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

provisions of the meeJOlre. He did not believe it. When agitation on this subject was warmest he could not recol lect a single just "le-e in which the factory operatives peti tioned for the lin iitation of their own hours of labour. They never went beyo ,ad the protection of women and children, who certainly st , rood in need of protection. (Hear, hear.) Another argera ant brought forward was that the working classes in a ta r :ticular locality did not like boot-making ma chines, and „ ad struck in consequence. Well, certainly it was a m i st az .e on their part to resist the introduction of new machinery; but when one remembered how fiercely the proctors hr ad.opposed an improvement in the law which af fected thr Jir interests, and how loudly they called for corn pens'atiem. in consequence, hon. gentlemen would perhaps hwie more consideration for the operatives who fell into a reiistake of this sort. (Hear, hear.) But, in point of fact, machine-breaking, rick-burning, and all such violence had passed away like a cloud, and mechanics' institutions had spread abroad a much better spirit. (Hear.) The next argu ment advanced was, that though the working classes might he wise, and honest , and loyal, still, whatever th e i r qualifi cations were, it was to be feared that all power would pass into their hands. Now, he took that to be one of the greatest chimeras possible. Working men were divided among themselves, like every other class, and they would no more act in opposition to these above them in the social scale than the middle classes had done. They would follow various sets of leaders ; they would have in view various objects ; and surely the history of the last twenty-five years showed that a class might be intrusted with the influence which the franchise conferred without making war upon other classes, or seeking to destroy existing institutions. (Hear, hear.) In listening to the able and eloquent speech in which the bill had been introduced, and the very elo quent speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary in its sup port, he could not help calling to mind that nearly thirty years ago he had the honour of being introduced to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. baronet. They met him with a unity of feeling, being among those who went furthest in a conviction of the necessity of altering the old exclusive Tory system which prevailed before 1832. A great change had since come over both right hon. gentle men. He did not twit them on that score ' • he made no accusation ; he freely conceded that they might both have had clear and strong reasons for their change of opinion. He did not say of them what Goldsmith said of Burke— " Who, born for the universe narrowed his mind, And to party gave up what was meant for mankind." But he would say to these right hon. gentlemen, " Stand as fairly acquitted as you may of the change in yourselves, but make allowance for the unchanged working classes." (Hear.) During all this time what had we seen in them to give rise to feelings of condemnation rather than of sympathy, of exclusion rather than of comprehension ? What crime could we lay to their charge ? What was their behaviour when all Europe was convulsed ? (Hear.) What had they been in times of war and in times of pmee, in times of prosperity and in times of privation ? Had they not borne all like true and honest men, who well deserved the praises that had been heaped upon the middle classes ? They had borne with patience and with hope deferred the refusal of their political rights. They had been put off with promise afte r promise by Government after Government. They . had still that had the unextinguishable conviction in their mind they deserved the franchise—the unextinguishable hope_ that they might one day obtain it. (Hear, 2i h ea r .) trusted they would not only be included soon wi thin _ p of the constitution, but that they would be received w ith a joyous and hearty welcome. (Cheers.) Mr. B. HOPE said the hon. member who had just sat down deserved great credit for having removed the debate from the arena of party conflict, and for discussing the question whether this measure was really a judicious bill for amending the representation of the people. He could speak with a clean breast and a clear conscience upon the amendment now before the house, because, when the pre cedent upon which it was founded was established, he voted for the abstract resolution which led to the fall of Lord Pal merston's Government, not because he approved of it, but as negativing the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill. He was one of the 99 who voted against the introduction of that measure. The practice of introducing an abstract re solution, though useful at times, was quite out of place now, as playing pitch and toss with the dignity of legislation. He remembered, when he was at the university, attending a debating club called the " Union," where the propositions discussed were of an abstract nature. The questions de bated were amusing and exciting, and bets ran sometimes high as to the results of the discussions. Now it was rather hard that in the great council of the nation they should be carried back to the system of their youth in settling a large and important question by an abstract resolution. In his opinion the bill before the house would enable both counties and boroughs to be well represented ; it proposed a franchise by which such a result could be obtained, and that being so, the measure ought to be acceptable to the Parliament and the country. It was clear, therefore, that this outcry about the disfranchisement of freeholders in boroughs was a sham and a delusion, and a mere got-up grievance he (Mr. Hope) had never heard. It was merely a grievance upon E:f e m. r e . g o t se was very nev i er even t, or of harmless, ee and d es m tio e ns et brought ueng meetings which had been held of late. He had found him self in the middle of one of those meetings the other day in Hyde-park, which was one of the most absurd caricatures of popular excitement he ever saw. A man was speaking, some few were listening, others were laughing. He (Mr. Hope) stood by a workman who had his ears a little more open than the rest, and asked who it was that was speak ing. " I don't know," said the man, "it is only some democrat." (Laughter.) Presently the democrat sat down, whereupon some seven men cheered, and the cheers were then taken up by a number of small boys, one of whom candidly affirmed he did not know what were the senti ments he so ignorantly applauded. No doubt many meet ings which had been cried up by some a the morning papers were not more formidable than this. Under all the circumstances, he should give his vote for the second read ing of the bill, believing that it did not attempt to deal theoretically but practically with the subject. It had been said that the bill was a compromise, but, if it was, it was a fair and honest compromise. (Hear, hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE said he could assure the hon. mem ber for Maidstone, who had just resumed his seat, that if he did not attempt to follow his ingenious speculations in this debate, it was from no disrespect to the hon. member; but owing to the private and confidential nature of his (Mr. Hope's) communications with the Treasury bench. It was very difficult for any gentleman sitting on the Opposi tion side of the house to catch the gist of the hon. member's argument; but he (Mr. Osborne) had heard sufficient to assure him that when he canvassed the borough of Dun garvon about six years ago for the hon. gentleman, ho Was very much mistaken in his estimation of his hon. friend, who was not the reformer he then represented himself to be. (Hear, hear.) This question of reform was in a very anomalous position. They were told by gentlemen on the Treasury bench that there was no one in the country who cared about reform, and yet by a strange coincidence every body was anxious to carry a Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) He was not about to scan the motives of hon. members. He thought her Majesty's Government had fully redeemed the pledge which they gave last year in bringing in a Re form Bill, but he thought it might have been as well, if, in touching this great and difficult subject, they had touched it in a larger and moreliberal spirit, and given some earnest of a fair and permanent settlement of the question—(hear) —because, unless the house settled the question upon some Permanent basis, it would have been better not to have brought in a bill at all. (Hear, hear.) However, the Go vernment had done their duty, and it now remained for the house to decide how far the bill was an improvement on that of 1832, and how far it offered a permanent settlement of the question. He might ask, why was any Reform Bill called for at all ? The Act of 1832 had a candid acknow ledgment paid to its merits by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who called it the greatest act passed for 500 years. (Hear.) He believed the right hon. gentleman to have been perfectly sincere, and he was ready to acknowledge the fairness and ability which characterised that great and statesmanlike speech. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman called it " that great act." Well, why were they about to interfere with that act ? It no doubt possessed great merits, for it gave a large share of power to the middle classes, who had not hitherto been admitted to act in the constitution. But it had great defects, be cause it totally excluded the working classes from any share in the constitution of the country; and he took it, if they were called to bring in a Reform Bill at all, it should be to redress those 'grievances which had escaped notice in the Act of 1832. (Hear.) Did this bill propose to do that ? If there were doubt on the subject that must have been dis pelled by the speech of the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies. The right hon. gentleman told them that he had great respect for the working man, whether in the town or in the country, whether in a fustian jacket or a smock frock ; that he thought him rather a good fellow than not ; but at the same time he declined to admit the working man to any share of power. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman, in beautiful and eloquent langu age, had in scribed "No surrender" on the colours which he had re cently hoisted in the C onservative camp. The right hon. gentleman had twitted his right hon. friend upon the sub ject of the ballot, and the views he had advocated during the debates on the appropriation clause. He (Mr. Osborne) thought he would turn to the hi s t ory of that day, and he found that the right hon. baronet had spoken and voted in favour of the appropriation clause and for the ballot. When the right hon. gentleman talked of the consistency of his opinions, he (Mr. Osborne) regretted thatwhilst he imitat e d Burke in the splendour of his sentiments and eloquence of his periods, he excelled Burke in having deserted the princi ples which animated him in the early part of his career. (Cheers.) The literary Whig had become the Conservative philosopher—(laughter)--and he was employed now i n dis franchising the working classes whom he had been so elo quent in defending. But the right hon. gentleman had at tempted to mislead the house and raise a false issue on the subject under discussion. He brought forward the old story of the dissolution of the French Ministry and t he fate of the French. Monarchy. He (Mr. Osborne) asked the right hon. gentleman, who had read history to so much purpose, what was the cause of the fate of the French monarchy ? W a s it not by carrying into action the very principles which the right hon. gentleman had so eloquently expressed, of " No surrender" to the people? (Cheers.) At least such was his (Mr. Osborne's) reading ; and, if the right hon. gentleman should ever write a history of France, he (Mr. Osborne) hoped he would lay down different principles from those he had now enunciated. (Laughter.) But the right hon. gen tleman went further. Carrying out his parallel of Francehe forgot, in the subsequent calamities of the French people, that denial of suffrage was the very thing that brought France into revolution. What was the consequence? There was a broad line of demarcation drawn betiteen the rich and the Poor, and 100,000 voters was the whole number thought fit to 1:e entrusted with the franchise. (Hear, hear.) Of course that ‘• ugly rush" occurred which had been so often alluded to, and the French monarchy and the French constiution fell, he needed not tell the house how. What did the French Government do ? They attempted to raise a war of classes. They called on the middle classes to stand by them, and what was the conduct of those classes ? They did not stand by their own order in that day. The Minister who relied on them had a faith in them which he (Mr. Osborne) hoped never to see relied upon in this country. 18.0 much for the principle of identity of suffrage, which he held to be most dangerous and revolutionary. But he wished to know, when the right hon. gentleman the present Conservative philosopher talked of the "deplorable rub bish" which had been spoken on the question, whether he forgot what was spoken by Lord Derby in 18,54 up remarkon the subject? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) might that this was a subject which had been carefully avo id e d by the Government. (Hear, hear.) That noble lord dis tinctly laid down that the true and only principle upon which a Reform Bill ought to be brought in was the keep.. ing up of a distinction between the suffrage in the counties and in the boroughs. Lord Derby, for what reason he (Mr. Osborne) could not tell, had altered his opinions on that point, Jab (Ur, Chibfatvis) mai4objectia tQ this bill IN founded on the same reason which had induced two right ' hon. gentlemen to think it consistent with their duty to leave the Government. (Loud cheers.) If he might give some advice to the Treasury bench, he would sa , " Get rid of this mischievous principle, and get back those two good excellent men—(cheers) —who gave strength and sta - bility to your Government." (Repeated cheers.) Let those right hon. gentlemen bring in a Reform Bill, and he would take upon himself to say they would obtain a greater sup port than was accorded to the Government on the present occasion. (Cheers.) So much for the principle of the bill. Now let the house consider how this bill proposed to benefit the working man. It so happened that in the bill the working classes wese never recognised, except when they were to be disfranchised—(cheers)—under the head of dockyard labourers. (Laughter.) And the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who had such a respect for the "cultivated intelligence" of those mechanics —who was so anxious to elevate them in the social scale— proposed to disfranchise the " cultivated intelligence" of the mechanics in the dockyards. That might have been well in 1852, when the dockyard committee sat, and the agitation which prevailed among them was so great ; but a very dif ferent state of things existed at the present time. In 1856 all patronage was taken out of the hands of the Admiralty and given to the superintendents of the yards, and that was done mainly that the labourer should have a fair chalice of voting without being liable to pressure from the Admiralty. But what did the Government now do ? Had they revoked that order g Was the patronage now in the hands of the Admiralty ? (Cheers.) If not, how could they reconcile this —that they were about to disfranchise these voters, so dis tinguished for their "cultivated intelligence ?" (Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. Osborne) must say that he per fectly agreed with the hon. member for Bi r mingham, and he supposed it was a sign of revoluion to agree with him — (laughter)—that these fancy franchises were not the thing for the people of England. (Cheers.) They were the mere political millinery of Downing-street. (Laughter.) What they really wanted was a broad and simple test—variety of suffrage, if they liked—but still the test must be broad and simple. He candidly confessed that he was in favour of a property test, though it might be a n imperfect one. (Hear, hear.) Therefore let them have none of these fancy fran chises. Take, for instance, the lodging-house franchise, which was supposed to be sucha great boon to those gentle men in smock-frocks and fustian Jackets for whom the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had such a profound respect. He found on inquiry that the wages of an intelligent mechanic formed about one -tenth of his earnings. (Great laughter arose from the hon. member using the word "wages" by mistake for "lodgings.") Well they proposed to give the franchise to a man who paid Bs. a week for his lodging. Taking his (Mr. Osborne's) calculations that would not admit any mechanic to the franchise. That would only admit a class of men who had £lOO a year and upwards. Why, this bill would keep the lodging classes out of the franchise. It was a complete delusion, for such a franchise would depend upon a scolding landlord, or a smoky chimney. (Laughter.) The savings bank franchise was perhaps better, but it was ex tremely questionable whether it would apply to working men, although it might include some small capitalists. He would not go into the cases of Government pensioners, or certified schoolmasters (for none other were to be enfran chised), nor would he mention the doctors or the lawyers, who had got the franchise already; but he would ask whether under any one of those fancy franchises the work ing man would get a vote ? (Hear, hear.) He challenged any occupant of the Treasury bench to show in what way the workmg classes were to be enfranchised under this bill? But the noble lord the President of the India board quoted Mr. Holyoake as an authority to show that working men did not want the franchise. The house might not probably know who Mr. Holyoake was. Hon. gentlemen no doubt took him for the eldest son of the respected Northampton shire baronet of the same name. (Laughter.) But did they know who he was ? Well, be was a very clever political lec turer of very freethinking opinions. (Laughter.) The hon. member for North Warwickshire shook his head gravely, end he (Mr. Osborne) did not wonder at it, for the noble lord the President of the India board had been quoting the senti-. ments, not'of the working men of England, - but of an infidel lecturer. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Holyoake was no authority on this point, and was not regarded as such by the working men of England. Then, again, the bill sought to disfranchise the 40s. freeholders. Was this, he asked, on the ground that any accusations had been brought against their honour or independence ? None had been brought, but an attempt had been made to assimilate them with the 40s. freeholders in counties, and they were obnoxious because they were independent. (Hear, hear.) The bill was in fact to be to them a political Procrustes, which was to clip their wings and dismember them in the boroughs, and stretch them in the counties, in order to carry out a mistaken principle of uniformity of franchise, which was to reduce everything to a dead level. (Hear, hear.) If the bill contained no other objectionable clause but the disfran chisement, or rather, to use the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the " transference' of these voters, he hoped the House of Commons had sufficient reverence for mere custom and tradition than to disfranchise this noble and creditable body. (Cheers.) Then, again, see how the bill deals with small boroughs. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a Parliamentary borough should have a constituency " large enough to be in dependent, and select enough to be responsible." Be it so. He agreed with him in that definition, but his objection to small boroughs was not because they were small, but be cause they were under the influence of a patron. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had instanced the case of Arundel, and said, " Look at Arundel ; it is a small borough, but it represents the feelings and wishes of 900,000 of the Roman Catholics of England." He confessed he was sur prised to hear that sentiment, for what were the facts with regard to the borough of Arundel? Why, previously to 1832 it returned two members to Parliament. The consti tuency since that period had dwindled down from 400 to 198, and how had Lord Arundel and Surrey, when sitting for it, represented the interests of his 900,000 Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in England ? In the year 18,51 the unfortunate measure called the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was introduced. (Hear, hear.) He remembered it well, and he always regretted that such a bill had been intro duced. (Hear, hear.) Ho voted against it, and so did the Earl of Arundel and Surrey. (Hear, hear.) But what was the penalty the noble earl paid for his vote ? What became of the 900,000 Roman Catholics? Why, he got a hint from the proprietor of the borough—he had to leave his seat and take refuge in the town of Limerick. (A voice, " The city of Limerick.") Oh, he begged pardon of his hon. friend the member for the city of Limerick—the orbs intacta—he blew it well. (Cheers.) The noble earl was obliged to take refuge in the city of Limerick, and from that capital of an Irish county he represented the in terests of 960,000 Roman Catholics in England I (Cheers and laughter.) Could that house have a better illustration of the rottenness of this beau ideal of boroughs than that presented in the case of Arundel ? Now what, he asked,. were the reasons assigned for voting against the resolution of the noble lord the member for the City of London. Seve ral strange reasons had been assigned by hon. gentlemen sitting on either side of the house; but the strangest appeared to come from his (Mr. Osborne's) side. There was first and foremost the reasons assigned by the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. (Hear.) That right hon. gentleman was rather a dyspeptic politician. (Roars of laughter.) He gave some reasons, and very peculiar reasons, for voting against the resolution. They were peculiar but not original, for who had not read the letter commencing "My dear Elcho ?" (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman seemed content to open his mouth, shut his eyes, and see what would turn up. (Laughter.) " Give all you can and let me dream the rest" was the sentiment of the right hon. gentle man, and then with a refinement of cruelty he exclaimed " The Ministry is kick unto death. I once voted against Sir Robert Peel and I am very sorry for it—(laughter)—the Ministry is sick, but don't, I beseech you, put an end to their sufferings, but come with me into committee and we will torture them to death." (Great laughter.) He then made some dark mysterious hints about the drawing up of the resolution. He asked whose superscription it was, of course inferring it had sprung from the right hon. gentle man the membr for Ashton-under-Lyne, the author of all mischief. (Laughter.) But it would seem that the right hon. gentleman had nothing to say to it, and had not been con sulted on the subject. He confessed it filled him with sur prise that the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, representing as he did a constituency containing so many working men, could propose to treat a measure like this as he would a turnpike bill, and vote against the resolution of the noble lord the member for London. The hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General had made an in genious speech from the other side of the house, and, for getful of the deep obligations he was under to the hon. gen tleman the member for Birmingham, criticised him, and put him in the same boat with the noble lord the member for London ; but did the hon. and learned gentleman forget that if he had not been in tho same boat with the hon. member for Birmingham he would not now be pulling the stroke oar of the Ministerial boat. (Laughter.) No doubt the hon. and learned member for Belfast felt uncomfortable. (" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) He did not feel uncomfortable—he was perfectly resigned to his fate. He appeared so the other night—(laughter)—but he (Mr. Os borne) asked him how dare he ascribe motives to the noble lord the member for London how dare he say that the noble lord was actuated by personal motives—by motives of "poll. ticalaggrandisement and private advantage." (Loud cheers.) What would the hon. and learned gentleman say if it were whispered that he had visions of the woolsack floating be fore his eyes ? (Hear, hear.) He came into the house as a professional man, and he was fairly entitled to look forward to such honours ; but he was not entitled to impute motives of personal advantage to any hon. member. (Hear, hear.) How, he would ask, had the hon. and learned gentleman kept his own pledges to his constituency at Belfast ? (Hear, hear.) He told his constituents that there two points likely to come before Parliament—one involving a question of expediency, and another of principle. The question of reform, he said, was one of expediency ; but the emancipa tion of the Jews was one of principle, which ought never to be abandoned. (Hear, hear.) But had he abandoned it ? (Hear, hear.) Had he voted for the admission of the Jews to Parliament ? The hon. and learned gentleman had quoted an extract from a former speech of the noble lord the member for London, to the effect that the members for Manchester were men of "narrow minds ;" but he (Mr. Osborne) would give the house the opinion of the head of the present Administration by a gentleman whose name he would di sc l ose t o t h e house b y and b ye. It was pronounced &e:rlCh.ection with the Appropriation Clause of the Irish This gentleman, warming with declamatory elo quence, and fired with impassioned ardour, said—" Will no experience warn you ? If y ou res i s t th epr i nc i p l e o f a small orm, beware how y ou now procrastinate and irritate the public d h o ti o point when even a large reform can do little more from revolution." Mark how he dealt largely with revolutions.] —" For his own (Laughter. And again _part, he did not look very favourably on t h e suggestion of one whose very abilities had only served to render more conspicuous the great his unrivalled powers as a debater andhis unrivalled in his capacity of a legislator—Lord Stanley." less (Hear, hear, and laughter.) These were the opinions held by the Colonial Secretary in 183e.:-o, ear h . ham) —and yet he taunted the noble lord the member for London with c h ang ing his opinions. The hon. and learned gentleman had better in future look at home, and read the debates, be fore he ventured to make accusations in that house. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the right hon. gentleman the leader of the house, he was willing to give himthe greatest credit. He was a man of great talent, and had a noble ambition. (Hear, hear.) He had had a diffic ult task to perform hi pulling the omnibus full of country gentlemen up the hill, and he had done it well. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If there were any consistency in the party they owed it to him. He brought forward the bill for the emancipation of the Jews, which was so revolting to the principles of the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast. (A laugh.) He gave the right hon. gentleman great credit for that and for other measures. He only lamented that, with his great intelligence, his undoubted ability, and, he believed, his excellent motives, the right hon. gentleman had consented to separatehimself from those two right hon. gentlemen on the third bench [Messrs. Walpole and Hen ley]—(hear, hear)—and initiated a bill which in the bottom of his heart he believed to be an act of spoliation and in justice—a bill which was change without progress, and in novation without improvement. (Hear, hear.) Se feeling he had no hesitation m giving his hearty vote for the reso lution of the noble lord. (Cheers.) Sir S. NORTIWOrE and Mr. WALPOLE rose simultane. °wily % The foram advauce4 towards the table, but the shouts for Mr. Walpole became so vociferous that the Se cretary to the Treasury resumed his seat. Mr. WALPOLE was received with loud cheering. He addressed the house as follows :—The more he had listened to the debate the more ho became convinced of concurrence of argument upon all sides of the house that they were now placed in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrass.. went—a state of difficulty and embarrassment from which the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, powerful as it was and humorous as it was, failed to extri cate them on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) On the one hand they had a Reform Bill, which unfortunately, he thought, would not and could not be acceptable to the house or to the country. (Hear, from the Opposition.) On the other hand, he felt in common with many hon. members who had spoken, and with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that it was desirable, without continuing agitation, that they should, if possible, come to a settlement of this question, and not hang it up for a longer period of time. He was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and the embarrassment he felt had been increased since the de bate had commenced. The hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Eer Seymer) who had made a speech which made it matter of regret that he did not oftener address the house, I had told them so clearly the reasons he entertained against the bill, that he (Mr. Walpole) only wondered that he said he would vote in favour of it. The right hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) who had been paid off by the hon. member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) with such ingenuity and ability, said in his speech that he could not agree to the first 18 lines of the bill, which contained more or less the principles of the bill, but, nevertheless, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, without having had any assurance of improvements being introduced into it. (Hear, hear.) He would, with the permission of the house, submit his views of the measure, and of the resolution of the noble lord, and then, if he could, he would draw a conclusion as to the best mode of dealing with this bill. He would make this observation regarding the measure. It had always struck him that when they were discussing the first principles of a bill, and making material alterations in the Constitution, their first duty was to see what were the acknowledged grievances, and what were the deficiencies to be supplied. He wished to bring this matter to a practical test. In remedying grievances and supplying deficiencies, they should see that the changes they made were such as would harmonise with their institutions. As had been said by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir B. Lytton), they should endeavour to elevate by the change, and not to depress the character of the house. That was the way the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) proceeded in 1832 to remedy acknowledged grievances, and to apply prac tical remedies. (Hear.) More grievances had to be dealt with then than now. Birmingham, for instance, had no member. Small boroughs had fallen into decay, and could barely be assigned more than a nominal existence, and towns were represented where votes were confined to close corpo rations, which required expansion, so that the inhabitants might have a voice in the choice of representatives. The elections then extended over 14 days, spreading turmoil, extravagance, corruption, and violence, and they wanted to prevent bribery at elections, and also to prevent delay All these things were remedied, not by deviating from any principle, but by supplying to them a practical remedy. They were now, however, in a different position. There was, no doubt, in the present measure much that was good and capable of being turned to excellent account. They had in one or two parts much that was good, and other parts that required alteration. The inconveniences now existing might be classed under three heads—first, the right of voting was not extended to those persons who, by intelligence and in dependence, should have it. That was the main grievance at present, and was one which should be altered. The second was of a smaller kind; that there were still some places not represented, or not adequately represented, in commercial, agricultural, or manufacturing places, and which ought to have representatives ; and then there was the inconveni ence of not giving to all electors facilities for voting. He wished to take the questions fairly—first, the necessity of giving facilities to the electors to vote. He did not expect to meet the wishes of those who sat below the gangway on the Opposition side, and who would answer this point by one short word—the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Walpole) was not alarmed at the ballot because it would in jure his party. He was not alarmed at it because he thought you should put a screen on those who wanted to intimidate and corrupt electors ; but he objected for reasons which had not been answered, namely, that if they had secret voting, and that corruption and fraud and personation took place, they would not then have the means of detecting them. (Hear, hear.) He objected to it, in the second place, on this ground, that he was of opinion that in till their institutions, if they wished to have purity, they must bring every one to the open bar of public opinion, and make him answer able for his acts. He gave credit to the Government for the manner in which it had dealt with this part of the question. There were many on the opposite aide who objected to vot ing papers. But he (Mr. Walpole) would support the Go vernment on that point, because he thought it a good one. What was the principle adopted to guard them from being employed for a fraudulent purpose ? The principle was this, that instead of carrying electors to the poll, they brought the poll to the electors. The system would lessen the expense of elections by not carrying electors to the poll, and would prevent intimidation and violence, which at pre • sent prevented the better classes of electors going to vote, and would enable manufacturers and others to give their votes without trouble. The consequence of that would be, that you would increase the number of electors, and enabie them calmly to give their vote without being subjected to popular clamour. It might be said that system would lead to personation and fraud, and would also lead to bribery. These were defects in the voting papers which could be easily remedied. The voting papers were to be sent to the electors to be filled in before two witnesses, one of them to be a householder, and then to be sent to the public officer. But why only one householder ? Both the witnesses he considered should be householders, and resi dent in the place, and the declaration made before a public officer. That mode would prevent personation and fraud, and they would have evidence to refer to if fraud should be practised. There was a remarkable passage in the great Roman historian, when public voting was turned into secret voting. He said : " When the voting took place in the public view, aloud, and the conduct of the person was ex posed to the eyes and the ears of his friends and country, the aspect of the grave magistrate was a long lesson to the multitude ; but the system of secret voting abolished the infliction of fear and shame, when interest and the absence of freedom had accelerated the progress of anarchy and despotism." That was a passage in " Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Now, if they had the declaration in the voting papers made before a public officer, they had a security against personation and fraud. But then, as to bribery. They all knew that generally bribery took place in the last two or three hours of an election, but these voting papers would meet that difficulty. Then, as to the second point, giving members to those places not re presented. Government proposed to withdraw members from 15 boroughs—one each to be gis en to certain borough towns, and to certain divisions of counties. (Hear.) But how were they to do this ? The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Dover evidently means the small boroughs. Mr. B. OSBORNE—No no ; I said nomination boroughs. Mr. WALPOLE—WeII, then, perhaps the hon. gentle man would give him leave to ask how be would define them ? Mr. B. OSBORNE—Midhurst. (Loud laughter and cheers from the Opposition, in which Mr. Walpole heartily j oined .) Mr. WALPOLE—He was obliged to the hon. gen tleman for having referred to a borough in illus tration of his views, because it was a borough which was, fortunate enough, better able to an swer his illustration than any other that he might have referred to. (Hear, hear.) This was not a small borough returning two members to Parliament from qualifications arising from two old buildings. (Hear, hear.) It was a Whig borough, with Whig proprietors all around it, and it was not disfranchised at the time of the Reform Bill. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The borough was extended in its area, and was now almost as l arge as a small county. (Hear.) There lived in that borough the ally of the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr Cobden), and he would tell the hon. member it was not a nomination borough. The present peer, whom they thought had the borough in his hands, had not, he believed, 50 tenants there—indeed not 40, but it was an agricultural borough—(hear, hear, from Mr. Bright)—with proprietors all round it of Conser vative principles, and one lived in the immediate neighbour. hood. Still, there was as much independence there as there was in the town of Dover. (Laughter and Ministerial cheers.) That borough had returned members to that house who had become ornaments in that house as orators and statesmen; and the noble lord the member for London knew well that when Mr. Fox was only 19, he was returned to Parliament by that nomination borough, and he sat in that house for the great Whig patron, through whom he obtained that great name which be had left behind him. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Whigs would not now disfranchise that borough which had returned to Parliament someof the most eloquent lawyers that ever spoke in that house. (Loud cheers.) He had to apologise to the house for this inter ruption, and he would now proceed with his argument in reply to the hon. gentleman's observations on nomination boroughs. The hon. gentleman would do away with nomi nation boroughs. But this class of boroughs stood upon the ground of prescriptive right ; and the principle upon which these boroughs claimed the right of representa tion was admirable, and eloquently advocated by the right honourable gentleman the member for Kiddermin ster, in his speech to the electors of that borough last year. He told them that the moment they destroyed the ties that bound up the constituencies with the prescriptive rights of these boroughs, they would do that which would go far to destroy the constitutional stability of the country. (Hear. Let them prove that these boroughs were corrupt, he would then disfranchise them • but if that was not proved, and it was only shown that they were small nomination boroughs, then he would adopt the argument of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, vary the bo roughs and the constituents in them. Let them look both to the smaller boroughs as well as to the larger towns, if they desired to see men in that house of moderate views and cultivated minds ; men who would devote themselves to the public business of the country—men who could give advice when Government failed and men of position faltered. (Cheers.) Again he would say he cordially approved of the measure brought in by the Government in that respect, and he thought the Government was deserving of the thanks of the country for not giving way to a mere theore tical cry, by means of which they might have obtained a little more popularity, but the result of which would be possibly no improvement to the character of that house. (Cheers.) He had now to approach a more difficult task. and one of which he should have to speak partly with plea sure and partly with pain. The other practical inconveni ence which they had to deal with, was in giving to certain persons the power and means of acquiring the franchise, and upon that part of the case he did not differ very mate rially from the hon. member, but he could not find from him or any one else what specific description of alteration they required. (Loud cheers.) He would now refer to that part of the bill to which he could not give his assent, unless they gave a guarantee that the whole question to which he was going to refer would be fairly open to consi deration in committee, and that any alteration which might be propo se d, an d fairly accepted by the house, should be adopted by the Government. (Hear.) This part of the question had been entered into by the noble lord the mem ber for London, but not fully so. All the old franchises, in connexion with the counties, as carried by the Reform Bill, had been altered, and altered for the worse. There was first the old 40s. freehold franchise. That, however, he would leave with the noble lord the member for London to deal with. There was, however the uestion of the lease hold for years, that relating to copyhold, and the £5O occu endnos them. pation clause. All these were altered. In respect to these different classe s o f t h e franchise, they had the security that there must be a f ranchise over and above ,the rent and charges. But t r h e e Tfeh q rr u : w a o i r o tg t r o e f l a t h t n e g rentT t h o occupation, isw aos franchisenow as they excluded fr e wasreodcould appearede ethe t not °cinllaul°s say, unless Reform Bill, were wholly left out, why, h unless the term " tenement" was a legal difficulty. The object of the Reform Bill was to give a resi dent franchise ; but by the wording of the present bi ll in THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 25, 1859. the case referred to, it was to give what was called an iden tity of franchise ; but what was meant by this neither the ability of the noble lord (Lord Stanley) nor that of the Soli citor-General were able to explain. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) said great dissatisfaction would arise if the prin ciple of uniformity were not adopted. He did not think any great discontent would arise from that cause, and would appeal to his noble friend to consider whether the sharp, hard, broad line of demarcation drawn between the general freedom which was offered to one class of the community, and the condemnatory sentence of absolute nullity and in capacity of another, would not breed ten times more discon tent. He might depend upon it that this hard line being drawn between two persons, one in the county and the other in the borough—both living contiguous to each other, and neither having prescriptive rights, was that which consti tuted the foulest and blackest blot in this identity of suffrage. (Hear.) The defect could not be got over except by making the suffrage universal. Were they prepared for that ? Were they prepared to hand over the constituencies to the poorest persons in the country ? (Hear, hear.) Well, that convinced him (Mr. Walpole) that identity of fran chise was a mistake. Discontent, then, was his first objection. His second objection was that political associa tions would have the means of manufacturing 40s. free holds in the different boroughs, so that not a borough in the kingdom would be safe. The hon. member for Halifax had quoted instances of how this had been done already, and therefore he (Mr. Walpole) thought the proposed altera tion of the law in this respect was immensely for the worse. He had the strongest objection to altering, in the main, the nature and character of the county and borough fran chise. And the reason was obvious. All your new votes and new franchises, as proposed by this bill, would only require 12 months' residence, and could any one tell him that a number of persons with fluctuating occupations, changing from place to place, would give that permanent character which was required to the constituencies of boroughs ? Would any one tell him that there was not a broad and wide distinction between the constituencies of counties and those of boroughs ? Was not the nature of the population. in one place more steady and that of the other more fluctuating and changeable. Ought not the suffrage to rest upon that which mainly constituted -that distinction ? If they wanted to get rid of anomalies and irregularities, they might get a bill constructed which would be more proportionate and more pleasing to the eye; but they would at the same time get rid of that variety and diversity which had hitherto constituted the charm and strength of our representative system—(hear, hear)—a system by which were represented in that house the varied talents and interests of different classes and occupations— by which they had represented the industry of towns, and the more stationary, but not less valuable characteristics of the counties. (Hear, hear.) There was a passage ix Edmund Burke which seemed to hint not to be inappli cable to this subject. He said :—" No system of repre sentation will be a good system, unless you impart into it ability as well as property ; but, at the same time, as' ability is an active principle, and as property is inert and passive, unless you give a predominant influence to property it will be at the mercy of the more active principle." In France the interests of property had to give way to this active principle of popular power, and the time might come when the same would occur in Eng land if you did away with the distinction which gave pro perty its present influence. (Hear.) He had two other objections to the identity of the franchise. The first was, that if they did away with the distinction between counties and boroughs, and reduced the occupation franchise down to £lO, they would introduce into the constituencies large masses of the people who did not contribute to direct taxa tion. (Hear, hear.) When the Reform Bill was passed, the window-tax was a necessary condition of the franchise. The £lO occupiers did away with that, and a house tax of £2O was substituted. Now, if the franchise were brought below £2O, and this incident of direct taxation were kept up to £2O, great injustice would be done, for constituencies would direct their members not only to keep up, but to in crease taxation on those above them. (Hear.) He was certain that with such an enlarged constituency, if an ad ministration brought forward an income-tax bill, the house would never be able to make it fall with equality on the people at large. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The last ob jection he had to urge was, that this identity of franchise would lead to electoral districts. The Solicitor-General pooh-pooed this. What was meant by identity of fran chise ? It meant equality of power. The mere fact that they had the same nominal franchise was not an identity. One elector more in 300 had a potential influence as com pared with one in 1,000. But if the principle were to be admitted with respect to England, why not apply it to Ire land ? If they did, how were they to assimilate the £8 rating in boroughs to the £l2 in counties ? Could they make both £lO ? (Hear.) His right hon. friend (Sir E. B. Lytton) pointed to France, and drew the inference that all the misfortunes that befel France was because the working classes were admitted to the suffrage. But at that period the qualification for a voter in France was 300 francs, or £l2 a-year, but the qualification proposed for England was to be £lO. God forbid that what the honourable gentleman predicted should ever be witnessed in England by him or his children. (Hear, hear.) For all those reasons he (Mr. Walpole) was opposed to this part of the bill. It was a dangerous experi ment to throw this question of reform again afloat. Depend upon it the question should be settled now. (Cheers.) They ought to settle it, and they could settle it now, on terms consistent with the just and recognised principles of the constitution. They could settle it by adhering to pre scriptive rights, by maintaining the distinction between county and borough, by upholding the interests of property as well as the power and influence of numbers, and by giving to all the interests of the country that variety of re presentation which it is advisable to maintain. (Hear, hear.) If they only acted in this manner, fully, fairly—he had alniost said finally—great would be their triumph, noble their success. But great would be their responsibility if they threw away the opportunity now afforded them. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT—In the observations which I am anxious to address to the house I shall endeavour to keep myself strictly to the question before it. I shall not attempt any answer to some, perhaps well intended, but rather feeble assaults which have been made upon me during this debate, and I shall not attempt any explanation in answer to what was said by the hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor- General the other night when he spoke of an alliance between the noble lord (J. Russell) and myself. That which is purely imaginary is not easy to explain. (Hear, and a laugh.) The house, I believe, will give me credit when I say, that if I am found acting with the noble lord it is because I think the course he is taking is advantageous to the country, and I hope if I have hereafter occasion to differ from him they will give me credit also, and will presume that I differ from him only because my convictions lead me to do so. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are two questions before us— the bill of the Government and the resolution of the noble lord, and in addition to these the great question of Parlia mentary Reform which has been more or less discussed by every member who has addressed the house. With regard to the bill there is a singular unanimity of feeling. (Hear, and laughter.) With the exception of gentlemen on the Treasury bench, who may be considered in the light of pro fessional witnesses, I believe there is no single member who has spoken who has not expressed strong repugnance to some main point or principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.) A remarkable speech has been delivered by a right hon. gentleman on this side of the house. He denounced the bill as much as if he had , been the greatest opponent of hon. gentlemen opposite, but he was vehemently cheered by the other side of the house throughout almost the whole of that speech. Seeing that he turned the measure inside out it was rather remarkable that his speech should be so relished by hon. gentlemen opposite, and, considering some of the observations which he made, the right hon. gentleman cer tainly suggested a course the most extraordinary. He de nounced the bill as treason, not to the Crown, but to the people, and he proposed to inflict upon it something like the barbarous punishment with which our law, I believe, still visits those who are guilty of this great crime ; and yet, after calling on the house to go with him in taking out the heart of the measure, and, for aught I know, in disem bowelling it, he comforted himself with the belief that the Government would accept and assist in carrying the bill. (Hear, hear.) He appeared to forget that the Government had parted with two eminent colleagues on the very points of difference which he was discussing. (Hear.) He seemed to forget that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted this proposal he would lay himself open to the unfortunate suspicion that that to which he would not consent at the instance of two of his late distinguished colleagues he would accept rather than have a vote of this house against the Government, with the consequences which are likely to follow. (Hear.) I certainly was astonished that a man so acute as my hon. friend, after having spoken in such glowing language, and with an eloquence rarely heard in this house of the priceless honour of our public men, should suggest to the Government such a course. (Cheers.) Sir, I shall not follow the right hon. gentleman who has just spoken on the details of the bill to the extent to which he has entered upon them. I shall confine myself to the two principles which, after all, are at this stage of the bill only before us, being brought specially under discus sion by the resolution proposed as an amendment by the noble lord. I should like to ask the house—because I think there is some disposition to evade this question—what is it that people understand by a measure of Parliamentary Re form ? I mean people out of doors, of whom hon. gentlemen are likely to hear a good deal before this matter is settled. (Hear.) They understand by such a measure not a mere shuffle, not a hustling or huddling up of this question, for fear lest somebody should talk of it hereafter. They under stand it should mean two things —first, an extension of the franchise to considerable classes not now enfranchised ; and at the same time that it should give to the country larger and freer and more independent constituencies. (Hear, hear.) Now, I want to ask how this bill meets such a de mand, because if it does not it is no Reform Bill, the Go vernment had no right to propose it in answer to that demand, and the House of Commons will fail in its duty if it gives any countenance to such a measure, or passes it into a law. (Cheers.) In the counties at this moment, confining myself to England and Wales, to which alone this bill refers, there are, in round numbers, 500,000 elec tors, 400,000 of whom are freeholders, and 100,000 occupy ing tenants above the value of £5O. Now, is there any doubt upon this point—that if any gentleman were asked to put his finger upon that description of elector in the counties which is most independent, he would say the free holder ; if upon the least independent, he would say of necessity the £5O occupier ? Without saying anything against tenant farmers or the owners of farms themselves, I think this is a description which the house will admit to be fair. Well, the bill proposes first of all to get rid from the counties of one-fourth, 100,000, of the most indepen dent class, the freeholders. I am not now speaking of dis franchising them, but of getting rid of them from the coun ties, and mixing them up with another class of electors. Everybody will see at a glance that if 100,000 of the most independent class of electors are taken from the counties, the less independent class must necessarily be made more powerful. (Hear, hear.) The bill makes another proposal of, to my mind, a most insidious character. The boundaries of boroughs are to be altered in a very remarkable fashion. The framers of the bill seem to imagine that it is necessary for some object of theirs to include within the bounds of boroughs every individual whom by any pretence they can lay hold of and separate from the county, if they suspect him to be infected with the prevalent opinions of the towns. By this means, of course, after the passing of their bill they would anguish still mere whatever there May be of the jA• dependent element in the county constituencies. But now observe the cunning—(a laugh)—will right hon. gentlemen forgive me the expression ?—perhaps it was a mistake, like the disfranchisement of 50,000 men—observe the mistake, then, involved in the plan which is to be referred to our in telligent and impartial friend Mr. Darby. ("No !") I un derstood that Mr. Darby, the head the Encicsure Commis sion, was to appoint a commission for this object. (" No !") The question, then, will be referred to him or to somebody. I will admit, if you like, that the commission is as good as lor anybody in this house could wish. This commission is not to examine the case of all boroughs. It is merely intended, as I understand it, to shut up within the borough boundary all the suburbs of our cities and towns, and all immediately contiguous villages. But the commissioners have no charge to go to another description of borough, and shut up the country parishes within the boundaries of counties. Now, surely, if it was a fair thing to go to any large town and say, " All these streets and villages shall be comprised within the borough ; none of these £lO occu piers shall vote for the county," it would be a fair thing to go to agricultural boroughs and say, "My good fel lows, farmers, and so forth, in all these country parishes we are going to make a clear distinction—perpetual en mity between town and county ; everybody near a town is to be shut into that town; you must be shut out of the borough, and into the county." I will tell the house what would be the result of the proposal in one or two cases. There are at this moment within the limits of boroughs farms the rental of which ex ceeds £2,500,000, and yet these are called boroughs. We will take the borough represented by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He will speak in this debate, and can correct me if lam wrong. In Droitwich there is an assessment to the income-tax under schedule A of land and buildings to the amount of £56,000 a year, of which £39,600 is an assessment of land and farms. There are four town parishes and twelve rural parishes. The town parishes contain 160 electors, the rural 232 electors. In point of fact, therefore, the right hon. gentleman does not represent a town at all. (Laughter.) No, the large majority of his supporters and constituents are farmers and persons as much connected with rural affairs as if they were in the centre of the county and miles away from any towns or villages. (Hear.) I say, if this line is to be drawn, it must be drawn in all cases. Take the case of the borough of Petersfield, which is also represented by an hon. baronet on the Treasury bench. In that town the case is still more glaring. There is £31,000 assessd in land and buildings in the borough, but of that £24,000, or more than four-fifths, is in respect of land and buildings in agricultural parishes. (Hear, hear.) I am not complaining of those parishes being added to the town; but the Government has no right to propose, and Par liament will never pass, a bill the only object of which will be to shut as many as possible in the borough in the one case, and not interfere in the other, thus diminishing that great variety of suffrages and of interests which it is desirable that every member in this house shall represent. The noble lord the Secretary of State for India said with regard to the great ,measure of disfranchisement that it was a mis take, and that he was sorry the clause was not originally introduced into the bill which was afterwards laid on the table of the house by his right hon. friend. Again, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he was charged with the faulty character of the clause which extended the £lO franchise to counties, made a rather staggering admis sion that that was also in the nature of a mistake, and if it was wrong that we could likewise go into that question in the committee. (A laugh.) But I find everything that has , been done has one direction, and one only. (Cheers.) I cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he speaks of the painful anxiety with which this bill has been brought forward, that he should not in all that anxiety and deliberation have discovered that he was going to dis franchise 50,000 of the best electors in the kingdom. Now, what is the main object of this measure ? It is evidently to make the representation of the counties, if possible, more exclusively territorial than it is at present. (Cheers.) I ask the house to consider whether that is a desirable object for us to attempt ? Ask Lord Lyndhurst—long a leading statesman, acting with gentlemen opposite—ask Lord Aberdeen; ir Robert Peel is not here, and you can not ask him ; but you can ask the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle, and the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could add his impressive testimony whether it has not always been the chiefest difficulty of the Cabinet sitting on that side of the house— I mean with gentlemen opposite—for many years, far longer than I have been a politician, that they were sup ported by 150 or more gentlemen, representing the counties, and elected very much in the way described by Lord Derby, and, being supported by that party, whether they have not found it utterly impossible, without doing that which was very unpleasant to them, or without ruining themselves, which is unpleasant to a Government, to propose or carry any kind of measures which were made necessary by the opinions and demands of the country. (" No, no," and counter cheers.) Do not let gentlemen opposite believe that I am finding fault individually with any one of them in this matter. From 1842 to 1846 what was the difficulty which the Government of Sir Robert Peel constantly found in its way ? Of that, I dare say, the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, could give us a graphic and instructive description. What became of that Government of 1846 ? There was a disruption which resulted in years of anarchy in this house. But go back to the experience of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in 1852. The then Government was broken up by a majority of 19 votes in this house after a general election, because it was necessary, in order to satisfy the expectations and demands of that same party sitting be hind them, to propose a bill with regard to the malt-tax, for which, on the whole, the country certainly made no demand, and to which the house was not willing to consent. I was then very sorry for Lord Derby, and I never, except once, gave a vote which I more regretted to have to record than on that occasion; but the Government could net alter or withdraw their proposition, because the 150 gentlemen behind them thought it necessary that such a measure should pass, and now we find the right hon. gentleman in the same position. Does any man believe that this is the sort of bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks best for the country ? Does any one suppose that a man with his intellect, and who understands all the bearings of this ques tion, believes—l will not say the " deplerable rubbish," but the grievous and fatal mistakes to be found in the clauses of this bill ? He knows that this bill in its present shape is a bill framed to satisfy the prejudices, the scruples, the con victions, if you like, and the fears of the 150 country gentle men who sit behind him. (Cheers:) I should think it a great misfortune to have 150 gentlemen here representing only ironworks, or only ships, or onlythe cotton and woollen factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I believe it is essen tial almost to a good member of this house, so far as it de pends upon external circumstances, that he should have among his constituents a variety of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call " interests , " persons of various classes, occupations, and opinions. I think they keep him better to his duty, modify his opinions, and make him a more valuable member of the house than he is likely to be if he represented only some special interest. I must say one word about that charming part of our institutions of which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has spoken in such affectionate terms. I mean the small boroughs. They are the jewels of our representative system. (A laugh.) Putting the case now in the shortest number of wards, you will say they take in men who cannot get in anywhere else. (A laugh.) In one a boy was put in at 19. That is considered a great argument for perpetuating such a system. (A laugh.) These boroughs form in point of fact, a refuge for the po litically destitute—(laughter)—and all that I have heard in their favour is that the persons who find shelter in them are what would be called " deserving objects." (Renewed laughter and cheers.) Now, the right hon. gentleman, I dare say, reads the papers as well and as studiously as I do; and he will perhaps recoiled a case or two which I will state to the house. There was an election at Harwich the other day. It is not long since there was an election there, and I recollect a statement made at the time. It was said that Mr. Bagshaw—not now a member of this house—had discharged a drunken gardener. There were two free traders who had carried out their principles further than the law sanctioned, and were imprisoned for smuggling. (Laughter.) A respectable parson of the parish, who had not been out of his room for two years, was brought down by the aid of cordials, stimulants, and a sedan chair--(a laugh)—to the poll, and those three individuals influenced the result of the election. Now go to another borough. I recollect an election for the borough of Carlow. There were two troops of dragoons, two companies of infantry, and 150 police ; the whole of this force having, during the period of the election, been engaged in keeping the .peace in a town which comprised only 200 electors. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, notwithstanding the picture which I have drawn of this small borough, I must not bo under stood as saying that virtuous elections do not take place in some of its class, and that they do not still retain some remnant of freedom. But if there be, the right hon. gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not content with corrupting and maltreating them in every way, defaces the fair form of your county representation, and lays his sacrilegious hands upon those very spots about which everybody but myself just now speaks in such very high terms. I should like to give the house an instance of the justice of what I state. There has been an election at Banbury. It is but the other day that the hon. gentleman who represents that place took his seat in 'this house. Now, Banbury is a borough which I do not propose to disfranchise, but it is one which everybody who knows its size must admit to be possessed of singular independence of action in political affairs. (Hear, hear.) I believe the hon. gentleman who at present represents it will admit that to be the fact. Now, just imagine what the proposition of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead to in the case of Banbury. Imagine, if you can, the people of that borough making speeches, canvassing, ex plaining their political views, and resolving upon the pro per fulfilment of their political duties. Well, all this is taking place, but at the critical moment you may see a man —for aught I know he may be the concoctor of this bill— (laughter)—for it appears to me to be not so much the bill of a statesman as of some party electioneering agent— (cheers)—you may see, I repeat, a man of this descrip tion, emerging after dark from the Carlton Club, proceed , ing to a pillar letter-box which stands quite near it upon the opposite side of the street, and dropping into it—unless, indeed, he should find it necessary to go as far as Charing cross for the purpose of registering them—some 10 or 20 letters about 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening, while the un fortunate people of Banbury are labouring under the delu sion that they are carrying on a great constitutional con test. Unhappy men, they little know that the restless locomotive engine has been set to work ; that it is bringing down through county after county; and that they will awake the next morning only to find out that, through the instrumentality of a leathern bag, which has just been de posited at the post-office, somebody is returned as their representative who has not the slightest sympathy with their interests. (Cheers.) But this is no new thing. If anybody will turn to the report of the Municipal Corpora tion Commissioners in 1834 he will there find a statement made by Mr. Austin in reference to the borough of Car marthen ; and he gives the number of resident and non-resident freeholders not of the value of 408., but of £4, and in addition the number of £lO occupiers. The number of burgesses in the borough he sets down at 646; resident in the borough, 178; outside the borough, but still within the county, 257 ; in the county of Pembroke, 108 ; in Glamorgan, 31 ; in Cardigan, 25 ; in Brecon, 12 ; and outside the limits of South Wales altogether, 35; so that while the number of resident was 178, the number of non-resident electors was 468. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Austin then gives the list of voters at a contest which had taken place for the election of sheriffs, when 131 votes were re corded in favour of the corporation candidates, against them, 51; thus giving a majority in their favour of 80, of which majority 75 were non-resident electors. (Cheers.) The commissioner then goes on to say, "In effect, therefore, the constant majority is a majority of non-residents who, with rare exceptions, are supporters of the corporation p ar ty." Now, let me ask if this system prevailed in the case of a £4, is it not likely to do so in the case of a £2 free hold ? (Hear, hear.) It must also be observed that in the former instance the votes could not be recorded by letter. The voter had to appear in person at the place of election ; but if this system of voting papers be adopted in addition to non-residence I know of no limit whatever to the amount of corruption which it may occasion. (Cheers.) You can not, therefore, in my opinion, too strongly express your sense of the entire extinction of freedom which it is calcu lated to produce in all the small boroughs of a county. (Hear, hear.) Now, there is also another point which a large portion of our fellow-countrymen regard as of the utmost importance, and to which I may be permitted briefly to refer, l allude to the borough trauchiee. We en- deavoured to show that the effect of the bill as it now stands will be to render counties more exclusive, and to hand over the small boroughs to rottenness and complete dependence ; for the only independence they could possess must rest upon the opinions and the wishes of non-resident electors. (Cheers.) Now, lam not going to discuss this question at all different from that which has hitherto marked the tone of this debate ; but I would ask the house whence comes it that we are here to-night discussing the ques tion of Reform at all ? There are plenty of other things for us to do. (Hear, hear.) Why, then, is this question thrast upon us by Minister after Minister ? Some per suns say that the noble lord the member for London is entirely in fault. (Cheers and laughter.) Hon. gentlemen may say whatever they like, but such an assertion as that goes but a very little way indeed. The noble lord has no particular desire, any more than I have, to disturb this great question. (Cries of " Oh, oh I" from the Ministerial side of the house.) Its settlement, however, has become a necessity, and will continue to be a necessity to the existence of every Government until it is set at rest in a manner that will be satisfactory'to the country. (Cheers.) Do hon. gentlemen by their cheers mean to show us that they do not want reform ? (Hear, hear.) The Government have not touched this question simply in obedience to the commands of their followers, although, they have brought in this bill in accord ance with their prejudices and fears. (Hear, hear.) The farmers do not ask you for reform, although there are, no doubt, some respects in which they desire it. The farm labourer does not press it upon your attention. No, the demand for reform comes from all your towns and cities ; nor is the cry heard from the mouths of the unenfranchised alone, but, in point of fact, from the great majority of the electors themselves. (Cheers.) It is not an uncommon thing to hear it asserted—as several hon. members have asserted in this house—that the electors of this country do not care for reform. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side of the house.) Those hon. gentlemen who cry "Hear, hear," do not know quite so much as I do about the senti ments of people residing in towns. (Cheers.) When the electoral power was in the hands of a few corrupt corpora tions the case may have been otherwise, for they turned their electoral privileges into a means of annual profit, and did not like to share them with their fellow-townsmen. (Hear.) But I never heard it made a charge against elec tors in boroughs, at the present day, that they were anxious to retain the franchise for fear of admitting others of their fellow countrymen to be sharers, or rivals, or participators with them in the advantages which it comprises. (Hear.) Now the Government, it, seems, do not think it necessary to make any change in the borough franchise. We all know that the line which was drawn in 1832 was drawn in direct and almost absolute exclusion of all that class of persons who live by wages. (Hear, hear.) Has it been a source of satisfaction to them ? Have there not, upon the contrary, been constant protests against it ? Have we not seen and heard—when there was great depression in trade and a great scarcity of food, which now happily is not the case— more constant protests aggravated into something like in cipient insurrection ? (Hear, hear.) That such has been the ease is not to be denied. 'Well, and what is it that you now do ? Twenty-seven years after the passing of the great Reform Bill, and after a whole generation has passed away, you propose to continue, it may be for 27 years longer, that exclusion against which the great body of the unenfranchised population of the country have been lifting up their voices ever since 1832. (Cheers.) Now, what is it that her Majesty's Ministers say to us in introducing this measure ? What will this house in effect say if it passes into a law in its present shape ? You proclaim, in a voice which will reach the furthest corner of the land, that will enter not only into the ear but into the heart of the inhabi tants of every home of the class of which I am speaking in England—that we have something or another in our Legis lature which they cannot comprehend and must not inter meddle with. (Cheers.) You will in effect say to them, " We do not trust you, you are as ignorant, as dangerous, as little to be relied upon now as you were 27 years ago." (Cheers.) And what will be the result ? They will come to the conclusion that upon the same principle upon which you now act you will act for the next 27 years, using pre cisely the same arguments and pursuing the same course. (Cheers.) And now let me pause for one moment to ask what sort of a generation that has been which is just pass ing, or has passed, away ? My answer is, such a one as was never known before. You have had under its auspices a longer period of peace than you ever previously enjoyed. The humbler classes have had a larger proportion of the comforts and necessaries of life than at a preceding period. They have improved at a rate of which your grandfathers scarcely dared to dream. (Hear, hear.) You have a free press—though there may be something still to be done in order that it may become completely unfet tered—a subject to which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to turn his attention when he gets out of the little difficulty in which he is now placed. (Cheers and laughter.) You have not only the ordinary number of public journals, but you have 300 newspapers published at the rice of Id., circu lating all over the country. (Hear, hear.) 'Well, all this has been accomplished, yet ydu propose to exclude the members of that class to whom you are indebted for much of your prosperity—with the exception of the trifling numbers whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his small mercy, pro poses to admit under the savings'-bank clause—(cheers) — from the exercise of the franchise. I saw a statement the other day, to the effect that the operation of such a clause ap plied to Scotland would be to give Edinburgh about 300, and all Scotland not more than 600 additional voters. The borough electors are 50,000, and this extraordinary exten sion of the franchise will admit 21 per cent. increase, and that is all the small dole which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends offer to the great body of the working classes of that country. (Hear, hear.) Scotland is a frugal country; its people are industrious and saving to a degree which is hardly comprehended here, and yet this boon will only enfranchise some 1,200 persons there. lam prepared to assert that this is not a Bill of Reform at all. (Hear, hear.) It is, in point of fact, that which, in elec tioneering phrase, is considered a complete case of per sonation. (Laughter.) It is not the genius of liberty that comes before us in the shape of a bill, but it is some thing which the people of this country had hoped they had seen and heard of for the last time in our his tory. I think if it were to pass it would be held by the whole population of the country to be nothing better than a complete delusion, disappointing every class, and tending to create discontent, which this house would have great difficulty hereafter in allaying. Now, there is one point which has been dwelt upon by the right honourable gentleman opposite and others, in which I do not feel the same extraordinary interest which some members appear to feel, and that isas to the uniformity of franchise. Ido not say that it is necessary, I don't say that there is any advantage in it, but I do not see the great disadvantages which have been ascribed to it. (Hear, hear.) It has been represented to me as a very democratic proceed ing. lam not myself very democratic—(loud laughter)— therefore I can assure the house the scheme has not on that account any charms for me. I think it would have been just as well rot to have had this uniformity, but I do not see any harm there is in it. Thereis only one reason why we should complain of it, and that is that it would not be so easy to give a move to the whole franchise hereafter as if the county franchise were different from that of the boroughs. (Hear, hear.) But I can assure hon. members that if they tie the two together, there is no power in this house to keep the borough franchise at £lO, and unless they give up the idea of uniformity the county franchise must come down with the boroughs. However, that is a matter for hon. gentlemen opposite to consider, and no doubt it has been considered by her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) But if I have no alarm about that, there is one thing that I have some alarm about, and that is the manner in which some mem bers of the house seem disposed to treat this question. I re fer particularly to my hon. friend near me (Mr. Horsman), the right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts (Mr. S. Her bert), and the right hon. gentleman the member for Coven try (Mr. Ellice), who has not spoken in thisdebate, but who wrote a letter to his constituents upon the subject. The right hon. gentleman is an extraordinary instance of what I may call hallucination. (Laughter.) He represents the greatest number of working men to be found in any con stituency—out of a population of 40,000 there are 6,000 electors, which is a far larger number than I thought of proposing to the house. My right hon. friend says there is no constituency that he knows which equals his in independence, in intelligence, in virtue. Well, sir, I can't admit all that. I know something of Co. ventry —my father was born there, but I never heard, nor ever observed that the people of that town were upon the whole very superior. I believe they are in no degree inferior to the same classes in other manu facturing towns. My right hon. friend says he is in favour of household suffrage, but as the people are not ready for that he will do nothing—he will have household suffrage or nothing ; which, after all, is very much like what was called the Charter. lam alarmed that the right hon. gen tleman, like the members for Wilts and Devonport, should, in the face of a hundred meetings held spontaneously within the last month, delude himself with the idea that nobody, beyond the 650 gentlemen in this house, cares anything about this question, and that we may comfortably get rid of it in some way here, by digging a hole in the floor of the house and burying it, as nobody cares about it. The right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) has the same notion. He thinks it must be settled this session—that it can be—that it is necessary it should be settled. Why ? For this reason, that you know that the form in which you propose to settle it will not be satisfactory to the people. (Hear, hear.) You know well —I think the right hon. gentleman has confessed it, as some have—that during the autumn you may have meetings— during the winter you may have agitation. Well, what would this country have been without meetings, without agitation? We boast that we have abolished our ancient and bar barous mode of making extensive revolutions and changes in our political system, but if you have done with war and bloodshed for these purposes do not imagine that those changes which become necessary from time to time can be carried out and accomplished without the healthy operation in some cases perhaps approaching to a rude but still a re freshing and strengthening agitation. (Laughter and cheers.) Some gentlemen opposite seem to wish to forget some things had happened 15 years ago. Then their organi zation was complete. They had farmers' meetings every where. (Hear.) And, not content with farmers meetings, they had an office in Old Bond-street and a publication committee, and theyhad every description of instrument for an irritating and exasperating agitation which they could possibly devise. (Hear, hear.) I do not imagine for a moment that this question can be settled in the present temper of the house satisfactorily to the people. Are you quite sure that there is nothing in what is going on out of doors ? I met a right hon. gentleman the other day near the house, and he said to me as a great secret, " You know, of course, that nobody does care about reform ?" Well, he did not get me to agree with him upon that point. (A laugh.) I happen to have been to some of the largest popu lations of the country, and I have seen meetings exceeding in number and exceeding in influence I believe ' almost every meeting that was h e ld b y the Anti-Corn Law League during the agitation of the repeal of the corn-laws. The populations you are about to disappoint and defy, what have they done ? They have conquered everything they have grappled with hitherto. I do not speak of distant realms conquered under your banners, but of arts and manu factures and all that tends to wealth and civilization. Do you think that this population will not also conquer a much larger share of their political rights than in your pre sent mood you appear disposed to give them ? There was a speech made by the hon. member for Dorset, and I agree with those who have expressed regret that that gentleman did not speak more frequently—(hear, hear)—but, in the speech the hon. gentleman said, " I am not afraid of the people of this country." (Hear.) And he gave a very powerful, and eloquent, and just rebuke to a gentleman who, in a thoughtless moment, cheered in a sneering man ner his observation. I tell the house frankly that they do not well understand the great populations of this country, especially of the manufacturing towns. I have seen great mistakes made. I remember in 1848 w hen the ri ght hon. gentleman above me (Sir G. Grey ) was Home Sec re t ary, there was a great panic on the 10th of Apnl—or rather be fore the 10th of April, for by that day the panic was laughed at. Well, what was done. I don t know what was done at the Bank but I am told that at the British Museum that institutionswas actually garrisoned. There were no Minie stones, or boulde rs , t a k en up to t h e roof • rifles nor Armstrong gun s, p er haps, but there were 100 or Not only was it garr i sone d b u t , very 0 2 f 0 O t h t o e n s m o of s p e a t v un i g properly, the commissariat was attended to and provisions for three days laid in, and I am told the steps leading to the rooms where the medals aid mot precious articles were placed were cut away. The British Museum was not as saulted, but the garrison, I believe, managed to consume the three days' provisions before Sunday. (Laughter.) Well, now come to a later time—the period of the Exhibition in llyde-park in 1851. There was then alive a man who stood pre-eminent in this country, the Duke of Wellington. He was, terrified—a man who was supposed never to h ave been alarmed —but he was alarmed at the people of his own country. He urged upon the Government, who of course agreed with him, to draw near to the metropolis a large number of troops in case of emergency. Why, if half-a-dozen foreigners had at tempted to get up an insurrection in London, they would have been put into the reservoirs in Trafalgar-square by the people themselves, and yet it was considered necessary to bring these troops near to London, to be ready in case of disturbance. I remember the noble lord the member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) gave us an account of what some foreigner told him as to the conduct and deportment of the masses of the people. The noble lord knows a good deal of the character of the people, and he said, " All this order is the result of a sense among the people that they have a Government which, upon th whole, does not intend to oppress them, that they are a people good in themselves, intelligent and orderly, and that a policeman among them is an authority of high dignity, whom they at once obey." The remark is creditable to the noble lord's good taste, and is perfectly just to the people of this country. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite why are they so afraid of the manufacturing, ? The manufacturin, the employing class, does not fear them. At the Bradford meeting were present, when I moved the resolution, Mr. Titus Salt and Mr. Crossley, We. brother of the member for Halifax. Those gentlemen con duct vast manufacturing and commercial undertakings. There are no men more prosperous, and none have more confidence in the people. (Hear, hear.) Those two gentlemen agreed cordially with every proposi tion I made as to an extension of the suffrage. The meet ings at Rochdale, Bury, Blackburn, and Bolton were attended by gentlemen equally eminent ; at the meeting at Bolton there were four gentlemen who employ not less than 6,000 or 7,000 people, and who own property of not less than a million sterling ; one of those gentlemen thought my pro posal as to the suffrage was not sufficiently extensive. (Hear, hear.) Why is it they do not regard the people with the same fears you do ? They must now what they are about ; they know that any convulsion or disturbance in society would touch them first. Your landed estates are much more permanent as property than our inanufactories. Any disturbance or violent action of a democratic nature would be more dangerous to us than to you. (Hear, hear.) Yet a large proportion of the employers of labour favour a large extension of the suffrage, and believe it would prove for the safety of their property; for the working men, in thinking over this question, feel they are distrusted, that they are marked as inferiors, that they are a sort of pariahs. In that position, should there be an opportunity, great dis content and turbulence might arise ; but if you give them a vote they will have more self-respect, more elevation of mind. I will read an extract from a letter I have received from a working man—l believe a stonemason—on the ques- tion whether or not working men have any interest in the country. He says : " But some say that we, as working men, have no stake and no interest in the country. 1 hardly know what is meant by these assertions ; but if to make sacrifices for the good of our country be any proof of an interest I believe the working classes can clearly show greater sacrifices, and fairly claim to have greater stake and interest both in the country and in good government. I had three uncles who all lost their lives fighting for their country ; I had three brothers, two of whom served under Loyd Wellington throughout the Peninsular campaign ; and my third and youngest brother lost his life in the Indian - war, and now lies buried at Kurnaul. I had two nephews, one of whom died of the cholera at Varna, and the other, after serving throughout the Crimean war, was raised from' the ranks, and is now a lieutenant. No doubt but very many working men could tell of even greater sacrifices and aim ilar tales of their families, except the last. To these statements I would only add, that if the working classes have no stake and no interest in their country, they must be wonderful lovers of their country for nothing." Now, there is only one other point to which I will allude; it was touched upon by the Solicitor-General when he re ferred to the state of Europe ; he warned the house to be ware what it was about to do in regard to this question. I draw quite a different lesson—a different conclusion from what he said of the state of Europe. In 1830 there was also a state of Europe and France that was not satisfactory, and it had great effect on the legislation of this house, in the course of the two succeeding years, on the question of re form. In 1848 the state of Europe was again unsatisfactory, and was it not a subject of congratulation that two years before the corn laws had been abolished, and one great cause of discontent removed ? (Cheers.) I assure you that resistance is not always conservative. (Cheers.) I pro fess to be, in intention, as conservative as you. I believe infinitely more so, if you look forward 20 or 30 years into the future. Was not free trade conservative ? (Cheers.) And yet you resisted it to the last. I recollect when the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to get up, and, with dishevelled hair, tell us of the cruelty practised on the ruined and betrayed agriculturist. (Cheers and laughter.) I recollect he addressed us on the condition of the opera fives two or three years afterwards ; and since that time his condition has gone on improving rapidly. Is not pro sperity conservative ? Is not peace conservative ? (Hear, hear.) Any energies I possess I have devoted to their ad vance ; I have endeavoured to stand on the rules of political economy, and to be guided by the higher rules of true morality ; and when advocating a measure of reform larger than some are prepared to grant, I appear in that character, for I believe a substantial measure of reform would elevate and strengthen the character of our population; that, in the language of the beautiful prayer read here every day, it would tend "to knit together the hearts of all persons and estates within this realm." (Cheers.) I believe it would add to the authority of the decisions of Parliament; and I feel satisfied it would confer a lustre time could never dim on that benignant reign under which we have the happiness to live. (Cheers.) On the motion of Sir S. NORTHCOTE, the debate was then adjourned. The Nottingham Charities Bill passed through com mittee. _ _ _ The house adjourned at 10 minutes to ono o'clock. THE NAVE The steam storeships Dee and Rhadamanthus yesterday commenced shipping boilers and machinery for ships build ing at Portsmouth and Devonport. The wharfs and land ing-places are completely choked with long rows of huge boilers and steam gear, required for the many ships under construction and fitment in the western yards. On Wednesday a court-martial assembled on board the Formidable, guard-ship of ordinary at Sheerness, to try Commander John H. Cave, and Mr. George P. Heather, master of the paddlewheel steam-sloop Ardent, in conse quence of the said paddlewheel steam-sloop having, on the 24th of December, 1858, been run on shore on the Main, off Great Poko, on the West Coast of Africa, while in charge of Lieutenant Neal, D. F. Lillingstone, as: officer of the morning watch. The Court sentenced them to be repri manded and admonished to be more careful for the future. The Trafalgar, lately converted into a screw battle-ship at Chatham, has arrived at Sheerness, and has been taken into the fitting basin. She is ordered to be taken into No. 3 dry dock, to be immediately made ready for being commissioned. Stork, 2, screw gunboat (tender to Excellent) has re paired defects to her hull, and will haul out of No. 2 dock at Portsmouth to resume her official duties. Sutlej, 50, sailing frigate, in No. 9 dock, at Portsmouth, has had moulds placed to lengthen her some 80 feet, for the purpose of converting her to a screw. The Urgent, 6, iron screw troop frigate, will take her first trip to Berehaven, after which she makes short voyages in succession with exchanges of troops, finishing at the West Indies. A great number of bluejackets arrived at Portsmouth yesterday afternoon by railway, to enter on board the Mersey, 40, screw, Captain Caldwell. Admiral Bowles returned from Osborne to Portsmouth yesterday in the Fire Queen. THE NAVAL FORCE IN COMMISSION.—The following is a resume of the present position of our nava/ force in com mission at home and abroad .—On home stations there are 135 ships, tenders, &c., carrying 2,315 guns, and with a complement of 19,767 officers and men • on foreign stations there are 135 ships, tenders, &c., mounting 1,715 guns, and with a complement of 20,427 officers and men ; on particu lar service, surveying service, ordered home, and paying off, there are 34 ships, tenders, &c., with 432 guns, and 5,453 officers and men. In addition to the above there are 232 flag officers and retinues, 1,813 supernumerary marines in China, &c. ; 1,932 supernumerary engineers, warrant officers, &c. in ordinaries ; 49 supernumeraries in flag ships abroad; and 419 Kroomen, making a total of 50,092 officers and men. The steam transport Peninsula yesterday completed her shipment of guns and war stores for Gibraltar—namely, 47 guns of 95 cwt. each, and 100 tons of shot and shell. The Wensleydale, also laden with guns and war stores, has sailed from Woolwich for Malta, and the Jessie Annandale yesterday left the pier with a cargo of guns, shot, and shell for Gibraltar. The following appointments were made yesterday at the Admiralty :—Commander F. S. M'Gregor, to be inspecting commander of the Coastguard, vice Harrison, whose period of service has expired ; Commander T. P. Coode, to the James Watt; and Lieut. G. W. E. Lloyd, to the Tartarus. THE ARMY. Major-General Sir W. F. Williams, commanding the garrison at Woolwich, attended by Colonel Bloomfield and the garrison staff, yesterday passed his annual inspection of the field batteries of Royal Artillery. No. 8 field battery, composed of 18-pounder heavy gims, ambulance waggons, ammunition carts, loaded and packed ready for service, forges, &c., yesterday left Woolwich Arsenal for Sheernesss, and two other batteries are in readi ness for departure. Every department in the Arsenal has for some days past assumed the most active appearance in preparing gun-carriages, platforms, ammunition and powder cases, and fitting out guns, batteries, and war stores, for transmission to the coast and the colonies. The Government has granted the sum of £3,000 for the purpose of enlarging the Royal Engineer officers' mess at Brompton barracks, Chatham. gunswhen 48 ex Mr. John Anderson, assistant-engineer for rifled ord nance, yesterday took over the charge of the old Lancaster shell foundry in Woolwich Arsenal to immediately com mencepetriheeninced anu i t e c n ture of employeds!rWi the Royal Armstrong's Standard gun foundry were transferred to the new department. BIRTHS. DILL.—On the 19th inst., at 19, R egency . square, Brigh ton, the wife of Dr. Dill, of a son. WILLIAMS.—At No. 3U, St. Ja mes ' s - square, B a th , t h e w i fe of Frederick M. Williams, Esq., of a daughter. MARRIAGES PALFREY--LEVER.--On the 24th inst., at Lewisham parish church, James Palfrey, Esq., M.D., of 12, Wellington street, London-bridge, to Ellen Mary Ann, only surviv ing daughter of the late J. C. W. Lever, Esq., M.D., of Guy's Hospital. DEATHS. BAKER.—On the 2d inst., Hugh Cossett Baker, Esq., of the city of Hamilton, Canada West. COCKELL.—On the 15th inst., at Daiston, Miss Cockell, aged 72. LEE.—On the 21st inst., Thomas Lee, Esq., of 85, Black friars-road, and of Loman-street, 'Southwark, aged 61. MONTAGU.—On the 23d inst., at Thurlow-lodge, Clapham, Surrey, Henry Seymour Montagu, Esq., aged 74. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of bliddlesex, Friday, March 25, 1859. HE EST ktered which bicript ait on rurthc Atha, F 4, Pi ~11 lirovc Fn R „,PY Rat luani T 11 • en "oe t rt io'toltvvorl 11 4 Stan Plate ! 1 1. Him 41effield Messrs Messrs l's. Ti iam C !re. II La Ideal" lon-7 leld— erpool 'Nheste pli ,Xotice k 4 A-REQ wAY Re; Offices 1 14' Just pu LLRERT , tamps, THE Ho :lent, pr ' ,4 tchlew :etion O the celel Piave a n IN mod r. clostn Tir a s c d; nt h Pii ' 1; iioxes, Gallery, Two ] A.m. tPP L tinned a; been ad Tincipt kommoi nitis N.- , an i lnisortm ;Igks, Ii lrt Itali Import talogisl Mr. 'I MINEI Interesi GEOLI PRA RALO VC( (e SHER 245. pei Dozen! Import blishet ii' Dozen HET per Gr HE! Stron,t - Dozen PRO IR. per paid. Com Gray's G' AND] 200 p sista and( so el be hi of tl Than Sit Doti .lohi ings Pat( ford 6 til 1o; dose arc, eon or t and Ind Fir DI all 3 effe ent an( BIP