then that the time might come when their rashness would give way to terror, and the accusations they -had brought against the working classes might be thought un safe, and something like flattery might take their place. Now, ho did not say that would come in the least. Where ever there had been a public meeting held since this moderate proposition was brought into the house— meetings of which they were quite ignorant, if they only read the Tintes—(loud latighter)—they would find that there had beta expressed at those meetings a great feeling of satisfaction and a strong wish that Parlia meht should pass the bill during the present session. Would hon. gentlemen opposite refuse their sanction to a measure in which there was nothing perillous, but every thing moderate and constitutional. If hon. gentlemen oppo site were disposed to refuse this bill, they did not refuse it in it manly way: If the bill were refused the people of this country who were most affected by its provision, would say that they had been treated with distrust, and that some hon. members had used language towards them as if they had acted in a manner to be deplored rather than applauded. The right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, in one of his works published some time ago, said, " Who knows the greatness of the generosity of the people of Eng land ?" and he did that which he (Mr. Bright) would not do, he excluded from that phrase the nobility,who were the Government of the country. He (Mr. Bright) said that the people were generous and industrious, and in their in dustry he saw the wealth and greatness of the upper classed. (Hear.) He was not less the friend of the upper classes than of the working classes when he implored them with all the power which he could put into words to pass this bill, and to treat their countrymen with generosity and with justice. (Cheers.) Sir H. CAIRNS said there were few subjects which the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham was not per fectly acquainted with, and with that before the house he was eminently so. But he had not touched upon the real question before the house. There was only one reason why he would not rather make a speech on the subject before the house. (Oh, oh.) The hon. gentleman the member for Bir mingham made a speech against the third reading of the bill before the house. He thought it possible he might not have an opportunity of making a speech upon the third reading of the bill, and he took advantage of the present oc casion to make that speech now. He would not now consi der whether there would be a third reading of the bill ; but he would proceed to make a few observations on the question which was really before the house. The question which had been before the house was for the amendment of the repre sentation of the people. That was the question; but on Monday night the noble lord, on the pelt of the Govern ment, said !the question before the house was not the representation of the people generally, but simply the representation of the people of England, as the two bills for Ireland and Scotland vrtre to be postponed. (Hear, hear.) Now he wished tb make some observations upon the gries tion of ordP:r, Upon the question of going into committee on tk-e 'bill before the honed there were several notices on the Parer with respect to instructions to be given to the com mittee, and these instructions had relation to various altera tions affecting net only the English, but the Irish and Scotch bide also. The noble lord opposed the reception of those instructions, on the ground that they applied to the whole of the United Xingdom, whereas the bills of Ireland and Scotland were not before the house. Lord S. BUSSE LL dissented, and was understood to say that the Spettibr had decided aginst these instructions on the ground of their te - ,pia r ity ; Sir H. CAIRNS c.iid Le 'neard the noble lord himself say, after the speaker had decided against the instructions on the ground of their irregularity, and after the hon. gentle ma:.l nad proposed to amend his instruction which ho was moving by inserting the words " United Kingdom," that these words Were tt greater irregularity, because the bill before the house related to England only, whereas the pro posed resolution extended to the United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) The house bowed to the decision of the right hon. gentleman in the chair, but what he wished to know was this, was it right in the noble lord to hear that decision, and then wait until his hon. friend had made the alteration in by describing before he cam e f orwar d t o o bj ec t t o th a t a lteration, it a s a further irreoularity because it cot dd not apply to the bill before the house ? (Hear, hear.) . 4 mud), for the quoltiou order, As would Row refer to tke question of the representation of the people. When the noble lord gave up the Irish and Scotch bills he might have said the whole question could not be put into one bill. Looking at all the circumstances, he thought the noble lord, who seemed to have abandoned the Scotch and Irish bills, ought also, in consistency, to abandon at the present ad vanced period of the session the English bill, and not longer urge the house to go into committee upon it. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMEB:STON—The hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down commenced by rebuking the hon. member for Birmingham for having departed frdm the sub- ject-matter of this debate—for having made on the question whether the house should adjourn a speech which he said belonged to the third reading of the bill. And the expla nation which he was good enough to give for that proceeding of the hon. member for Birmingham was that, being satis fied the bill never would come to a third reading, he was anxious to deliver now a speech which he would not have an opportunity of delivering on the proper occasion. .But the hon. and learned gentleman, with the most marvellous inconsistency, has fallen into the very error which he un justly imputed to the hon. member for Birmingham. (Hear.) He has made to-night a speech which properly belonged to the committee on the bill ; and he has done so for a better reason than that which he attributed to the hon. member rer Birmingham; for, whereas that hon. member, assure. ing, as he ssYs, that the bill would not be allowed to go to a third reading, has anticipated that stage by his speech to night, the hon. and learned gentleman, on the other hand, being determined, for himself and his friends, that this measure shall not go into committee, founded upon his own decision, which he flatters himself he will be able to carry into effect, has anticipated by a speech adapted for the com mittee that stage of the bill which he and his friends have resolved it shall never reach. (Hear.) But the hon. and learned gentleman was not merely inconsistent. If I may be permitted to say so, he was also guilty of a gross act of insubordination. (A laugh.) It belongs to the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire, on the eve of the prorogation, _ _ to perform the operation usually termed a review of the ses sion. But the hon. and learned gentleman, at the beginning of June, has not only entered into a review of the session— (cheers and counter cheers)—in which he assumed to him- self the functions of the leader of his own side of the house, but he has actually trenched upon our duties, for he has like wise executed "the massacre of the innocents." (Laughter.) The hon. and learned gentleman, besides diverging from the proper subject of debate by discussing the details of the bill, which ought to be reserved for the committee, went into a still wider range of digression, by discussing all the measures that have been proposed in the course of the ses sion, some of which have already been, while others of them have not yet been, submitted to this house. ("-Hear," from the Opposition.) Nor was that all. The hon. and learned member enumerate the blessings which were to have been, or which actually had been, showered down upon us in the present year; but there is one blessing which he omitted to specify—l mean the gift of tongues. (Laughter and cheers.) The amplitude and excess with which that bles sing has been bestowed upon the other side of the house has been the main reason why:we have been deprived of the full enjoyment of all those other good things to which he has referred. (Renewed cheers.) If we have reached the beginning of June without having even got into committee on a bill which the hon. and learned gentleman accuses us of hurrying through the house—(a laugh)—what has been the cause of this ? Why, we have been incessantly inter rupted by delays purposely interposed tq obstruct the pro gress of a measure which those who wish thus to impede it have not dared openly to attack. (Cheers.) Sir, I really desire to call the attention of the house to the condition in which we are. (Opposition cheers and a laugh.) The hon. and learned gentleman appealed to the house to rescue it self from the undignified position in which it was placed. I entirely concur with him. I, too, entreat the house to rescue itself from what I do think a most undignified posi tion. Does the house mean to pass a Reform Bill or does it not ? (Laughter and cheers, and counter cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman ended by asking a string of questions. I also wish to ask a question—viz., whether the house is of opinion that a reform in the representation is proper and right, or whether it is determined that there shall be no such Reform ? (Cheers) The course adopted since the introduction of this bill would lead any reason able man to say that the house was resolved there should be no Reform Bill—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition)—or none at least during the present session ; and it seems to me that the arguments we now hear would equally apply to any subsequent year in which a similar measure might be pro posed. Let me beseech the house, then, to consider a little the position in which public men stand in reference to this question. As long as the proposal of reform originated on one side of the house and was resisted on the other, as long as it was doubtful what might be the influence of argument or what might be the effect of a dissolution and re •eleatien upon the strength of the two great parties, it was justifiable for those who opposed reform to oppose it on principle—to object at every stage of every bill brought in to carry out an arrangement which they thus steadfastly and determinedly resisted. But is that the position of the question now ? We have had, as was stated by the hon. member for Birmingham, not only many and repeated announcements from the Throne recommending the reform of the representation to the con sideration of the house, but we have no distinction in prin ciple between the two parties in this house. From the mo ment Lord I)erby's Administration proposed a Reform Bill, and that bill was supported by the whole Conservative party, it was impossible that the House of Commons cou'd consistently and permanently refuse to pass a bill for the re form of the representation. (Hear, hear.) And therefore those who sit on that side of the house are precluded from taking a course inconsistent with the conduct of their leaders and their own conduct in support of those leaders. (Hear, hear.) And I say it is not a straightforward or manly course—(loud cheers)—to endeavour by delay to oppose the passing of a measure to the principle of which they are as much pledged as those who sit on this side of the house. (Cheers.) What is it they objectto ? The bill that we have proposed is acknowledged to be very simple in its provisions. (Ironical cheers.) Yes, sir, no man can deny that. (Cheers.) It contains for its leading enactments the reduction of the borough franchise, the reduction of the county franchise, and the transfer of seats. If the hon. gentlemen entertained the objections to the bill which they nowexpress so strongly, why did they not oppose the second reading of the bill ? (Cheers.) Every argument they now use went to resist the second reading, and I say they ought to have objected to the second reading. They did not do so, and they admitted, therefore, the principle of lowering these franchises and a certain transfer of seats, and their arguments consequently entirely turn on the details and the degree to which these arrangements should be carried. Their arguments neces sarily carry them into committee. If they were consistent in their arguments, and if they were prepared to vote for the principle of a bill which reduced the borough franchise and the county franchise, and provided for the transfer of seats—if their objections were only to the extent to which any or all of these proposals were carried, I say that, hav ing voted for the second reading, they are bound to go into committee to establish thos3 objections in degree, and not in principle, which they feel to the different portions of the bill. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman, how ever, finds fault with my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) for stating that if when we get into committee the house should be of opinion that some modification ought to be made in the arrangements proposed, her Majesty's Govern ment Would not be so wedded to their bill as not fairly to consider any proposals of that kind. The hon. and learned gentleman says my noble friend is inconsistent, because when the late Government brought in their bill my noble friend proposed a resolution establishing a certain principle applicable to the bill they proposed. But the case is en tirely different. What was the bill of the late Govern ment ? They stated that the one fundamental principle of their bill on which it was founded was the identity of the county and borough franchise—(cheers)—that another principle equally essential to the bill was that county voters in all represented towns should be deprived of their county votes. If my noble friend had asked the house to go into committee with the intention of proposing an al teration of the fundamental principles of the bill of the late Government, it would have been childish and absurd. My noble friend therefore asked the house to resolve, before they went into committee, that these were not the principles upon which the bill ought to be founded. The late Government gave up their bill, and quite consis tently, because the resolution of my noble friend went to the fundamental principle of the bill. But the objections now taken do not go to the fundamental principles, but to the details and the degree to which these fundamental prin ciples are carried out. That being the case, the hon. and learned gentleman says WEI have been three months discuss ing the bill and have not got into Committee yet. Whose fault is that ? It is a little too Pnich l 0 those who inflict as f injury $v M ::.r o complaint.ak° that injury a et (Cheers and laughter.) The h olt and learner..l gentleman then says that the details are not satisfactory, that (laity has been bstablished In another place, and which ha~ not been instituted here. Well, has any one asked for that inquiry here ? Did any hon. gentleman who doubted these talctilationa ash for an inquiry, and did we resist it ? If such a proposal were not made, it Was competent for those who wished for an inquiry to propose it, and hon. gentle men are not entitled to make that a complaint until such a motion has been negatived. We have heard one hon. mem ber or another, having a knowledge of this or that borough, say that he had information which led him to think that there has been a difference, not very important, between the Jesuit of these returns as laid on the table and the result of his personal and local inquiries. But these are points to be urged in committee, and not upon the question of you, Sir, leaving the Chair ; and, indeed, the whole of the discussion, from the period when the bill was introduced to this even ing., embodies a series of objections which have been urged evidently for the purpose of creating delay, and a bill which hon. gentlemen did not venture to oppose 'on the second reading, they now feel themselves at liberty to oppose on the general grounds of the nature and tendency of the bill. We are now really come to a climax of these pro ceedings. (Cheers.) Hitherto, when a debate has been spun out to a great number of speeches, and the clock has arrived at a period of the nig ht when it was too late for continuing the debate, a motio n for the adjournment has been moved at an hour when it was impossible for the Government to refuse to acquiesce in the motion, with shoals of orators ready with their speeches to continue the debate. But this evening there has been a novelty, because the motion for the adjournment of the debate was made, not as loud at 12 o'clock at ;kilt, butat half-past four o'clock in• in the afternoon. An Anticipated lassitude, a foretold in- capacity of sitting out the debate came over hon. gentlemen opposite. (Laughter.) At half-past 4 they felt that it would be impossible to find strength of body or mind to go on with the debate, and they begged and entreated to be allowed to go home and prepare fresh speeches for these discussions. (Cheers and laughter.) There may be a very fair reason why gentlemen who during the last few days have been attend ing upon other amusements—(a laugh)—could not devote the time and attention necessary to prepare for the subject, but I do not think it is a decorous motion to make to the House of Commons upon a question of great national im- portance. ' (Cheers.) This motion was founded upon some thing which my noble friend stated a few nights ago re specting the bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland. He stated that the prolongation of these discussions, the pres sure of public business, and the period of ,the session ren dered it unlikely that we should this session be able to dis pose not only of the English but also of the Scotch and Irish bills ; and, that being the case, the Government thought that no public inconvenience could arise from post poning until next' session the discussion of the Irish and Scotch bills. The hon. and learned gentleman talked as if it was supposed we were going to abandon the Irish and Scotch bills. My noble friend did not make any such statement. His statement had reference simply to the order of proceed- ing, and to the fact that if we were able to pass the English bill this session it would be too late to take up the Irish and Scotch bills, which would, therefore, have to be left till the ensuing session. The hon. and learned gentleman says he has placed us between the horns of a dilemma, because either we shall or shall not have to advise the Crown to dis solve Parliament after the English bill is passed ; and he points out what, in his opinion, would be objectionable and improper in either alternative. Undoubtedly, it would be a most unusual and preposterous course of proceeding for the Government, the moment the English bill has passed, to advise the Crown on that account to dissolve Parliament, in order that a new Parliament may take up the Irish and Scotch bills. Suppose, for instance, that that had happened which the Government might without any great exaggera. tion have expected—suppose that the whole house had given its mind fairly to consider this question, and had ap plied itself earnestly to settle a safe and proper measure then the English bill would have been passed at an early period of the session ; but would any man have supposed that upon that account, immediately after Easter, Parlia ment would have been dissolved in order that a new Parlia ment might consider the other twobilis ? Yet the argument used by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the postpone ment of the Irish and Scotch bills to next session would lead to that. (Hear.) They say, "If you pass the English bill this session, and therefore prospectively alter the Eng lish constituencies, then the Parliament elected by the old constituencies will not be entitled to come together next ses sion for the purpose of considering the other two measures." What difference in principle is there between a Parliament whose constituency has been prospectively altered going on in the same session to deal with the Irish and Scotch bills, to impose taxes, pass important laws affecting all the great interests of the country—what difference, I ask, is there be tween such a Parliament doing that and the same Parlia ment performing precisely the same operation when galled together after a recess ? lam at a loss to see the distinction. Therefore it by no means follows that because Parliament should in one year complete the English Reform Bill, this house should therefore be incompetent to sit again next year to dispose of the Irish and Scotch bills. It would certainly not be till these three bills had been passed that, on that account there would be any necessity for dissolving Par liament and appealing to the new constituency. Moreover, the new Reform Bill bestows on certain classes new rights which must be recorded by the registrar, and therefore until the new register has been made, even if all the three bills were passed, it is clear a dissolution could not on that account take place. I am astonished that the hon. and learned gentleman should have forgotten what passed in his own country in 1850. A great enlargement of the Tiish con stituency took place at that time. But there was no disso lution at that time. No dissolution took place till Lord Derby's Government came into office Rh 1852. So that for nearly two years Parliament went on after that prospective change had been made in the constituency of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it is absurd to contend that the course which my noble friend shadowed forth was one which could not be adopted consistently with constitutional principles and practice. It would be perfectly possible, and would in volve no impropriety whatever, for the house to pass the English Reform Bill this year, and to sit again next Janu ary or February, or at any other time that the Crown might be advised to call it together, for the purpose of going on with the Irish and Scotch bills ; the dissolution being postponed not only until these bills had been passed,'but until arrange ments had been made for the registrati n of the newly endowed voters. (Hear, hear.) I soy, therefore, that the ground on which this proposal is made will not hold water. But still more extraordinary is the inversion, which could not, in point of order, be proposed directly, but which the motion for adjournment is intended indirectly to effect— the inversion,'in my opinion, of putting the cart before the horse (a laugh) = that is, putting the Irish and Scotch bills before the English one. (Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) Allow me to say that was the object of the motion which was announced. (" No, no.") I presume the hon. member who made this motion will not get up and declare that his object in proposing to adjourn the debate sine die was to get rid of the bill altogether. The fact is, that this motion for the adjournment of the debate was substituted for the motion of which notice was given, that the English bill should be postponed till after the Irish and Scotch had been advanced a stage. The hon. and learned gentleman undesignedly showed forcible reasons why such a course would be impossible. He said the dis franchisement is in the English bill, and is to form the foundation for the enfranchisement in the Irish and Scotch bills. Consequently, you must pass the English bill before you can get the materials with which to endow Ireland and Scotland. (Hear.) The course recommended by hon. gentlemen opposite is, therefore, palpably impossible and absurd, and the course we propose is the only one we can with propriety pnrime. I say again, Ido trust the house will seriously consider the position which this question now occupies, and the attitude which parties on both sides of the house have assumed in regard to it. Is the house pre pare! to affirm that there shall be no reform in the repre sentation of the people ? I do not ask gentlemen on this side of the house—l know that they will never answer, "No," '—but I ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether, after all that has passed when their leaders were in office, they will venture to affirm that there shall be no reform in the re presentation of the people ? It is impossible. If, then, it be impossible, on what ground is it that they refuse to allow the house to go into the consideration of the bill which we have proposed ? I say, every argument they have used, every fact that stands recorded as to their conduct when their leaders were in office, compels them in consistency to go into committee. It is only in committee that they can establish those objections which liave been so strongly urged by every one who has spoken on the op posite side of the house to the details of the bill. We have told them we are ready to consider the details, and if the house agrees to any modification of these details consistent with the principles on which this bill is founded, we do not say that we shall not be prepared to submit to the decision of the house. But there are certain fundamental principles in the bill which we could not consent to have infringed, because that would destroy the measure altoge ther. One main principle of the bill is the reduction of the borough franchise. (Hear.) If hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to move that there should be no reduction of the borough franchise, they can do so. If they choose to say we refuse to go into committee and discuss the details of the bill when we object to its principles—we adhere to the prin ciple of Lord Derby's bill, that there should be no change in the rental qualification for the borough franchise ; if hon. gentlemen opposite would say that plainly and distinctly, then they would be pursuing a fair, manly, and intelligible course of proceeding. But they do not, they cannot take that course, because their leader and others who stand high inthe estimation of the party have pledged themselves to a reduction of the franchise. Two distinguished members of the late Government quitted their colleagues because, I be lieve, they were in favour of a reduction , of the borough franchise, while the rest were against it. Well, then, if hon. gentlemen are not prepared to throw the bill out alto gether on its merits and on the principles which A em bodies, I say they are acting a part utterly unworthy of a great political party when they endeavour by delay to pre vent the house from going into the consideration of a bill the importance of which they themselves when in office have admitted, the expediency of which when in office they have acknowledged and acted upon, the principle of which they no longer contest, and the details of which form the only ground of their objection. I say that upon every principle which ought to guide states men, upon every principle which ought to guide the conduct of a political party, they are bound to go into the 'consideration of this bill in committee and there urge those ‘-‘ieetions to the details of the measure which, no doubt, "onsistently and sincerely entertain . (Hear, hear.) they s. of year such as to make this i m possible ? It is Is the timb th later, no doubt, .an it might have been. ( A lau g h.) If manly principles which they had acted on tii..lse fair and political arty, there rY t , there might have ought to guide a great the con duct of a party been more time to spare. Is of the property this -- which claims to represent the grew: of the corn n I saysuch a that the- fair, the proper, and th e manly course for and intelligence of the country —that portio party to have followed was either to have said at once " Your bill is one to the principle of which we can never agree, and therefore we object to the second reading ;" or, if they did not entertain that opinion, to ,have said—" The principle of your bill is one to which we cannot object, but to the details we do object; the franchise is too low; it will introduce too large a proportion of the democratic element into the constituencies, but as that is a question to be con sidered in committee, we will go at once into committee and endeavour to enforce our objections and establish our opinions." (Hear.) But such a party should not under the shadow of a pretence of discussing without dividing obstruct the whole of the great business of the country and prevent those measures being carried which the hon. and learned gentleman says are so important, and some of which, in spite of all these delays, I hope, we shall be able to carry before the session is concluded. (Cheers.) That is the course which such a party, having a due respect to its posi tion, and a due regard to the interests of the country, should have followed, (tioar,tear.) A gafAina Ili br9us4t ftrward at 4 o'clock in the afternoon to prevent discussion, which those who moved the adjournment seem, nevertheless, pre- pared t-1 bring on; and I hope that the House, by rejecting that motion, will affirm that this bill ought to proceed— (cheers)—that they are prepared to go intocommittee, that they are prepared in committee to hear, to discuss, and to consider all objections which can be fairly and bona fide made to the details of the bill, and this house will not, under the ill-founded apprehension of two dissolutions, which is entertained on the other side, or under the appre- hension of a premature dissolution, be diverted from the straight path of public duty, but before the house separates, come to a vote which will show, one way or the other, what is the opinion of the honsuwith regard to the measure be• fore it. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI.—I can congratulate the noble lord on the first speech which he has made on the Reform Bill (cheers), and I am not at all surprised that he should have fallen into some remarkable errors when speaking on the subject, because I think that hitherto he has taken less in terest than might have been anticipated from a Minister so peculiarly responsible for the introduction of this measure. It is only because the noble lord has not until this night taken that'part in the debates, that I can at all account for that total misconception of the business of the house with respect to this measure for the last three months which has characterised every statement of the noble lord. (Cheers.) What is the complaint of the noble lord ? The noble lord does not deny that the business of the house with regard to the measure has been carried on in a most unsatisfac- tory manner. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord does not deny that we are advanced in the month of June, and have not yet arrived at committee on this bill. The noble lord is astonished at the position in which his Government is placed with respect to this measure, and then the noble lord•—with great precipitation and Brea' rashness, as I think I shall show to the house—falls to scolding the house, and says the delay which he has experienced has been unreasonable, unconstitutional, and irrational. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Not being suffi ciently acquainted with the conduct of this measure, which has been left to ethers, the noble lord thinks of course that the delay has been occasioned entirely by the Opposi tion. Why, it was only on Monday last that the Govern ment proposed to go into committee. (Cheers.) Here we are discussing the question upon Thursday, and the noble lord accounts for the little progress which the measure has made by the vexatious delays experienced, when it is on the records of this house that the Government themselves, having the management of the business of the house, hav ing generally all the days which are usually devoted to private members entirely at its disposal, only last Monday proposed to go into committee. (Cheers.) But before the appointment of last Monday let us see what was the con duct of this house, What was the conduct of this factious opposition seeking every delay and opposing to this consti tutional proposition of the Minister all the devices which the forms of the house will permit to prevent the progress of a measure, of which the noble lord is so enamoured ? Does the noble lord complain that the second reading was not op posed ? (Cheers.) Is that a sign of faction ? Is that a means of delay ? (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Does the noble lord complain that upon so important a measure— edmitting, as he says we eo, the principle of this bill, the house—not the Opposition merely—should have taken that constitutional and solemn occasion to discuss what may be the consequences of the application of that principle in its various details, as they occurred to them in the course of that discussion ? Was a debate of five days' length so unreasonable ? Was that a space of time so unusual for a discussion' upon such a subject that the noble lord is justified in turning round upon the house and accusing it of delay ? (Several hon. Members. —Six days.) Whether five or six days, who are responsible for the length of that discussion ? (Cheers.) Is it the Opposition? I think it was stated, and correctly stated, that in numbers, and, I believe, also in length, the majority of speeches were mado by the supporters of the noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord turns round and says, that there is only one question to ask, " Are you in favour of a Reform Bill or not ?" I say that if the noble lord wants information upon that subject, I recommend him to apply that inquiry to the hon. member for the city of Edinburgh. (Cheers.) Let the noble lord ask him whether he is in fa vour of a Reform Bill. He sits in immediate vicinity and is in close political contiguity and sympathy with the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) For all I know he sits behind the noble lord, and he can ask the question in a whisper. (Laughter.) If the noble lord is not satisfied with the opinion of the re presentative of that enlightened capital, the modern Athens, let him ask the member for Bristol what is his opinion, and whether he is in favour of the Government Reform Bill. (Cheers.) And if the 'hon. member for Bristol in polite con versation indulges in that invective and sarcasm for which he is publicly distinguished, I would recommend the noble lard to address his inquiry to a graver mind—to the hon. gentleman who must share his confidence, because he owes to his patronage his exalted post—the member for Salford. (Loud cheers.) Let him ask the member for Salford whether he is in favour of Parliamentary Reform. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord may address this question to a number of gentle men on his side of the house. Here, perhaps, we have taken refuge in more general views. Wi have stated some large constitutional objections to the course adopted by the noble lord and his colleagues. But, for minute criticism—for vigi lant eaptiousness, for a degree of devotion to details which appear to be prompted by a sentiment of personal panic, I should say that the great Liberalparty were mcre guished than the gentlemen who sit on the Opposition benches (Loud cheers.) Parliament mgt early. For a whole fort night nothing was done. Why was not the Reform Bill introduced ? (Hear, hear.) I have shown the house that when the second reading took place the duration of the debate was not unusual, and was, indeed, becoming a theme of great importance. I have shown that the greater portion of that debate, and the portion most opposite to the merits of the bill, came from the Ministerial benches and from the habitual supporters of the Government. (Cheers.) I have shown that when that debate was closed the Govern ment did not propose to go into committee until last Mon day, the 4th of June—(cheers)—and now I ask the house and the country whether, under these circumstances, and in this state of affairs, the. Minister is justified in the asser tions which he has made this evening, and the tone which he has adopted upon the subject ? (Cheers.) But is this all ? Not a tithe of the case. The noble lord says we did not oppose even the second reading of the measure, but that we took other means to protract discussion and pro voke opposition. What means ? I deny the charge. (Cheers.) Look at the records of the house, and examine those who are the authors of the amendments to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair. Where do they sit ? (Hear, hear.) Who are the members who have suggested amendments by which this measure might be arrested and ultimately defeated ? I need not refer again to the hon. and much respected gentleman who gave notice of the motion for referring the Reform Bill to a select committee, a motion the nature of which very much fluttered the noble lord the member for the city of London, but which lit up the countenances of many members of the party opposite with an air of relief , that was sparkling and encouraging to all who beheld them. (Cheers and laughter.) But what is the state of the house at this moment ? It is true there has been an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair; but who has made it? Is p it a Conservative Minis ter who is to be held responsible for all the delays that have taken place, and whose conduct is to be the excuse for the clumsy and unsatisfactory manner in which this bill has been conducted ? (Hear, hear.) Ido not share the confi dence of the hon. gentleman who moves this, amendment ; nor is that surprising, for he always sits behind the noble lord, and when he, made this amendment he boasted that he had supported the noble lord in almost every division for many years. (Laughter.) Is it to be endured, then, that in such circumstances, instead of turning round to the hon. member for Edinburgh, the hon. member for Bristol, and the. author of this amendment, the noble lord, in total ignorance of what has been going on in the house—(laugh ter)—like one just awakened from those rosy slumbers into which he always falls when the subject of reform is before j the house--(great laughter)—reminding us of the Ephesian 'deeper—awakes from his dream, exclaiming " God bless my soul, what's all this ? Are we going into committee on the Reform Bill, an d are we th us beset with vicious, fac • tious motions for delay ?" (Laughter.) And then the noble lord denounces the factious and unconstitutional conduct of the party opposite to him, whil e a ll the time the noble lord's intimate friends and supporters are the parties of whom he should complain. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord, inignorance of all the warnings so solemnly given, of all the . predictions put forth, and in defiance of all the calcula- . tons that havebeen made, comes forward on this the 7th of June for the first time, and condescends to say a word, I will not say in favour of, but about the Reform Bill. (Laugh ter.) But let us see what we are doing this evening ? The noble lord was clearly in error as to all that took place this evening. lam not surprised at it,' as the noble lord was net here, having been present, probably, in a more brilliant scene. (Laughter.) I would recommend to the noble lord that in future he should adhere to the salutary rule that has regulated his Parliamentary conduct throughout the session, and not venture again to speak either about the Reform Bill cr the proceedings in this house with regard to it— (laughter) —because he has entirely misrepresented the motion of my hon. friend behind me—(no, no !), who, in a speech of great spirit and intelligence, introduced the subject before us to night, and who was led to take the particular course which he did ta:.ce in consequence of an intimation from the chair that it was :lot competent for him to propose another motion of which he .Z , ad given notice. (Hear, hear.) The hon. •geni2eman, belie Ying that he was following the proper Par liamentary course, oade the motion which is now before us. But let me say one w ,•rd as to what the noble lord has at some length urged abort:" the alleged opposition and criti cism of this bill by the house. Hitherto there has been no opposition, but there ought it) be no criticism on this mea sure, says the noble lord, becato we are all agreed in prin ciple, and therefore discussion except in committee is not to be tolerated. (Hear, hear.) What does the noble lord mean by saying we are all agreed in principle.? for it is desirable to have a true conception of the use of the term. The noble lord says that before the Government of Lord Derby there were two parties —one tor and one 'against reform, and that he says was a convenient system. No doubt it was a con venient system, for the Liberal party-in opposition always constructed and organised themselves on the principle of Parliamentary reform: - , but when they got into officenothiag was ever done, (Hear.) The question was left 9Peuto any IA" ........—.............-----....------ - - -- 7 -- dividual who was entirely irresponsible as a Minister. (Hear, I and obstruction to F oment a discuss ion of the measure' in hear.) This game had gone en for along time. Three Prime committee. (cheers, f Ind cries of "Divide.") Ministers had recommended her Majesty to draw the atten- The house then divic led, when there appeared— tion of Parliament to the amendment of the representation For the adjourns vent 2lB of the people, and had, laid b ills on the sub j ect before the Against .. House of Commons. The late Government were of opinion Majority fclr the Government that, after all that had occurred, seeing that session after The announcement ol.! the numberi was received len session questions of Parliamentary reform had been carried cheers and counter cheers» in detail by majorities, though not acted upon, it was advis- \ Mr. B. COCHRANE moved the adjournment of he able to bring in a measure. I will not argue now on the merits or demerits of that measure, but I must tell the noble lord, as he commenced the controversy, that we brought for • ward that measure because in our opinion it was a Conser vative measure, and we view his measure with suspicion, because we think its tendencies are not Conservative. It is very well to talk of being agr eed in principles. I remember in those great days when we had our debates on free trade, it was a common jibe of hon. gentlemen opposite, when any gentleman here said he was a free-iTatler, but did not ap-, prove of the particular measure before the ,rouse, " Oh, it's all very well to agree in the principles of free trade, but all depends upon the application of them." e agree Th e n oble lord is by no means justified in saying that tecause we m. y in the principle of Parliamentary reform, and in the •exten" that sion of the franchise to those who do not po ssess it, therefore we are not bound to take into considerat ion whe't , may be the possible consequences of the measure now ih our hands. (Hear, hear.) I don't think that would be a wise course to take ; on the contrary, the time that has been taken up, from accident in a great degree, but in a much greater from the aversion of the noble lord's supporters to this bill, has enlightened the public mind, and when we are in committee, if ever we get there, we shall be able to con sider the principles which the noble lord has laid down with much greater effect and with much more advantage to the community. (Cheers.) These have been the p rinci p al topics of the noble lord's speech, but he hardly addressed one syl lable to the question immediately under our consideration. (Hear, hear.) Absent, I suppose, from the house during the whole of the evening, 'he must have entered in clear ignorance of what had taken place in his absence. He must have supposed that we were continuing the debate \ of the "vexatious amendment" made by one of his principal supporters. (Laughter.) He can haolly lay it down as a principle that when the Governme,at have made the most important announcement that they will not proceed wi h the amendment of the representation of the people as far as Scotland and Ireland are concerneJ, the house should not desire to consider the new position in which they are placed, and should not stop in a precipitate career to inquire what may be the constitutional conse quences of such a course. (Hear.) The noble lord has not referred to the dilemma in which he was placed by my hon. friend the member for Belfast, or, if he did just refer to it, he did not ai.Tear in any degree to extricate himself from it. (Hear.) -There is something even beyond that dilemma on which he has not touched, or at least he said just enough about it to chow that he was , cared at the diffi culty which was placed hefore him, and which he found it impossible to avoid. The noble lord proposes that we shal this year reform, as is the general phrase, or rather amend the representation of the people in this .country—that is, largely increase the constituent body of the country, and bring in a new class, and that class belonging to a much lower sphere of society than that which now enjoys it. He tells us now very differently from what was told us by his colleagues : " When this bill is passed we shall not have time to deal with Scotland and Ireland, and we shall hot consider our selves satisfied, nor do we think any Minister would consider himself justified in counselling the Sovereign to exercise her prerogative until the amendment of the representation of Ireland and Scotland is also accomplished." That the noble lord has announced now for the first time in unhesitating and unqualified terms. But what is the security that next year the representation of Scotland and Ireland will be annnded ? (Hear, hear.) These are not times in which we cart count on such results. (Hear, hear.) I could dwell much on that point, but I will not at the present moment ; but, admitting that next year these two great imperial results are achieved, the noble lord will not deny this, that, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exche quer, we shall have the whole question of the taxation of the country to consider next year, a.-id under circum stances most difficult, most liable to misconception in the public mind, and most calculated to create dis quietude and discontent in the public mind, even to raise disorder among the masses who are to be enfranchised, and that these grave questions of finance are to he settled not only by a moribund, but a condemned and dishonoured Parliament. (Cheers.) Is that a question unworthy of the discussion of the House of Commons ? (Hear.) What have we been discussing to -night but that great question? It is not a question to be settled by the reckless raillery with which the noble lord had treated it to-night, (Hear.) It is one of the greatest questions which can be brought before the house, and we should be unworthy of our position, we should have offered an unanswerable argument for the re form and reconstruction of the house, if, under such cir cumstances, we attempted to evade the difficulty. So much for the speech of the noble lord, and for his unfounded , charge against the Tory partly of having offered to his sus picious and perhaps perillous legislation unnecessary delay. I think I have answered that point. (Hear, hear.) So much, too, for the noble lord's argument that because he has 1 chosen arbitrarily to assume that we have agreed to what he conveniently styles the principle of his measure we are to be debarred from contemplating and considering in a statesmanlike and consistent manner what must be the con • sequence of the application of those principles to the state of society in which we live. So far, in the third place, as to the remarks of the noble lord with regard to the im portant theme which has engaged the attention of the house to-night--not, as I think, in a languid debate, but in a discussion introduced with great ability, under circum stances most justifiable—(cheers)—and sustained on both sides with that power which the interest of the subject must inspire. (Hear.) The noble lord has made no satisfac factory reply. We have been favoured with his virgin speech—(laughter)—but the noble lord has not treated the subject in a way which inspires me with confidence in the manner in which the Government is going to deal with this subject. The noble lord, indeed, has left a painful impres sion on the house that he has taken up this subject rather from party necessity than from political conviction. (Loud cheers.) The noble lord has challenged us to a division. On these grounds I meet him ; and I look to the result of that division without apprehension. (Loud and sustained cheering.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I will not long delay the house from a division. But there were some things said by the right hon. gentleman of which I cannot refrain from taking notice. In the first place, the right hon. gentleman has stated, as if it were a fact, as if it formed part of history, that when out of office we had been continually engaged in bringing for ward this question of reform, and that when in office we had not carried our views into effect. During the whole time from 1832 till last year I do not believe we ever.brought for ward the question of reform when the party of the right hon. gentlemen were in office. Recalling to mind the periods of 1835, of 1841, of 1846, and the year 1852, I do not think we ever brought forward the question of reform to disturb a Conservative Government ; on the contrary, it was when we were in office that we always introduced the subject. (Hear, hear.) But the question we have now to determine is—is this areal, tangible, substantial objection to proceeding with this bill, or is it a mere pretext in order to prevent a deci sion ? (Cheers.) And though the hon. and gallant gentle man the member for Ayrshire brought forward this amend ment with great ability, I cannot conceive how it can be argued that it was our duty to say we would take the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills into consideration during the present session. If we had done so—if we had stated at this period of the year that we would not proceed with the English Reform Bill until we could enter tain the Irish and Scotch bills together with it, it is quite evident that on each of those the Opposition would have consumed the time of the house ; they would have taken the course they did upon the second reading of the English bill; they would not have opposed the second reading, but they would have wasted the time, and then they would have said—" It is now too late to proceed with the English bill." (Hear.) The only practical course we could pursue was to take up the English bill, and to leave those for Ireland and Scotland to another session. And what is the reason which hasbeen given against goinginto committee P What was the argument employed by the hon. and learned member for Belfast—what was the reason given by the righthon. gentleman ? It was that Parliament would then be condemned, and would be unable and unfit to discuss'this question of reform. But we have never said that Parlia ment would not be perfectly capable of legislation. (Hear.) We have not said, as we did in 1831, that there are 150 mem bers of the house who do not represent the people. After that Act was passed, I admit the House of Commons stood condemned ; but whathas been said with regard to the pre sent measure amounts to this—that it would increase the value of the representation, that it would add to its force with the people, and that it would strengthen our institu tions, if a considerable number were added to the electors at present on the roll. But that does not imply any con demnation on the House of Commons—(hear, hear) — that is no reason' whatever why the House of Com mons should not continue to discharge its functions for another session, and, why, having entered on the consideration of the English bill inthe present session, it should not take up the Scotch and Irish bills at a future period. The hon. and learned member for Belfast said I proposed the borough franchise first because I wished to keep the county franchise higher; and that I only fixed upon the borough franchise with a view to secure the addi tion of a certain number to the constituencies. He misre presented me in both these particulars. I never, advocated a change in the county frdnchise upon any other ground than that the house had repeatedly averred that a particular rate would be a proper franchise for counties ; and with re gard to the £6 borough franchise, I always expressed my belief that men living i n houses for which they paid a £6 rental were in many cases artisans who by their intelli g en ce and integrity were w ell deserving of a vote. Well, then, why net discuss thes e q uestions in committee? Wh y not take one side or th e other ? As my noble friend has said, and as it has bee n re p eatedl y p ut to the house, if you co n • cider this a revolutionary measure, that will destroy the in stitutions of the country, oppose it manfully. (Hear.) B u t if you do not say that ; if you refuse to say that you will noniotya coursed mi t i the s toworking go into classescom mittee, d n d u e m t e b r e m r s m. , e thenw what a your ° th ur e franchise should be. The party opposite, however, prefer taking neither of these courses ; they will not make any fair and open declaration. of their views, but they sees by delay house. The house divided. The) numbers were— For the adjourtmoent 222 Against it Majority .... —45 The question upon Mr. Mackinnon's amendment was then put. Mr. GRIFFITH moved ills adjournment of the debate.. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said it was not his intention to ask the house to go further with the. subject on the present oc— casion. He was quite satisfied with the division which had. taken place—(cheers) —and as the souse of the house had beets sufficiently expressed, he should concur in the motion for adjournment, and propose that the debate be adjourned to" Monday next. Mr. STIRLING asked what was to be done with . thea Scotch and Irish Reform Bills? (Laughter.) The motion for the adjournment of the debate was then t agr eed to. • REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND ) BILL. Mr. CARDIVELL moved that the order for the secor id reading of this bill be discharged. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HENNESSY opposed the motion. Colonel FRENCH protested against the provisions of Jam bill, and trusted that next year a very different rneasi ire would be introduced. The O'DONOGHUE moved the adjournment of the debate. After a short discussion the motion for the adjournment was negatived, and the motion for discharging the oi:der agreed to. The order was accordingly discharged. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOT LAND) BILL. The LORD-ADVOCATE moved that the order for the second reading of this bill be discharged. Mr. BRUCE rose with the greatest pleasure to second. the motion (Cheers and laughter.) The motion w•as agreed to, and the order was discharged. The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill was fixed for this evening, on the understanding that if it could not then be taken it should be proceoded with on the first open morning sitting. PROSECUTIONS FOR. BRIBERY AT WAR:EFIELD. Captain JERVIS moveci t a resolution to the following effect :—" That whereas by the Act 17th and 18th Vic toria, cap. 102, section 14, it is' expressly enacted that no person should be liable to be prosecuted for any offence com mitted against the said act unless such prosecution shall commence within one year from the date of the said offence, this house is of opinion, with reference to certain prosecu tions commenced at common law against divers persons at Wakefield for offences committed at the late general election. against that act, but which prosecutions have not been commenced within the time prescribed by that act, that such prosecutions should be abandoned." Lord PALMERSTON said it vi as impossible at that late hour of the evening to proceed with the discussion of the resolution, which involved considerations of great im portance. He should therefore move the adjournment of the debate. After a few words from Mr. M. MILNES and one er two other hon. members, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the House of Com mons was called upon by the resolution to perform func tions which did not belong to it—namely, to interfere with the administration of justice. He might add that he did not think it would be satisfactory to the country that a de cision on the question should be taken in so thin a house— [A hon. Member—There are 100 members present]—there being very few present but those who were there for the particular purpose of supporting the motion. He could only say that, whatever the decision of the house under such cir cumstances might be, the prosecutions should be proceeded with under the statute, notwithstanding that he should bow to that decision when duly recorded. Captain JERVIS would not object to the adjournment of the debate if the Attorney-General would pledge himself to stay proceedings in the meantime. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I will not stay pro ceedings for a single moment. After some funther conversation, the galleries were cleared for a division, but none took place, and the debate was ad , journed to this (Friday) evening. The house wijoutne d at five minutes past 3 o'clock. COUN2:RY MARKETS. mANcHm . `TER—JUNE 7. usiness. English wheat is to The high prices checked b , 2s per qr. Foreign 2d to 3d P er 701bs dearer. Flour la meal neglected. per sack higher. Oats and oat Beans and Indian corn unaltered in value. BIRMINGHAM- - JUNE 7. A fair supply of wheat. The di,, V being trade was ex cited, and prices were 2s per qr. high er for English, and is for f 'reign. Barley is lower. Oats t. l d cheaper. Beans in improved demand. MELTON MOWBRAY-ALNE 5• There was a moderate show of wheat to- da IP, with a dull business at the annexed prices :—White w heat, new, 52s Od to 57s Od ; red, 47s Od to 54s per 36 stone' ; barley in small supply, at 38s to 44s for malting, and 32s to 35s per qr. for grinding; oats, 28s to 35s Od per 24 stone; beans, 50s to 54s for old; new, 49s per 38 st. PLYMOUTH--SurTE 5. Busine.s again slow to-day. Prices for wheat unaltered; barley scarce, and at late prices ; oats were dear. A thin attendance at market. The quotations are—English white wheat, 52s to 56s ; red, 53s to 54s per qr ; French do., 45s to 46s ; grinding barley, 30s to 32s ; oats, 245 to 26s ; and flour, fine, 39s to 40s ; seconds, 37s to 38s. EDINBURGH GRAIN-JUVE 6. Wheat on the top 2s Od up ....• average Os lid np. Barley on the top 2s Od down average Os 7d up. Oats on tho top Os 3d up Beans on the top is Od down average Os 7d up. Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... Barley 1 18 5 10-12ths Oats Beans -12ths Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 1261 qrs Sold 1141 qrs Barley.... 156 qrs Sold 123 qrs Oats 938 qrs Sold 469 qrs Beans lOl qrs Sold 64 go DERBY SMITHFIELD-Jzxl 5. There was a short supply of fat beasts, and a further ad vance in price was obtained. The supply of sheep larger, and prices unchanged. Lamb s more plentiful, and sold well. Fat and store salves scarce, and there were but few pigs in demand. Beef Bd to Sid I Veal Mutton .. Lamb 9d to 10d Rough fat, 4s 9d per stone. Hides, 31d to 5/d; calf skins, 7d to Od. THE M.AILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) .. • • • • • • • . June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) Overdue. Bahamas and Havana (lila New York).. • June —. Canada, &c. (via Cork) ... June 7. Cape of Good Hope, &e. .. July 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) June 18. Do. (via Marseilles) June 12. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .• .. June 10. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) June 18. Do. (via M arse ill es ), June 12. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. June 20. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. • • • • July 5. Lisbon, Vigo , and Oporto • • • • • June 11 . June ee 20.10. Malta, Egypt, Aden (via Sou . th.Ampton) United States, California,June —. Western Coas t of Ai r r i lia c a, (: 3, l . 4 l ac a . d M eg a ra irs , e T il e l' i er i s eriffe .. June 10 West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. June 14. BIRTHS. of wife :On A t p h p e le s b th y, Esq., of a son. CA APPLEBY. --021 the sth inst., at 5 , P ar k- roa d, Holloway, inst., at Finchley, the wife of James Carruthers, Esq., O. a daughter. CSADWIC K ..—On the 2d i nst., at RystonLo d ge, N ew b r id ge, I r eland, the wife of Lieut. Robert Chadwick, 14th. Light t ß he ßu w : . E D r agoons, of a dau g h ter. • MARRIAGES. BRAY-LMAIR.—On the 6th inst., at South Berstead, Sus• sex, Captain E. Wm. Bray, 83d Regt., eldest &on of the late Colonel B.W. Bray, C. 8., to Ann Elizabett t, second daughter of Lieut.-Colonel Mair, of Northampton-place, Bognor. FAWCET T — PEA.usorr.—On the 6th inst., at Dawlish, De von, Charles Fawcett, of the Admiralty, Somerset-house, to Frances Susannah Owen, only daughter of Sydney Pearson, Esq., of Dawlish. 0 IL A T 11 S. - - - AL LEYNE.—On the sth inst.,"at Barton-under-Needwood, Rebecca, wife of Sir Reynold A. Alleyno, Bart. B RIGGS.—On the 6th inst., at Richmond, William Briggs Esq., aged 38. BLYTII.—On the 6th inst., at Hackney, Robkt Alexander Blyth, of the firm of Blyth, Son, and Cooper, Chiswell street, aged 41. COLEY.—On the 3d inst., at Greenwich, Mary, the wife of Commander Colby, of Greenwich Hospital, aged 65. SI➢IPSON.—On the 6th inst., James A. Simpson, Esq., of Mattague-place, Russell-square, and Moorgate-street, aged 65. VANDELEUR.—On the 6th inst., at Woolwich, Arthur Vandeleur, Esq., of Ralahine, Captain and Brevet-Major R.A., aged 31. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG - of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, , Strand, in the Precinct of the oavoy, in tho of Middloges, Friday, June 8, 18aP. Th , nat am eve Flo wel wh, du( Sec ma 'Eh 13c, sio SA an( pre ET sol eei th( Ge