The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

LATEST NEWS. The following telegrams have been received a Mr. Reuter's office : PARIS, MARCH 25. The Prince Napoleon had personally insisted upon the admission of Piedmont into the Congress, and has represented to the Emperor that, in the event of Piedmont not being, admitted, Count Cavour intends to resign. The Prince thought proper to announce pre viously to the Piedmontese Government that he would demand its admission into the congress, but in the event that admission could not be refused to Tuscany, the Papal Government, and the Duchy of Parma ; Naples and Modena being naturally excluded. Naples on account of its interruption of international relations, and Mo dena because it has never recognised the Imperial Government. Russia did not at the time it proposed the Con gress express itself for the exclusion of Piedmont, but indeed there is no probability that her admission will be agreed to either by Austria or Prussia. Even in Piedmont the people may wish to prevent the Government from sending a representative, because the popular feeling is that the cause of their country has been betrayed. There is even a fear of some popular demonstra tion in Turin. The date of the conference respecting the elec tion of Prince Couza is not yet fixed. VIENNA, FRIDAY, MARCH 25. The Ostdentsche Post states that Austria has de clared herself willing to consent to the proposal of a Congress, upon conditions, however, that Sar dinia will discontinue the extraordinary armaments she is now making, and that the Congress assemble on the principles of the protocols of the Aix-la- Chapelle Conference. The town in which the Con gress is to meet is not yet decided upon. N.B. The protocols of the Congress of Aix-la- Chapelle in the year 1818 were as follows : France demanded the withdrawal from her territory of the army of occupation of 150,000 men and assented to the Holy Alliance, which assent was announced by circular note to the other European Powers, and the Holy Alliance then declared itself peema nent. The protocols also contained a mutual de claration by the Powers agreeing to them that they would no more make war upon one another. TURIN, MARCH 24. Count Cavour leaves this evening for Paris. There is nothing new. Everything is tranquil, NAPLES, MARCH 22. The Grand Duko Constantine of Russia has arrived here with an escort of four vessels. The news of the King of Prussia's arrival, as stated in some foreign journals, was premature. He is expected at this place on the 28th inst. TRIESTE, THURSDAY. The Austrian Lloyd steamer just arrived brings advices from Constantinople to the 19th inst. Twelve battalions of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, and 80 guns, have been despatched to Shumla. A second corps d'armee will be shortly lent to Sophia. The commanders of the corps d'armee in Roumclia and Anatolia have been sum moned to this place. A commission, composed of the principal persons from Bosnia and the Herze govina, has arrived here, in order to discuss neces sary reforms. TURIN, THURSDAY. According to advices from Florence the Grand Duke of Tuscany suppressed the law on the liberty of the press in political matters. FRANCE. PARIS, THURSDAY. It is asserted that Prince Napoleon will repre sent France at the proposed Congress, and also that all the Italian Princes will be represented. Nothing certain is yet known as to the accept ance of Austria, but the general belief is that she will also give in her adhesion to the proposal of a Congress. A Paris correspondent of the Nord gives the fol lowing information on the subject of the proposed Congress :—" If I am well informed, it was only on Monday evening, and at a late hour, too, that the proposal to convoke a Congress, made by Count Xisseleff, was accepted by the French Government; and the Government, after haviilg doubtless come to an understanding with Lord Cowley, hastened to announce the fact in the illoniteur of the next morning. This explains why the Government Could not also announce the official acceptance of England, Prussia, and Austria. . . . We are then on the eve of long and interesting diplomatic negotiations. It is alleged that the preliminary arrangements of the Congress will occupy four Months, and that it will only be in July or August that it will assemble. In the meantime, notwithstand. ing the meeting of a Congress, public opinion is dis trustful." The writer concludes with a postscript, in Which he boldly announces that the date fixed for the first meeting of the Congress is the 10th July. Another correspondent of the same journal, how ever, fixes an earlier period for the meeting, and thus explains the motive of the inevitable delay : " Before fixing the date of the meeting of the Con gress, the bases of the negotiations must be defini tively settled ; the cabinets interested in the matter, and especially those of Italy ; which will not be represented, must be consulted; and instructions for Plenipotentiaries must be drawn up ; all of which will occupy at least six weeks, and will carry us on to the first fortnight of May. Then the Congress will last at least two months, and so we shall arrive in August." " The French Government," says the Indepen dance of Brussels, " still continues to occupy itself, but without evincing any considerable haste, with the construction of gunboats of slight draught of water, and mounted by one gun. It is said to be in contemplation to confide the construction of these vessels to private builders, and the principal mari time ports would share the orders. An immense number of muskets on the new model is also being manufactured." BOURSE, March 24:—The market has been very firm, and prices improving. Threes advanced from 68fr. 88c. to 69fr. 10c. Mobilier, 797 fr. 50c. to 805 fr. ; Austrian, 550 fr. to 555 fr. ; Orleans, 1,365&. to 1,370 fr. ; Lyons, 847 fr. 50c. to 850 fr. ; Southern, 520 fr. to 522fr.50c. The following are the last quotations : 4t per Cents. .... 65 60 I Credit Foncier Do. end month .. 95 601 Belgian 41 — 3 per Cent 5....... 69 20 1Piedmonteso (5) Do. end month.... 69 20 Roman .— Bank Shares...... 2865 Austrian — Credit Mobility . • 8 05 Spanish Thre es Do. Account ..... 805 Home Debt — ROW GQCS TILE DEBATE? (From the Times.) Opinions vary as to the time when the aeta t e on the Ministerial Reform Bill wilt be brought to a close. Some well-informed persons believe that it cannot last beyond this evening, others consider that it cannot come to a conclusion before Tuesday night, while others, strengthened by innumerable precedents of Parliamentary long-windedness, adopt the plausible, but by no means agreeable theory, that if the house once prevails upon itself to enter upon the second week it will feel itself unable to part from a subject on which everybody has something to say until that second week be brought to a close. We must await the result patiently, drawing such comfort as we may from the consideration that, like all human things, the discussion will have an end, and, as that consum mation may overtake us sooner than we expect, we think we shall be discharging a useful duty if we point out as clearly as we can to our readers the exact form in which a rather intricate question will be finally submitted to the decision of the house. The original motion before the house is, " That the Bill for the Representation of the People be now read a second time." The essence of this proposition is in the word " now," so that, if it were to be met with a direct negative, the only effect would be to prevent the bill being read a second time on that day, leaving it open to the proposer of the bill to renew tile motion on any other day for which the house might think fit to order the second reading to stand. It is this inconclusive nature of the direct negative which prevents its employment in Parliamentary warfare, and has driven the opponents of bills to have recourse to an apparently less direct but really more efficient method of opposition, by moving the postponement of the order for the second reading of the bill to a period sufficiently distant to fall upon some day after the prorogation of the house. This is the meaning of the usual motion, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months." By way of amendment to the original motion, " That the Bill for the Representation of the People be now read a second time," Lord John Russell has moved " That all the words after the word that' be omitted," and that the words contained in his resolution be inserted instead. Let us now see all the different events that can result from this state of things. The first question the Speaker will have to put is, that the words proposed by Lord John Russell to be left out " stand part of the question," those words being " the bill b e now rea d a secon d time." Let us suppose—and only by way of sup position—that this question is decided in favour of the Government—that is, that the house decides that the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the question. Such a resolution will get rid of Lord John Russell's amendment, not directly, but by refusing to make room for it in the question —in other words, by giving the preference to the words of the question, as they now stand, over the suggested alteration. Another effect, we believe, will be to shut out any further amendment, for the house, having resolved that the words shall stand part of the question, cannot proceed to entertain amendments like that of Mr. Divett, that the word " now" be struck out, for the purpose of adding the words "this day six months," the very foundation of which is an alteration of the words which the house has just resolved shall stand. With this exception, matters will then be exactly in the same state as if no amendment at all had been moved ; the house will have decided what the question submitted to it shall be, but will have delivered no decision on the question itself. The Speaker will then put the original question, " That the bill be now read a second time." If that be resolved in the affirmative, the second reading is carried ; if in the negative, the second reading is refused for that day, but may be moved, as we said before, on any future day for which it may be appointed. It thus appears that Lord John Russell's amendment, even if not successful, will have the effect of preventing any other amendment from being interposed between the House and the decision of the main question, and that it is only in the event of the second reading being negatived that any further amendment can take place. Let us now consider the other and more pro bable, alternative, and suppose that on the question " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question' the "Noes" have it—that is, that the House decides that all the words after " that" shall be omitted. The first effect of this will be to negative the question, "That Bill be now read a Second Time," leaving it still open to the supporters of the bill, if they think proper, to renew the motion on another day. The next question is, that the words of Lord John Russell's resolution be inserted ; but before this is put to the vote it is competent to move amend ments upon the resolution, each of which .will be put to the house in the same form as the resolution itself, the question being in each case, shall " the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question ?" When these amendments to the amend- Ment have been disposed of, the house decides upon the insertion of the resolution. If the " Ayes" have it the resolution is carried ; if the " Noes," the proceeding is wholly abortive, nothing being left of the original question except the word " that. and Government being at liberty to bring forward their bill for the second reading on any future day. We trust we have furnished our non-Parliamen tary readers with an intelligible explanation, by reference to which they will be able to understand and solve for themselves whatever complications may arise in dealing with a plain question ren dered needlessly intricate by the form of the amend ment. It seems, indeed, fated that great party conflicts shall be fought out on motions which are scarcely according to the forms of the house. The resolution of Mr. Milner Gibson last year trenched on the very verge of irregularity, and Lord Pal merston overthrew the Government of Lord John Russell in 1852 by an amendment to the title of a bill, which, as the bill had not yet passed through committee, where the title of a bill is for the first time settled, ought not, it is generally believed, to have been put from the chair at all. The truth seems to be, that in these great party contests their full signi ficance is seldom expressed in the words of the ques tion, but lies rather in the conventional meaning which both sides may choose to give it. Thus, Lord Stanley has already informed us that this Resolu tion will be treated by Government as equivalent to the rejection of the bill, and, somewhat exaggera ting the license of arbitrary construction assumed by Governments under such circumstances, has not indistinctly intimated that it will have the effect of a vote of censure, The difference is between "biting your thumb in the abstract, and biting your thumb at me," and Government claims to be the • judge of the intention. We presume that no one will quarrel with them for applying to themselves a censure, though none is to be found in the formal words of the Resolution. (From the Morning Advertiser.) We repudiate and denounce, as an affront to the intelligence and independence of the friends of the Ballot Society in the House of Commons, the inti mation Which h as b een conveye d to us, that, owing to the agencies brought to bear upon them by the sham of an association called the Ballot Society, a goodly number of Liberals will be deterred from supporting Mr. Wyld's resolution, asserting the unjust and unsatisfactory nature of any Reform Bill which does not provide for the exercise of the elective franchise by the Ballot. If there be any such Liberals, we beg to warn them in time of the great. most probably irretrievable error, which they contemplate committing. Mr. Wyld is adopting the right course. Since Lord John Russell is deteimined to purchase office on any terms, the Liberals are bound to make the best terms they can for the country. If he will be Premier, then let him pay the price of that position of power and importance. Now is the time to bring the pressure to bear on him. If the noble lord finds that he must eat the leek of the Ballot, he will do it, rather than be excluded from Downing street. So great is the importance which we attach to the Ballot, that, if Lord John will but commit him self to that mode of voting, we shall, notwith standing the very poor opinion we entertain of him, give him our support. A pledge to carry the question of the Ballot would, in our eyes, cover a multitude of sins. The independent Liberals are at this moment, if they only knew it, masters of the situation. They can, if they will, bring Lord John Russell to book. Let them but determine that they will not only give him no support until he commits himself to the Ballot, but that they will oppose him as often as opportuni ties for. doing so conscientiously offer, and Lord John, in the event of his accession to office, will become, at least in profession if not in practice, one of the most earnest supporters of the Ballot. Now, therefore, is the time for the independent Liberals to act in concert. Mr. Wyld furnishes them with that opportunity : let them gladly and gratefully embrace it. It may be long before there is another such favourable conjunction of circum stances. The majority of those Liberals who fail to support Mr. Wyld on this occasion will, if we be not greatly mistaken, have cause to rue the day that they deserted the cause of the Ballot. The Liberal who does not turn the present opportuni ties to account, is altogether undeserving of popular support. We shall sc a n ' . , with scrutinising eye, and so will the country, the division list of the majority and minority on Mr. Wyld's motion. Our advice to the hon. member for Bodmin is, to perse vere with his resolution to commit the house to the vote by Ballot, even should he not be able to muster a dozen supporters. THE F S UN, LON. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack .t live o'clock. NEW rEEIt! Lord THURLOE took thb odths and ins seat on acceding to the tittt, I, 7 44PORTMAN presented a petition praying for an alteration of the beer laws. INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that to morrow he should move for certain papers connected with India, from the year 1857 down to the present period, and also that he should call attention to the state of the money market. RAILWAYS. Cash. Account. Orleans Northam 940 940 New ditto BO5 • • 806 2.5 Lyons and Mediterranean B5O • • 850 -- • • --- 'New ditto Geneva 537 50 .. 540 -- • • -- Midi 520 —Southern .. 623 75 .. 600 - .. 632 60 Western 6OO Eastern Grand Central Sardinian 4OO .. Austrian ' Exchange on London, at sight, paper, 25f. 124 c. ; money 25f.10 c. ; three months, paper, 25f.; money, 24f. 971 c. TESTIMONIAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE POLICE FORCE.—At a meeting yesterday of the inspectors, officers, and constables of the City police force, at the Wardroom, London-wall, a handsome testimonial, consisting of a silver tea-pot, ewer, sugar basin, one dozen tea spoons, caddy spoon, and mug, value about £4O, was presented to Mr. F. W. Sanders, the late sec re t ar y t o th e City police force, as an acknowledgment of his uniform kindness and gentle manly conduct to all in the force during the 18 years that he had been connected with them. Mr. Sanders has re cently been promoted to the office of police receiver, and he leaves the force universally respected and regretted. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AT LONDON BRIDGE. — Yesterday a determined attempt at sucide was committed by a young woman named Julia Ray, aged 25, who resided in the Borough. It appears the husband of the unfortunate woman is a bootmaker, and a quarrel ensued through his intemperate habits, when she rushed down the steps of London-bridge and jumped into the river. Boats and drags were put into requisition, when the unfortunate woman was taken out in a state of insensibility and at once conveyed to St. Thomas's Hospital, where Mr. Clapton, after much ifficulty, succeeded in restoring animation SECOND READINGS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Leominster and I[ington Railway, and the Swansea Vale Railway bills were read a second time. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Purdy's Liabilities Removal, Belfast and Londonderry Junction Railway, Londonderry and Lough Swilly Rail way, Tralee and. Killarney Railway, and Bury St. Ed munds Gas. Lord CRANWORTH presented a petition from Bir mingham, praying the house not to pass a bill at present before Parliament, in which charitable institutions would be excluded from the exemption they at present enjoyed from local assessment. CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL. On the motion of the Earl of DERBY, this bill was read a third time and passed. TRADING COMPANIES WINDING-UP BILL. In answer to Earl GREY, The Earl of DONOUGHMORE was afraid he should not bo able to give the noble earl all the information he de sired, but having consulted the returns he found that the number of companies registered with limited liability was 1,098, with a nominal capital of £75,442,887. Of these 68, with a nominal capital of £7,459,240, had been dissolved. This left £1,030, with a nominal capital of £68,003,647. Many of these had ceased to trade, for 207 of them, with a nominal capital of £15,181,634, were in arrear with the re turns required from them, but, assuming that these had ceased to trade, a nominal capital of £54,828,000 was loft. As to how those companies were working it was impossible to give any idea. A great many of the companies had been dissolved by the voluntary action of the shareholder. As to the companies without limited liability, 361 companies of this kind had been formed previously to the act, and were trading before it. Nor did these figures include all com panies trading with unlimited liability. And since the passing of the act 14 companies had been formed without limited liability, and 16 had been dissolved. This left 352 companies, with a capital of £8,500,000, trading under the act without limited liability. As to banking companies, 11 had been registered under the act, with a nominal capital of £1,500,000. Of these companies two were registered for the purpose of dissolution. The number working under the act was nine, with a capital of little more than £3,000,000. Lord OVERSTONE was of opinion that the limited liability bill was founded on dishonest principles as between debtor and creditor, and he should be glad to learn how much of the capital of the different companies established under the act had been paid up. The noble lord then detailed to the house the proceedings that had taken place in the Bankruptcy Court, in connection with various com panies founded on the limited liability principle, numbers of which, he said, rightly had been called limited, as they had only remained in operation a few weeks. The trans actions that had taken place under limited liability proved that unlimited responsibility was most calculated to ensure safety in all commercial transactions. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY reminded their lord ships that all the arguments used by the noble lord who spoke last had been urged three years ago when the bill for limiting liability was introduced, and that although a few cases of fraud might have occurred since the passing of the act there had been nothing to justify the prognostics of the noble lord. Had they, he asked, heard of any gigantic frauds committed upon shareholders under the new law at all simi lar to those which had been committed by private individuals and by joint-stock companies with unlimited liability? Look at the frauds which had been committed by the Western Bank of Scotland, the Royal British Bank in London, and by individuals such as Dean Paul, Strachan, and Co. He could not see the evils which had been anti cipated from the change in the law, and on the whole be considered it had worked in a satisfactory manner. Earl GREY took a directly opposite view of the case and expressed his conviction that the noble lord (Lord Over stone) had detailed quite sufficient to indicato danger from the future operation of the limited liability principl. In his (Earl Grey's) opinion it tended to rash speculation, and would entail grievous loss upon individuals. Why, then, stimulate a desire for speculation, and give facilities for de luding the unwary to enter upon such transactions? It had been shown that business was already carried on by com panies with limited liability which ought to be entrusted to individuals. He was, however, in hope that what had passed that evening in th e i r lordships' house would not be without somo effect in preventing the evil effects of the pre sent law, and that it would be a caution to people not to en trust one shilling to a company with limited liability. He himself would never have anything to say to them, and no cheques on a company with limited liability should ever come into his hands, as he would not hold them sufficiently long to present them for payment. (Hear.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE called attention to the fact that although the noble lord (Lord Overstone) and the noble earl who spoke last had dwelt on the evils of limited liability, they had not said a single word upon the advan• tages which had accrued from the introduction of the prin ciple. (Hear, hear.) Those companies had conferred great benefits, although those benefits had not been apparent to every eye; but he admitted they.were not looked upon with great favour by large capitalists, upon whom they imposed a wholesome check. The house then resolved itself into committee upon the Trading Companies' Winding-up Act. The rest of the clauses were agreed to; but on the motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR the title of the act was altered to that of the " Companies' Act, 1859." The bill was then reported, with amendments, and the house resumed. MEDICAL ACT (1858) BILL. This bill passed through committee. EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION BILL. This bill was read a second time. INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS) BILL. This bill 'was reported, with amendments. OATHS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a second time. MANOR COURTS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time, and passed. Their lordships adjourned at seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Caledonian Railway; Glasgow Corporation Water; King's Lynn Waterwerks, Markets, and Borough Improvement; Llanidloes and Newton Railway • and Londonderry Bridge (verbal amendm en t s t o b e proposed). The amendments to the London and North-Western Railway (Edge Hill to Garston) Bill, changed from " Liver- pool Stations Junction Railway (No. 2)," wore considered and agreed to. The bill was ordered for second reading. The Atlantic Telegraph Company's Bill went through committee, and was ordered for third reading. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the paper duties ; against the Government Reform Bill; for the exemption of charitable institutions from local taxes ; against the High way Rates Bill; for the admission of Dissenters to the same privileges as those enjoyed by members of the Church of England in regard to charitable trusts ; in favour of vote by ballot ; for the introduction of a Reform Bill, extending the franchise in conformity with the re quirements of the increased intelligence of the community; from clerks and others employed in provincial post-offices, praying to be placed on the same footing as those in Lon don, &c. LOCAL ASSESSMENT BILL. Mr. S. ESTCOURT gave notice that, on the order of the day for the socond reading of this bill to-morrow, he would move the postponement of the further progress of the bill till the 4th of May, in order to give chazitable in stitutions time to adopt measures with reference to it. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL, Mr. BOUVERTE gave notice that ho would move that this bill be referred to a select committee. THE AFFGHAN PAPERS. In reply to Mr. HADFIELD, Lord STANLEY said theso papers would be laid on the table in a few days. - DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES COURT. Mr. JAMES called the attention of the Government to the large arrear of causes in this court; and asked whether they were prepared to propose any measure, by the appointment of additional judges or otherwise, to remedy the delay now so much complained of ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the subject was attended with consider a bl e difficulty, but he had directed certain inquiries to be made, and would be sub mitted to her Majesty's Government. RELIGIOUS INTERFERENCE IN THE ROYAL NAVY. Mr. Sergeant DEASY asked the First Lord of the Ad miralty whether he had received any communication com plaining of any alleged undue interference with the religion of any of the sailors serving on board her Majesty's ship Ajax at Kingstown ; and whether he had caused any in quiry to be made into the truth of such complaints ? Sir J. PAKINGTON had received some information on the subject which induced him to think that the interfer ence alluded to did not take place. SLAVE TRADE ON THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA.. Mr. KINGLAKE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any negotiation was pending between her Majesty's Government and the Government of France with respect to a French vessel, called the Phoenix, of Nantz, alleged to have been prevented from taking slaves from the west coast of Africa by her Majesty's steam sloop Alecto; and asked whether there would be any objection to lay the papers relating to this matter upon the table of the house. Mr. S. FITZGERALD said he had directed inquiries to bo made, and until he had received an answer he could not give information on the subject. THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL. Mr. MITCHELL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government were to be understood to persist in maintaining the uniformity of the town and county fran chise as the principle of their bill for the reform of the re presentation of the people. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Sir, it is impossible for me to give a categorical answer to a question of this kind addressed to me at this moment. It would demand a statement, both of argument and of detail, which could not be compressed within thelegitimate scope of a reply to a question put to a Minister on this occasion. (Cheers.) But, sir, this I will say to the hon. gentleman, that when I introduced the bill for the amendment of the representation of the people it was the opinion of my col leagues that there was no provision in that measure which might not in commiitee be beneficially submitted to that calm and impartial consideration—(cheers and laughter).— which the house had pledged itself to her Majesty to give to this question—(renewed cheers)—and without which pledge on the part of this assembly, considering the circum- FRIDAY EVENING,I MARCh 25, 1859. stances under which we acceded to that bill would certainly not have been introduced. (Cheers.) REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. BILL.— ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. M. GIBSON—The right hon. gentleman said he was desirous of making a few observations to the house upon the measure which had been submitted to its judgment by her Majesty's Guinn: anent, and also upon the course which they were invited to pursue by the noble lord the member for London. They had had three speeches in support of the measure by members of the Cabinet ; and he had been, though admitting the great ability and eloquence of those speeches, somewhat disappointed at finding them deficient in one important particular, namely—supposing Parliament to adopt the change in the representative system recom mended to them by the Government, what ad vantage was it predicted would be conferred upon the country, and what improvement would be produced in the existing consti tuencies of England and Wales ? (Hear.) He found in the speech of the noble lord the Secretary for India a great deal of close reasoning in a somewhat narrow field ; but in no part of that speech did the noble lord tell them what was to be the probable result of a general election in reference to the advantages to be produced, supposing the project of law submitted to them was carried out. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies went at great length into the Government project with eloquence and ability ; but he (Mr. Gibson) must say he thought the latter portion of his speech would have led a stranger to suppose there was some such question before the house as was formerly introduced by the Duke of Richmond for universal suffrage, equal elec toral districts, and annual parliaments ; he displayed before them a phantom of democracy, by which he endeavoured to show that the party of democracy were to rule education and property. But that appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) a somewhat artful diversion, intended to alarm them, and to withdraw their attention from the question before the house, namely, what was the character of the particular measure submitted to their notice, and what would be the effects of the changes proposed to be made in the constituencies of England and Wales. (Hoar, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) had confined his meditations upon this subject within a very limited area ; and in the observations which he should make to the house he wished to confine himself to the only question before them, namely, the bill of the Government, of course, accom panied by the amendment of the noble lord the member for London. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colo nies told them there were two preliminary considerations whichought to be present to their minds before entering on the merits of this measure of reform. The first consideration, if he understood him, was, that they must consider that this was a measure brought forward by a Conservative Go vernment, and it could not be expected that a Conservative Government would bring forward a measure of reform wholly at variance with the principles of the. Conservative party. The right hon. gentleman told them further, that there was an instinct of party honour which should induce the house to examine a measure of reform coming from a Conservative Minister in an indulgent spirit. He (Mr. Gib son) admitted there was force in that appeal as far asrelated to the circumstances under which the Government were placed ; but, as a member of Parliament, he must consider, as paramount to all other matters in so grave a question as Parliamentary reform, what would bo the effects on the country of the measure they were about to pass. (Hear, hear.) He should view the question of a Reform Bill brought in by the present Ministers without any prejudice whatever, for he had seen them inclined to adapt them selves as far as possible to the circumstances and require ments of the day. (Hear, hear.) He did not know that county members were to be assumed as alone capable of supporting an anti-reform Administration, because he recol lected that in 1832 the main or a very considerable portion of the strength of the Minister of that day for carrying the measure of 1832 was obtained from the county members ; therefore he did not hold that county members were opposed to the principle of fair and free representation. (Hear.) Another point which her Majesty's Government thought they should take into consideration was that of time. They said that the reformers would lose the opportunity of get ting their bill passed this year—that they (the Government) presented them that opportunity, so that, by agreeing to the present bill, they would gain in time what they might lose in quantity. (Hear, hear.) In reply to that argument he would state that he for one did not feel so particularly eager upon the point that, for the sake of saving time, he would concur in the passing of a measur,e which was in itself ob jectionable. (Hear, hear.) A great deal was said about settling the reform question, but if that meant settling it without reform—(hear)—that was tt settlement which would not go beyond the .walls of Parliament, and the country, when the word settlement was made use of, expected a ra tional, sound, well-considered measure, that would extend political rights to an increased number of British subjects. That was what they understood by the settlement of reform ; and, with regard to the apathy ho had heard spoken of, he for one did not believe in it. There had been for a long time back a settled conviction in men's minds that Parliamentary reform was approaching, besides which public matters were now discussed with greater quiet than used hitherto to be the case, and that may have induced many to think that in tranquillity they beheld apathy—(hear, hear)—but the petitions which crowded the table of the house, and the spontaneous meetings which took place throu g h ou t th e country when the vernment proposed their bill, was a convincing proof that the apathy was only apparent, and that there was an earnest desire among the intelligent por tion of the community to see the question placed on a firm and secure basis. Having disposed of these two points put forward in defence of the bill—namely, its being the mea sure of a Conservative Government, and the necessity of using the present opportunity—he should now proceed to consider what it was Government proposed to effect. The bill before them he could not call a Reform Bill. (Cheers.) He would call it a measure for the purpose of operating in a peculiar and novel manner on the county and borough constituencies, making little or no change in the extension of political rights to the persons at present excluded from them, but transferring voters from one to another electoral area, and making little or no difference in the whole elec toral body of the United Kingdom. Now, he wanted Go vernment to tell the house what good was to come to the country from the peculiar operation they advised. (Hear, hear.) He might put the question in another way that would lead to the consideration of the noble lord's amend ment. The Government proposed te extend the £lO occu pation franchise to counties, but on two conditions. The first was, that there should be a withdrawal of a portion of the freeholders from the counties, and that there should be no reduction in the occupation franchise in boroughs. (Hear hear.) The noble lord was, as he (Mr. M. Gibson) had been told, favourable to the £lO franchise in counties ; but he said that Government made it contingent on two conditions, and, until those two conditions were disposed ef, it would be a waste of time to discuss the bill. (Hear.) If the house was adverse to those conditions it would be useless to go into the provisions of the measure, for it all hinged on that proposal and these conditions. He did not profess to be very familiar with the rules of Parliament — (a laugh)—but he had read the able work of Mr. May, and he had come to the conclusion that abstract resolutions as amendments to the second reading of a bill were frequently very objectionable. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But there were special, cases in which that mode of dealing with the question was not only proper and Parliamentary, but was the only effective way of doing so, and the present was an occasion where it was strictly proper and Parliamentary. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the freeholders it was pro posed to withdraw them from the county and hand them over to the borough constituencies by way of counterpoise, as had been said by the noble lord the member for Stamford. But if it was advantageous to add the Lliiiouseiiiiders to the county constituencies, why should the gain be counteracted by a counterpoise like that proposed ? He for one did not understand that mode of dealing with the question. With Mr. Fox, he held that the greatest perfection of a consti tuency was its being able to bring into activity at elections the greatest possible number of independent voters. The present Prime Minister once stated publicly that if he was to be told the names and politics of the principal families in a county, he could tell the politics of the county members. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) thought that statement too sweeping; but if it was to any extent true that the principal families could make the county represen tation nomination seats, then what a proposition was that before the house, neutralising and counterpoising the in fusion of independence ! (Hear, hear.) With regard to his hon. friend tho member for East. Surrey, Government had not, he thought, dealt handsomely with him. They had adopted two of his proposals in the abolition of the pro perty qualification and the £lO occupation franchise in counties, but what did they do with - East Surrey itself? They submitted it to what his noble friend the member for Sandwich would call a surgical operation of a very curious kind. They had proposed to make Croydon, with new boundaries to be settled by the Enclosure Commissioners, a borough ; so that all the 40s. freeholders resident there, as well as those resident on the outskirts of Lambeth and Southwark, would no longer be able to vote for his hon. friend, but would have to vote for the new borough member. On the whole, he thought what they now proposed to do to the county constitu encies would be injurious to them, and, as the matter now stood, he for one should be no party to it. Now, as re garded the boroughs, it might be an old •fashioned opinion, but he thought that the maintenance of the distinctive character of the borough constituencies was an important element in the constitution. He knew that in the abstract a great deal might be said in favour of electoral districts, but if the boroughs were once merged into the counties, and had their distinctive 'character broken down, a valuable portion of our representative system would be lost. There was something in a community residing together acting together, and administering local self-government, which turned their attention to the consideration of public affairs, so that they became likely to return a valuable class of men to the house—a more valuable class than could possibly come from electoral districts. He would therefore main tain the distinctive character of the borough constituencies. Ho did not like the idea of the creation of a set of non-re sidant voters for the boroughs. (Hear.) They were told that they had got a clause in the bill that resembled the old splitting act, and that that would prevent the creation of fictitious votes. But he remembered being on a committee of that house which sat in the year 1846, and they had oc casion to ga into the whole question of creation of fictitious votes. A legal gentleman of great experience then told them that it was quite impossible to prevent the creation of these votes by any law that they might pass ; that the old splitting act had been a delusion, and that it had been easily evaded ; and one solicitor said that he would defy them to pass a law which the dexterity of conveyancers could not be able to evade in the creation of faggot votes. (Hear.) This was an alarming pr o position. The Carlton o r Reform Club, or any of these wealthy or powerful bodies, would be able to create non-resident voters in boroughs, and thus counteract the voice of the resident voters. (Cheers.) Were they to be parties to such a measure as this, and that for the sake of settling reform ? (Cheers.) This would net settle reform ; it would produce universal dissatisfaction— (cheers)—and ho agreed with his hon. friend the member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) when he said, in one of his speeches on reform, that there was no bill so revolutionary as a bad bill. (Loud cheers.) Therefore it behoved them to hesitate before they gave their assent to this proposi tion. He would ask what was the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir E. B. Lytton), when he claimed for himself and his friends that they were the special guardians of the middle classes? (Laughter and cheers.) Friends of the middle classes Not friends of the farmers, as they recollected in old times. (Laughter and cheers.) Their cry now was, " friends of the middle classes." Could they devise a cry more dangerous than that there was a party in the State basing itself upon the exclusion of the great mass of the working classes ? (Cheers.) He for one disliked the doctrine of being the friend of any class. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see a full and fair representation of the people — hear, hear—and he believed that unless . they - NCere prepared to reduce the borough franchise, they could not admit within the electoral pale any considerable portion of the Wat.V.hr, classes of this country. (Hear, hear.) If it be not right id ehttlit the working classes to any share of poli tical power, let theiii say so ; but do not mock them with the delusion of £6O in a Wings-bank. (Cheers.) Tell them that they were not fitted foe the franchise—that the time had not come for their admission ; iftft if that were not their opinion, he knew of no other mode at present for ad mitting in any considerable number the industrious classes in this country to the exercise of the electoral franchise than by a reduction of the franchise in boroughs and cities. (Cheers.) Well, then, with these options, how ought a member to vote ? The bill was called a Reform Bill, and it was said that they might amend it in committee. But it was not said that when the material and essential amendments were made the Government would adopt them. When the ship was filled with valuable cargo, which his right hon. friend the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) would put into it, then the captain and the crew would abandon it. (Laugh ter and cheers.) Where, then, was the use of trusting. to these amendments in committee ? If the matter stood in a different position, he should be the last man to argue in favour of any extreme course, and because the bill did not contain everything that he approved, therefore it must be rejected on the second reading. But this was a totally dif ferent question. A Reform Bill must be viewed as a whole —(cheers).:---as a scheme, a well-considered scheme, brought in by a Government. They could not deal with a question of that kind, affecting the interests of the whole nation, as they would with a turnpike bill into which they were to introduce amendments upon every clause. (Hear, hear.) Besides, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herman) would, after all, destroy this bill by slow torture, while they would save the time of the house by disposing of this essential preliminary question by a division upon the resolution Gf the noble lord. (Cheers.) This was the fairest course to the Government. (Hear, hear.) This was the fairest to the houso. They would not then be placed under any mis apprehension. They knew what they had before them, and what they were to do. If, on the other hand, they went into committee, as had been recommended I o them, without understanding what course was to be adopted by the Go vernment and carried through Parliament, then he main tained they would be taking the most unparliamentary and puerile course that was ever suggested upon any great public measure. (Cheers.) It was not for him to answer those invitations which had been made to them to submit other schemes if reform, in order that new issues might be raised, and their attention be drawn off from the subject before them. (Cheers.) He had confined his observations simply to the bill and the amendment. He would not travel from the question. He would not shadow forth schemes of reform that in his opinion might be desirable, nor would he allude to other schemes of reform that other hon. members had thought proper to put forward. Parliamentary reform was essentially a question that must be dealt with by the Ministers of the Crown. (Cheers.) Parliamentary reform must be carried by a Government, if ever it was carried, that had the confidence of Parliament—(cheers)--and his desire was that they should live to see the day when, having a good measure of Parliamentary reform, they should have Governments which enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons, and a House of Commons that enjoyed the con fidence of the country. (Cheers.) Mr. ADDERLEY was sure they all felt a personal grafi' fication that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had at last expressed his sentiments on Parliamen tary Reform. For the last ten years the right hon. gen tleman kept a perfect silence on the subject, and a short time ago, when at Manchester, he referred, with great dis cretion, his audience to the hon. member for Birmingham, rather than express his own opinions. The right hon. gen tleman was a true exponent of the Manchester views, and it was therefore important he should be placed before us, that issue might be joined between them. The right hon. gentleman in his address to the house criticised the various features, or, as he called them, " the conditions of the bill." The noble lord the member for the City of London called them "principles," in contradistinction to "conditions." The right hon, gentleman said the people were misled by the measure brought forward by the Governinentt, and that he expected no good result from it. Now he (Mr. Adderley) would leave it to the house whether, on any ques tion of electoral reform, so far, at least, as the extension of the suffrage was concerned, there could be any principle at issue except those two—first, that of extending the fran chise on the basis of property, and the other and antago nistic principle, which it is alleged is a matter of right—the ' extension of it to numbers. The noble lord in his amend ment, and the observations which accompanied it, modified his views between the two ; but he (Mr. Adderley) con tended that, for consistency, he was bound to adopt the whole principle. The question, in point of fact, was an old one—it was that of numbers against property—the struggle carried on between the patricians and plebeians of ancient Rome. (Hear, hear.) There was, as he said, nothing new in it. The bill before the house was based on both. The right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton-under-Lyne adopted the principle of numbers ; while the noble lord the member for the City of London did not, in point of fact, take any of them. The noble lord, however, must rest his case on either one or the other. If he adopted that of numbers, let him not deceive the house or himself, be cause he must go to its extreme length. (Cries of " No.") He may believe that resident suffrage would be the best, but he must go the full length of universal suffrage, and with it, as a concomitant, propose the Ballot likewise. (Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. .Adderley) contended that the noble lord opposed the bill of the Government on false principles, and was deceiving hon. gentlemen who sur rounded him. At one moment he made them believe he was going with them; that, to use a phrase which occurred during the debate, he was " in the same boat with them," but in his speech lie stated clearly and distinctly that in his opinion the lower classes could not be trusted with the franchise. The noble lord said "he defended Reform when he was young, and would not desert it when he was old." Did that mean that because he defended it when young, he, and no one else, should defend it when he was old ? In his (Mr. Adderley's) opinion he should have rather said, " I defended Reform when I was young, and I defeated it when I was old." What the noble lord meant by the sentiment he thus expressed may be easily understood, for no sooner was the bill of the Government introduced than he expressed his dislike to it, and in a manner which seemed to say, what have you to do with Reform ? as if it were a mono poly with him and his friends. (Hear.) The noble lord in his amendment proposed that one portion of the borough franchise—namely, that of occupation—should be £6 instead of £lO. There was no difference, therefore, in principle, but simply that between £0 and £lO ; but the right hon. gen tleman the member for Ashton went farther, and would probably adopt a rating, or an entirely universal suffrage fhe question, as he said, between the Government and the noble lord Was only one of degree—the difference between £6 and £lO, whereas the right hon. genleman, concealing his real sentiments, was formiiversal suffrage, and yet both combine to resist the bill. Suppme they were in committee, as they ought to be—(a laugh)—he for one would prefer a £lO franchise, andhe would tell them why, Suppose all the other fr anchises in the bill were conceded, he would ask, what man of Industry and intelligence would be excluded ? (Hear.) It would possibly amount to universal suffrage un der the mildest possible cheek of industry and intelligence. No one would be excluded but those who wanted industry and intelligence. (Hear.) Hon gentleaveu opposite assumed that the working classes desired this greet extension of the suffrage, , but that ho totally denied. Meer, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Even as matters now stood there was a large number of them who might be pieced on the register, and did not choose to do so, and a number, equally as numerous, who, though on the register, did not take the trouble of voting. (Hear.) The hon. member for Birmingham, in a speech which ho recently made to his constituents at Birmingham, described a Wong-minded man as laying by a few pounds , and afterwards, through the sickness of a child, or want of employment in a com mercial place was reduced to destitution, and he added that it would be isetter to give him bread than the suffrage. (Hear.) But did not the hon. gentleman in his scheme pro pose to extend it to that Mess altogether ? He (Mr. Ad derley) would rather encourage en industrious man to rise to the suffrage, and obtain it by hie own industry end intel ligence, instead of urging him on to demand it as right when he cared nothing for it. A great deal had been said of the good conduct of the working classes. Now, it so happened that he had a knowledge of and knew more about them than even the hon. member for Birmingham, and he should be glad to see such men as the artisans of Birming ham, for example, in possession of the franchise. Most of them would possess it under the Mil, and he cordially con curred in what fell from Lord Brougliem last year, that they were the most independent class of r eters in the kingdoia. He was aware that they discussed the crestion of Parliamentary Reform, and in Birmingham they hael a debating club, whore all the great questions of the day were criticised and commented on. Indeed, not long ago the question was, " Did the hon. gentleman properly represent them or not ?" and on a division he was informed that the numbers for and against were equal. (A laugh,) In jus tice, however, to the hon. gentleman ho was bound to say, that from information ho subsequently received he had a majority of one. (Laughter.) The quest ion was not whether they should deprive the working classes of the franchise, but whether they should, by making them bands of dema gogues, practically disfranchise all other classes in the com munity. The noble lord's first objection was, that the bill disfranchised 45,000 voters, and that they violated in the first place prescriptive right. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Lord John Russell) had quoted Blackstone to show that the 40s. freeholders had a right to the county suffrage. But that was the limit below which the suffrage was not to descend, but the noble lord broke through that limit in 1832. It had been said by the right hon. Mr. Milner Gib son, that the bill would not add one vote to the country. Now he (Mr. Adderley) would say that it would acid 400,000 electors, or about 50 per cent. to the constituency of England. Mr. MILNER GIBSON, as we understood him (for he spoke in a very low tone of voice) said that, what he said was, it would add to some extent. Mr. ADDERLEY—That some extent was something. Although it had been argued that there were many counties under the influence of the landlords, there was not any county entirely suburban in character. The neblelord had shown himself very particular about the boroughs, but ho had not a word to say about the counties. Now, the same thing that would swamp Rutland would not swamp Man chester. That was a game which, however, could be played on both sides, and that would be played too. There were modes of playing tricks under any system that had been proposed, and it was idle to say that persons under the ' £5 franchise would not be as open to trickery as the 40s. freeholders. He knew Birmingham very well, and he thought the game could be played there. The right hon gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) complained that uniformity of suffrage would lead to electoral districts. He argued, that when all were placed on the same level the inevitable result would be their having electoral districts. Now, the noble lord proposed an inequality of suffrage, which would be far more intolerable than the one complained of. One.-half of the town of Birmingham was not in the borough, and by the noble lord's proposal, one-half of the population of that important town would have the .E 5 franchise, while the other half would have the £lO franchise. As far as land lord influence was concerned he would take his own case. He had a considerable property in Birmingham, and he had a great respect for his representative, the hon. rreinber (Mr. Bright), but he (Mr. Adderley) had no influence there whatever. If the Whig party were on the present occasion going to support the Radical party, let them re- ' collect that this was perhaps the last opportuni t y of stand ing on oue of two principles—the one a safe principle, the other entirely antagonistic, from which it was now in their power to save the country. If the Whigs who had for merly taken the lead in reform legislation were about to take the course imputed to them, they would be handing over the country to wild and dangerous legislation, and there would be great agitation if this bill were thrown out. (Ministerial cheers,) In 1831-32 what got up the steam ? Not the desire for the possession of the franchise, but the agitation was the result of the efforts of wild and dan gerous men who got up that agitation for their own pur poses. (Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear.") He hoped never to see such an agitation again ; but the same men could get up a similar agitation when any discontent pre vailed throughout the country, and let him warn the house what the consequence would be when they had arrived in this country at universal suffrage. Let them r,coollect what consequences it had produced in Rome--it had dis solved the commonwealth, and made. way for absolute power. This country under universal suffrage would not produce so good a result as it did in America, the old insti tutions in this country being so totally dissimilar to the in stitutions of America, and so unfitted for the introduction of universal suffrage. It would have the effect of making way for a vulgar party, and for strong ambition, by break ing down the barrier of the middle classes, and making way for breaking down also the beneficial power of this popul ar assembly. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Mr. HEADLAM rose, amid loud cries for Mr. Bernal Osborne, and said they were beginning at last to see their way in this question. He would have been better satisfied if the right hon. gentleman who had last addressed them had explained the object of the G - overnment bill, instead of discussing the value of the Z 5, or of the county franchise. The Government had introduced a Reform Bill fettered with conditions which the House of Commons could not accept, and it had also to be recollected that these condi tions were so loathsome to the nation that the table of the house had been covered with petitions against it. (Hear, hear.) Strange to say, that, during all the agitation on the subject, not one petition had been sent up in favour of the proposed change in boroughs and counties, nor had one newspaper spoken in its favour. The present bill could not be accepted, and he must say the Government had not carried out the pledge they had given. The right way would be to drop the present bill and bring in another, and if they would strike out the objectionable portions he would give it his support. (Hear, hear.) He could not, with any respect for his constituents, consent to the second reading of this bill until he had a clear understanding of its prin ciples. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly satisfied of the wis dom and propriety of the resolution. It had the effect of a motion that the bill be read a second time this day six months, and it also gave a reason why it should not be read a second time at all. He thought the course pursued by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was fair and manly, and deserving of the approbation of the house. Ho (Mr. Head lam) objected strongly to the principle of identity of suf frage. If many cases were known in which commercial men attempted to snatch the representation from the rural dis tricts, that would justify a change. But there was Ito evi dence of anything of the kind. He thought that an increase of the borough influence would tend to enlarge the sympa thies and widen the objects of the county members. He objected to the bill because it also preserved the influence of the small nomination boroughs, because it gave the power of voting to persons at a distance, and enabled non resident proprietors to vote in the borough. He regretted that the bill had been placed on the table of the house, bi cause it placed the great country party in a false position, and because the people at lsrge would consider that the measure was not introduced to promote Refoi m ' but to servo the purposes of a party. (Opposition cheers.) He thought the discord between town and country should be forgotten. The interests of the manufacturer and the terri torial proprietor were bound up together, and nothing should be done to sever them. (Hear, hoar.) The bill had a tendency to set one party against another, and therefore he would give it his decided opposition. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Mr. BENTINCK said his right hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had spoken for half-an-hour, and told the house nothing. (Hear, hear.) He talked of the numerous spon taneous meetings which had taken place throughout the country in favour of reform, and alleged that those meetings were attended by men of education and intelli gence. Now, it just happened that the majority of those meetings passed resolutions in favour of annual Parlia ments, vote by ballot, and universal suffrage. (No, no, from the Opposition benches.) He would repeat that this was the fact. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) He was, therefore, justified in assuming that the views of the right hon. gentleman, and those who politically acted with him, were in consonance with the decisions of those meetings, and that those gentlemen would en deavour to give effect to those views whenever they had the direction of political affairs. The discussion of the Government Reform Bill at such a moment would be really irrelevant to the question before them, and it could not be discussed without the greatest of all inconveniences—the consideration of two things at once. The Reform Bill of 1832 was, in his judgment, framed in a spirit of party, and not of justice, and he had always been opposed to it, and to the hardships and ano malies it established. He was not prepared to say that he was opposed to all reform therefore, nor could any one say so who was an avowed supporter of the bill before the house. He could also say, though he objected to many of its details, that he could see in those objections nothing to justify him in opposing the second reading of the bill. (Conservative cheers.) His chief objection to it was that it did not grapple with the existing injustice in the county representation ; for no man would venture to deny, unless he was prepared to contend against facts and figures, that the rural districts in counties were not fairly repre sented. It appeared to him, however, that the time had not yet come for dealing with that question. But as re garded that and other points connected with the general subject, the. noble lord the member for London interposed a resolution which now called upon the house to discuss the question, not of reform, but whether he and his political friends were to be translated from their present places to the Treasury benches. (Conservative cheers.) For that was really the colour which the question had assumed. He con fessed he was much struck with the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, which was conceived in a manly and straightforward spirit, and was remarkable for that which was too commonly deficient in that house, the character of really conveying the thoughts of the speaker. The point on which the right hon. gentleman chiefly dwelt and in which he (Mr. Bentinck) quite concurred, was, that it was the duty of the house and of the country to see that no impediment was thrown in the way of dealing with the question of reform ; for no one could say in what temper they might be called on hereafter to deal with the question. But the right hon. gentleman pointed out, also, what would be the position of hon. gentlemen opposite if the noble lord succeeded by his resolution in ejecting the Government from office. It was not often that he (Mr. Bentinck) agreed with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, but he was bound to say that he concurred in all that fell from the lion. and learned gentleman on a. recent occasion, when he deprecated that the question of reform should be made a battle-field of faction at a moment when the action of this country in the political aft tirs of Europe was most desir able, and when an unhappy turn in the course of the ques tion in Parliament would deprive the country of the influ ence abroad which it might otherwise possess. If anything could confirm the justness of that remark, it was the very ominous fact which he saw stated in the papers of that day, that some Austrian cavalry had crossed the river which separated Austria from Piedmont, thereby commit ting an act of aggression on the Sardinian territory. The hon. member for Stamford, in an able speech, truly said that the question was not whether they would consent to extend the franchise te the working classes, but whether they were prepared to transfer the whole representative power of the country to one particular class from all the othern? That was the real question at issue, and no bril liancy of oratory or ingenuity of sophistry could alter its complexion. They had been told that the noble lord and the lion. member for Birmingham would be found rowing in the same boat, and the meaning of that had been explained to them by the hon. member for Walsall to mean, that the noble lord and the hon. gentleman would be found voting in the same lobby. He thought, however, that the noble lord would find himself not a little puzzled if his resolution passed. The noble lord's boat was constructed on principles different from those of the boat inwhich he generally rowed, and he apprehended that the race would be finished by the noble lord catching a crab, and finding himself ifi the bot tom of the boat. (Great laughter.) Judging from the character of the noble lord's crew, too, he felt sure that when once down they would not let him get up again. (Renewed laughter.) But to pass on to realities, they ought to know from the noble lord something more than he had as yet communicated. They ought to be told who was to be the coxswain of the boats—the noble lord himself, or the hon. member for Birmingham; who was to steer her, and in What direction; and if down stream, at what rate she was to be propelled. (Cheers front the Couservatives.) That point had been very skilfully touched upon by the hon. and learned 'gentlemen the Solicitor-General; and the house had a right to knew who, in that new coalition, were to be the leading men ; fcr they had it on the veracity of the hon. member for Walsall, that the hon. member for Birmingham and the noble lord were politically associated, and that was not denied either by the noble lord or by the hon. member. Lord J. RUSSELL—No. Mr. BENTINCK was glad to hear the assertion contra dieted, but he felt assured that the coalition had been formed, and had existed almost up to that moment, and he hoped that when the hon. member for !Birmingham ad dressed the house with his commanding eloquence he would tell them the same thing. Until the noble lord had fully disclosed to the house what his intentions were on the sub ject of Reform, he had ne right to throw an obstruction in the way of a Reform Bill emanating from the Government, though otherwise his right would be undisputed. Mr, W. H. DENISON, who rose with about 12 other members, receiving the call of the home, said ho thought that this was a question which, if undertaken et all, ought to be settled. But was the measure before the house cal culated to accomelish that object P Was it likely the effect of the bill would be to pnt down agitation ? He thought it would not. (Hear, hear.) The authors of the bill had not spoken se much in favour of the bill as they had apologised for it. (Hear.) If the bill was favourably received by the country, where were the petitions in its favour ? "Where were the public meetings in its favour? How otherwise were they to know whether the country was favourable to the bill? The truth was, the coun try was not in favour of the bill. It was said it might be amended ; but to do that, it was necessary to strike out the inside of the bill, and leave little else than the preamble. :That would be a discreditable mode of legis lation, and he should therefore support the resolution, and oppose the second reading of the Mr. L. KING said that after the great concessions which had been made by the Government to the principle for which he had contended for some years—that of extending the county franchise to £lO occupiers, he must admit they might almost have expected him to vote in favour of the bill. 'They had, however, so spoilt and mutilated the mea sure he had proposed—(hear, hear)—having deprived it of that he found it impossibl e t o d o so . its very life and spirit , His,bill Was of a very simple nature, and merely proposed to extend the franchise to a very deserving and intelligent class of persons in counties, who did not now possess it. His measure did not propose to disfranchise a single per son; nor did it profess to be in any respect a Reform Bill The Government measure was called a Reform Bill, and one of its most objectionable features was that it proposed to disfranchise, without their consent, a class of persons who now possessed the franchise in counties. if they took the amended clauses of the bill, it proposed that these persons should not be disfranchised if they were at the trouble of re-registering their votes, but it provided that their suoces sorS, heirs, and assigns, and all future purchasers of free holds in borouishs should be disqualified from voting for counties. In the course of the debate some refe rence had been made to the measure which lie had for seve ral years past submitted to the house, and the right hon. member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), in his eloquent speech the other night, had given what he was pleased to call a history of that bill ; but as the right hon. gentleman's account was not quite correct, ho (Mr. L. King) might he allowed testate what the facts really wore. lie first intro duced the County Franchise Bill in 1850, not in 1851, in consequence of a speech made by the noble member for the cit. y of London, on a motion which was brought forward annually by the late Mr. Hume, for the exten sion of the franchise. In opposing Mr. Hume's mo tion the noble lord said he would not oppose all measures of reform ; but that the Government would be ready to consi der any reasonable proposition which was submitted to the house. It was then late in the session ; but he (Mr. L. King) took the first opportunity of proposing th e measure, which, if it had any fault was to• moderate. 'That motion was made on the 9th July, 1850 : _and was rejected, principally on the ground of the - Tete - orthe - sessioh, by 159 to 100. On the 20th of February, 1851, he again brought forward-hie motion, when the ayes were 100 and the noes 50. That had been described —but he thought improperly —a s a "snatch" division, for he believed that a great number of hon. mem bers purposely stayed away from the house in order that the motion might be carried. In the following year the Govern ment of Lord Derby was in power; and, on the 27th April, he brought forward his motion, which was supported by many hon. gentlemen who had previously voted against it. On that occasion the ayes were 149 and the noes 202. He re peated his motion in 18.53, but withdrew it in consequence of a promise made by the noble member f or th e c ity. Th e no bl e lord fulfill e d th a t promise in 1854, his bill embracing the Principle for which he (Mr. L. King) had contended. He did of renew his motion in 18.5.5 and 18.56, on account of the ar, but he again brought it forward on the 19th of February, 1857, when the ayes were 170 and the noes 192. Lest year he obtained leave to bring in the bill without a division, but on the 10th of J une a di v i s i on t oo k p l ace on t h e second reading, when the ayes were 226 and the noes 168. His right hon. friend the memberfor South Wilts said he alluded to these circumstances because he wished to ascertain why it was that the Government had assented to the adoption of a £lO franchise. He (Mr. L. King) thought that, in deference to the will of the house, considering that the " ayes" in favour of his motion had never been below 100, and that they had gradually increased to 149, 179, and 226. it was quite impossible for the Government to do otherwise than incorporate his proposition in their Reform Bill. The principle he had advocated had made rapid progress in public favour, although he had never resorted to out of door agitation to obtain its adoption, and had not even al luded to it on the hustings at his own election. The right hon. gentleman had complained that the title of his bill lied been changed. He would tell the right hon. gentleman why that change had taken place. The right hon. member fur Carlisle proposed that part of the occupation should consist of a dwelling-house, and a changein the title was therefore necessary, but the principle of the bill—that of a £lO fran chise—remained the same. The sum was put in italics be cause that WAS the usual course, unless it was included in the title of the bill. It had been said that he had not pressed this hill last year, because, being a keen observer, he knew the general feeling was against the measure. No such thing. It could not be said, after such a division as had taken place, that the feeling of the house was against his bill, but notice was given of so many amendments on going into commit tee that he felt it would have been impossible to press the measure last year. To one of the amendments which stood in tne name of Mr. Bentinck he should not have objected. It was—" That it be an instruction to the committee to make provisions for the disfranchisement of small boroughs." (Hear.) Ho was extremely sorry that he could not give his support to the bill. He felt grateful to lion. gentlemen opposite for undertaking the thankless task of forming a Government when they were in a minority, and on that side there was a powerful majority, happily for them, disunited, but ready to eject them from power N%:lien ever they could agree upon any question. (Ministerial cheers.) His noble friend had said that it was the duty of the Government to propose a Reform Bill. He disagreed from him. He did not think it the duty of a provisional Government to propose any bill of the kind, still less of a Tory Government, for the Liberal members felt that they were touching the question with very unhallowed hands. They felt a natural jealousy of a Tory Government med dling with it in any way. They felt that it was their pro vince, and regarded with suspicion anything which proceeded from their opponents. He must say that these suspicions were not ill-founded, and that this bill, which purported to be a Reform Bill, was admirably framed for keeping the present Government in office almost in per petuity. (Hear.) He could hardly expect much to be done by gentlemen placed in their circumstances ; but he did expect that any Government which thought it right to propose a Reform Bill would have deemed it necessary nt all events to adopt som e o f the principles which were in the Bill of 1832. He did expect that such indefensible absurdi ties as Calne and Arundel would be consigned to the same tomb as Gatton and Sarum, and that boroughs, the names of which would hardly be known if they did not send mem bers to Parliament, would not be preserved. In all the elements of further reform the bill was wholly wanting. If it passed it would settle nothing. There would be the same grounds for agitation, and there would be annual motions for further measures of reform. In 1832 the noble lord the member for the City of London said, that Schedule A and the £lO borough franchise were the pillars of the Reform Bill. He believed that an extension of the franchise in boroughs and counties must be the pillars of a Reform Bill now. (Hear, hear.) They could not expect from the descen dants of the:men who refused to give a member to Man chester and Sheffield that they would sweep away those small boroughs which they, too, had found useful to them selves ; but when they gave the £lO county franchise they should not, " Startled at the sound themselves had made," have, at one fell swoop, detached from the county constitu encies the most liberal and independent portion of them. (Hear, hoar.) He was afraid there was some lurking feel ing of revenge in all this, as it was through the exertions of , those very freeholders the question of free-trade had won • its way into that house. He himself felt deeply grateful to them, for it was they who secured his return for the county he had the honour to represent. He thought, too, he sa w in the proposal the revival of a spirit of landlordism. This shuffling of the cards, however, was not the proper way of dealing with the question. The proper waywas to find out those boroughs in which a political capacity existed, and disfranchise all the others • for now, as in 183 9 , the Reform. Bill must rest on the pillars of schedule A, and a lowered qualification to the privilere of the franChiss. There were four things to be considered—the disfrenchise ment of some boroughs, the enfranchisement of others, the extension of the suffrage in boroughs, and the extension of the franchise in counties ; and it was because the bill before the house was defective in all four that he supported the resolution. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DUTTON said, he should vote against the amend ment of the nobe lord, not because he objected to the principles of the resolution, for in those principles ho en tirely agreed, but because he believed the proper time to consider them - was when the bill was in committee, (Hear.) Mr. W. J. FOX said, thatthe hon. member who had just sat down agreed with the amendment, and yet announced his determination to vote against it. He dissented from the principle of the bill, which was uniformity of suffrage, yet he declared he should vote for the second reading. Hoer the hon. member reconciled these views and intentions it • was the hon. member's business to solve. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member said he would put his amendments into the bill after the second reading. But these amendments went to the very heart and principle of the bill. The Opposition offered the Government the opportunity of re moulding the bill, but they declared that if it were not done they would reject it. He had listened very anxiously throughout this debate to learn what were the great accusa tions against the working classes and these accusations certainly ought to have been brought into greater promi nence. (Hear, hear.) . They had heard strong liiisaass ons of the middle classes. They were told that they really governed the country, and they were praised for having obtained the repeal of the corn laws, and the other great and excellent measures passed since the Reform Act. Ile had nothing to say against these praises, since he had been in sympathy with the middle classes in supporting there measures, but they cruse) very oddly from the very party by which all these measures had been opposed. (Cheers.) For a quarter of a century the middle classes had struggled for certain principles, and now, lien. gentlemen oppo site, who had fought tooth and nail against them, were smitten with the deepest admiration of the middle classes. (Hear.) He wished to remind these hon. gentlemen that the middle classes had at this moment many objects Mill at heart. They were opposed to church rates, yet hon. gentlemen opposite resisted the abolition of church rates. The middle classes were friendly to the bal lot. (" No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The middle classes • were solicitous that the working classes should be admitted to the franchise, while hon. gentlemen, opposite objected to their admission. What then became of these magnifloent laudations of the middle classes as the rulin g power of the country? (Hear.) The great objection to the admission of the working classes was, that they were so numerous that they would swamp the classes above them, and hon. members opposite declared that the worst thing that could happen to this country was, that it should be governed by one great class. (Hear.) Well, but who were the middle classes? They were more numerous than the classes above them. If the argument was worth anything, that the legis lation of the country ought not to be in the hands of a single class, it applied as strongly to the present Government by the middle class as to the Government by the working dame, which was morenumerous still, and resembled the middle class in being alike diversified in opinions and views. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the disapprobation of the bill deepened as the debate proceeded. The people required a Reform Bill for the emancipation of the working classes, It was the great object to be accomplished. The working claim and the middle class carried the Reform Bill of 1832 by their union and energy, with the distinct understanding that as the working classes then with'great magnanimity forewent their •wn a dmission, and yet assisted in the agi tation, they were in their turn to be helped by the middle class. 1 For this they had waited year after year, and now a bribe wa s i l hold out to the middle classes, who were praised; exalted, 1 petted, an d rewarded, in order to reconcile th em -t o et mea surepe , that excluded the working classes, and thus Sought to make the middle classes false and treacherous tolheir oun implied contract.. (Hear.) He, for one, did not wish th en fr an chise the working classes by dribl e t s . P ar li amen t did. - not so act in the emancipation of the negroes. It was pro claimed that they were all freed at once, and the effect , upon Europe.and the world was much more propitious , to the cause of truth, justice, liberty, and freedom . than any gradual emancipation. The effect of the emancipation of the working classes would be analogous, for they were, in fact, a slave class. They had nothing to do with the laws ' but to obey them. They p a id t axes , but they had tio share in the power that voted th em . H e knew how they felt at this exclusion, for it was not till he was 40 years old that he himself had a vote, and he knew the sense of wrong and even of bitterness engendered by the exclusion. Hon. gen tlemen talked of the qualifications that a voter ought to possess. According to them he must be acquainted with home politics, with foreign politics, with political history, with this, that, and the other, with so much in short that if as many qualifications were required of a member of that house it would be a marvel if a great portion of them got through their examination. (A laugh, and hear, hear.) Candidates upon the hustings were of two classes. The first were men who had made politics a life-long study, who by their speeches, writings, and deeds belonged to te centry, and who might properly be entrusted with its destiny. The second class were men of high local standing, such as mer chants, m anufacturers, and great landowners, who were looked up to in their localities, and who were returned as representatives of the several interests with which they were connected. Now, the working classes were judges of both these classes, although they did not belong either to one or the other. Now that newspapers were so common and public men lived in houses of glass, men of national reputation were as well known to the inhabitants of any particular district as people who had passed all their dayS l among them. Both in this case and m the . case of local men, the working classes might be fairly intrusted with pewees economists ; bit who '' the work, not of le:reaislattipongl- but of selectingitieal who were fitted to gov ern the country, it iwas3 , raid' go on this point was not so that y the A y ee w l e l re rate not icnowl(o common that the working classes need be reflected upon for wanting it. They were described as having very touch impeded the operations of the Anti-Corn Law League ; but as fhr back as 1815 working men had protested against the corn laws, and in this way had shown that they were better political economists than even the great merchants of Man chester. Again, in 1832, it was they who generally andel• tested that the reformed Parliament would abolish the corn laws. True, they held aloof from the League, but they had reasons for doing so, one of which was that they thought Free Trade ought to be preceded by Parliamentary Reform. But they only kept aloof for a time, and, if the Working ' glasses made a mistake for a few years, he asked did not the landowners and others make a still greater mistake, and ding to protection still more closely? (Hear, hea7.l Then iworkingt was said that if the classes had possessed power lin this house at the time the Ten Hours Bill passed, the limitation of adult labour would have been included in the . . -