The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-20 00:00:00

[C' antinued from our first page.l great extent, id in making changes in the distribution of political po'zve7 : you are, in fact, conferring that power upon a class, the V ery object which your legislation during the last ten yea, .s has endeavoured in every way to avoid. (Hear.) I cannot, td ierefore, approve of this mode of increasing the franchise o f towns. Ido not think that this proposition ought t o h ave been brought forward unless it had been ac compal Peet by means by which the elements of the consti tuenci .es would have been much more varied in character, and unless there had been a counterpoise to the predomi nance of any particular class. It may be said that the result of the last general election was favourable to the introduction of the working classes to the constituencies by means of reducing the franchise. It is difficult to say what was the result of the last general election. That is a matter, I think, of considerable doubt ; but no doubt the noble lord took a prudent course when he took a prompt one, and claimed the opinion of Parliament the moment it came back. What would have been the result if he had waited until a few months after it came back I leave the house itself to calculate. But the opinion of the country upon this subject of the working classes was at all events given in no very decided manner, but in a diffident and hesi tating manner. I think the opinion of the country was this —that it was desirable that a certain portion of the working classes, those who by their skill and their conduct proved themselves worthy of the privilege of the franchise—should be admitted into the constituencies under conditions which guarded the community from the predominance of a class. That I believe was the real verdict of the country, but it was the same opinion as that entertained by the late Govern ment. It is a mistake to suppose that the working classes at this moment have not a share in the constituencies. I must consider that the freemen of England are a portion of the working classes, though always treated with such con tempt by the noble lord. The result has shown that in the metropolis itself the great body of the working classes are in possession of the franchise, and that they also possess the franchise in many of the most important northern boroughs no one I believe will deny. Ido not yet suppose that even among the present constituencies you could place the share which falls to the working classes at less than an eighth or a ninth of the franchise which are now enjoyed. But when we come to talk of the working classes we must remember that they are not now confined to the towns ; and when hon. gentlemen lay down as a 'ininciple that all the working classes in the towns ought to enjoy thefranchise—and I find that many men of eminence recommend that—we must not forget there are working classes who do not dwell in cities or boroughs—(hear, hear)—and whose claim, if that prin ciple be admitted, has every right to be considered. There are rural labourers—a superior class of rural labourers, a superior working class in the country—men who, if you look to their knowledge, their pursuits, or their general conduct, the great skill and precision which are required in the accomplishment of their task need not, I think, shrink from a comparison with the most intelligent and educated mechanics in towns. If you are to rest the claim of a work • ing man to the franchise on the fact that he is a skilled me chanic, you must take into consideration the claim of the English woodman, of the English shepherd, of the English gardener, and some other of the highest class of labourers engaged in husbandry. It is impossible to deal with that question in a general way ; and therefore it necessarily metes to this, that you have to make a selection from the working classes that their voice and influence should be felt. That can only be done by the adoption of the principle of selec tion and qualification. But if we accept the scheme which the noble lord has placed before us, the only effect will be to give a predominance in half the boroughs of England to a class who, if they act as all their antecedent conduct would authorise us to believe they would act, that is to say, with decision, with combination, and with discipline, will have a predominant power, and probably return to this house a party that will exercise a great, and perhaps a controlling influence over the government of the country. (Hear, hear.) Are you prepared to sanction such a course ? Is it a course that can be justified ?—I n:11 not say upon principles of po litical expediency, but on principles of political justice ? It is not ; and therefore I cannot agree that the method by which the noble lord has proposed to introduce the influence of the working classes into the election of members of this house is a wise and well considered one. I think he ought to have increased the constituencies of the boroughs by various means, and not merely by this perilous monotony of process, and that while he could have effected that introduction of the most superior and skilled amongst the working classestothe constituencies, he might at the same time have done it in a mode and with conditions which would not have neu tralised the voices of all those various classes which are con tained in the present borough constituencies. (Hear, hear.) Now I proceed to consider the next principle upon which this bill is founded, and that is the reduction of the county franchise. I for one have never been opposed to seeing all the counties of this country possess large and ample con stituencies, believing that the influence of the land is most beneficial under our constitution for the preservation of our liberties. I have always been anxious that the great pro prietors of this country, and those who represent the landed property of the country in this house, should come here supported by the voice of numerous constituencies, and should be at the head not merely of their tenantry but of their neighbours. I have always felt that that would add to their power, and I look upon their influence and power to be of the utmost consequence and advantage to the state ; but in increasing the constituencies of counties there is one condition which must be observed. The constituencies thus created should be fairly connected with the chief property and the chief industry of a county. A constituency would not be fairly connected with the chief property and the chief industry of a county if, for example, the suffrage was possessed by some non-Parliamentary borough, which might be a new community, developing itself by the influ ence of some special interest of its own, or some decaying town, which had no relations whatever with the property and industry of the county, but which was there with an ld vested right of existence, and which, if it exercised tie franchise, would exercise it very often without any sym pathy with the interests or general feeling of the cminty. I do not think that the condition to which I have referred —viz., that the constituencies of a county should be con nected with its chief property and chief industry—is ob served when a great non-Parliamentary borough, teeming with population, is permitted to send to a county election its hordes of voters who have no local feeling or interest in the county, and who are only fitted to vote for a great manufacturing borough interest. (Hear.) Ido not think that great condition is observed, especially at a period when you are more and more establishing the franchise of England on occupation alone, if you allow a town under the operation of the freehold franchise to become a great manufactory of split votes, from which at a general election bands of voters can be poured forth to elect members of Parliament for districts with which they have no local sympathy, and in which they really have no local interest. In this bill of the noble lord I don't find any condition or any means by which that great injustice can be rectified. The fourth or disfranchising clause of the noble lord's bill disfranchises upon a very great scale • because it enacts ' that the occupation of a building jointly with land shall not confer the right of voting unless the building be of £5 yearly value in counties. That is a new clause, and, if carried, it would disfranchise a great number of voters in counties and rural boroughs. I know that the noble lord has a horror of disfranchisement, which he proposed in every bill he himself brought forward, but which he ob jected to in the measure I introduced ; but, as simplicity is the order of the day, and as the noble lord will not go out of his way to establish a just franchise for the counties, he ought at least to have refrained from such a measure of sweeping disfranchisement as is contained in that clause, • which only applies to rural voters. (Hear.) The county franchise in this bill will greatly reduce the influence of the landed proprietors and the landed interest of this country, and I object to that reduction. (" Hear, hear," f rom M r. Bright.) I tell the hon. gentleman, who seems alarmed and annoyed at such an expression, why I use it. I look round Europe at the present moment, and I really do not see any country of any importance (excepting England) in which political liberty could be said to exist. I attribute the creation and the maintenance of our political liberty t o the influence of the land and to the tenure of land in this country. It is a country in which there are large proper ties to which men can rally—(hear)—and that in my mind is the only security in an old European country against that centralised form of government which has prevailed and must prevail in every European community where there is not that counterpoise, where the tenure of land does not supply those large properties round which men can rally. It is to that tenure of land you are indebted for your public liberties, because it is that tenure of land which makes local self-government a fact in England, and which allows the great body of the people to be ruled by traditionary influ ence and habits, instead of being governed, as they are in every other country, by mere police. (Hear.) Believing, therefore, that this proposition for the reconstruction of the county franchise has a tendency to diminish that just and salutary influence of the land of this country, I highly ob ject to the proposition of the noble lord. (Hear.) Now, the third principle of the measure is the redistribution of seats. Let us see if the application of that principle, as pro posed by this measure, be a just and wise one. There are two schools whose opinions obtain on this subject. First there is that school of politicians who wish entirely to re construct the borough system of representation of Eng land, or, I might say, who wish to subvert it. The opinion of those who belong to that school is that what is to be ob tained by a public Parliamentary election in this country is the declaration of the opinions of the mere numerical majority, and, with that view, they would subvert the exist ing system of representation in regard to boroughs, and re construct it in a manner that should produce that result; that is what I would call the American principle, and in America undoubtedly it works exceedingly well. But the circumstances of America are greatly different from those of England. America is a colony, although a large inde pendent state ; its population is continually increasing, its ' wealth, its resources, a n d its territory are continallyin creasing ; and while their legislative assembly or Parlia ment, is elected upon the principle of the mere numerical ' majority, they have a first-rate assembly founded upon that ' principle suited to the wants and condition of the country. There is no other state in America —no other country on the other side of the Atlantic, that can produce a represen tative assembly elected by so large a number of p ersons ; therefore in their case and for their purposes they have a first-rate assembly. But that principle would not apply t o England. (Hear.) So if we were to take the numerical ma jority as the only test—inferior as we are to many countri es in regard to numbers—if we had an assembly elected upon that principle it would be not a first-rate, but a very second —a very third-rate assembly. The other school is that which holds the principle, that this being an ancient coun- try, possessing a complicated system of taxation and a social life, we are bound in our national Legislature to repre sent all the classes, and all the interests of the country, and all those national traditions and prescriptions which are the source of our power and the basis of our social organisation ; and in England, while you have a represen , Aive assembly elected upon those conditions, and upon that method, inas much as you have in this country the most powerful social organisation in the world, you have a fir ,t-rate representa tive assembly. You have the House of Commons. (Hear.) No one, I imagine, pretends that the existing borough sys tem of parliamentary representation was invented to obtain those results ; but that borough system which secures the distribution of parliamentary representationamongst all in terests has been preserved and cherished by the country be cause they found the ancient machinery in operation, and because also they found that it did produce these results. I can perfectly understand the principle which the hon. member for Birmingham, and others who take the same view, advocate, and which so alarms the country, for I know that their object is to substitute the American principle of making numbers alone the basis of representation. But those who act upon the English principle must be im pressed with very different considerations ; and all they can do in reference to the redistribution of seats is this, that when they find new and powerful interests have risen up which are not duly represented, then, following the example of their predecessors, not merely parliamentary precedent, but the conduct of the sovereign in the exercise of the royal prerogative, they will entertain measures for calling those new interests into the representation ; and as it is the custom of the country, long settled, that the mem bers constituting the representative assembly should not be increased, this was the mildest course presumed, to deprive the least important of the existing boroughs in some degree of the power of representation which they possess. The true principle then, as I contend, to meet these wants in the representation, arising from the claims of new interests, is that which was adopted by the late Government, in their bill of last year—(hear, and oh)—viz., that of calling upon some of the least important boroughs to contribute the means by which the desired result csu be obtained. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, the noble lord carries his point either too far or not far enough. (Hear.) If the present borough system is in his mind so indefensible as the hon. member for Birmingham and those who are in favour of the American principle represent it to be, he should have made a great advance ; but if, on the other hand, his principle is the English principle, and he believes that there is no ground upon which we can disfranchise a borough except the great state necessity of calling unrepresented interests into this house, the noble lord has gone much too far. (Hear, hear.) He ought not to have made enfranchisement precede disfeanchisement. (Hear, hear.) There are some boroughs in the north of England whose claim to represen tation cannot be denied, but it is no part of our system to disfranchise boroughs in the north without enfranchising others in the south, for we considered that it was our duty, and in accordance with the constitution, that we should study distribution of power throughout the whole country. There were one or two counties where the representation was ludicrously inadequate, for there were large interests of a different and contrary character. There were immense districts in the West Riding extending over 70 miles whose interests, being agricultural, were different from those of another portion of the same county, where manufacturing industry was teeming, and it was advisable, therefore, that those interests, which were not adequately represented should be called into the councils of this house. But the noble lord goes past that. I object to this system on two grounds. First, he has acted upon a complete fallacy in es tablishing what I may venture to call accumulative mem bers for places already represented. Now, I want to know from the Government upon what principle they have so acted ? You do not act upon that principle in the electoral body. If a man has £lOO,OOO a year he has only one vote, and upon very good grounds, for we know that, although the man has a large fortune, and you give him only the same vote as the humblest dweller in a £lO tenement, he has still an indirect influence on the community, which asserts itself and sufficiently protects his property. (Hear, hear.) Why should you do that for Manchester or Bir mingham which you do not do for the wealthy individual ? Members are sent here to represent the opinions of places, and not the power of places. Supposing the interests of Manchester were assailed, does anybody suppose that they would only be defended by the two respectable representa tives who now sit in this house for that important constitu ency ? Not at all. We know that there would be scores and scores of members, not confined to one side of the house who would support the interests of Manchester, and therefore I wholly disapprove of this principle as perfectly unconstitu tional, and as changing the character of the house. Be cause, if representation is to be meted out according to population and property, you will soon have very few places indeed represented in this house, and representation would finally be confined to the large manufacturing and commer cial cities and to the large counties. I admitthat in the Re. form Bill of 1832 you did confer upon some counties a third member. But I believe the circumstances under which that was done cannot be drawn into a precedent, but even if it were a precedent—as, perhaps, I shall be told—it is a very bad one. In the Reform Bill of 1832 it was necessary to in crease the county members. There were some counties which exceeded the number of voters which authorised the conferring of two members, and yet did not reach that number which permitted division ; and this plan of giving a third member in such cases was consequently had recourse to. But some of those counties, we know, now reach the amount of population which would justify a division, andit appears to me that it would be better to divide them than to continue this plan of accumulative members, which can not be defended, and which is entirely opposed to the spirit of the constitution. But there is another ground equally objectionable. It appears it is the practice—the happy practice of the constitution, that almost every class, and al most every great interest and every great institution is re presented, and though it is the happy practice of the con stitution that in that sense the minority may be represented, still I think that when a constituent body is formed, the majority ought to decide, and the minority in that sense ought to have no claim. It is the custom of the country, and that is a very strong reason—(hear, hear) — but beyond that the principle is based upon all our consti tutional precedent and practice, and it appears to me to be a principle that can also be upheld upon the soundest and wisest political reasons—even abstractedly. (Cheers.) The noble lord in 1854 proposed that the minority should be directly represented in this house. In my opinion a more unconstitutional course could not have been suggested, for there is only one way by which the minority of a constituent body can be represented--that is by becoming the majority. (A laugh.) That is the only way by which it ought to be represented. (Hear.) The noble lord has proposed, not directly, but indirectly, to secure a representation to the minority in the usual places, in some cities and in some counties. I entirely object to that; but it is done, although indirectly, in this bill, for there are some counties and some towns to which a third member is added, on that principle. We have of late years complained of a want of distinct parties, and a distinct principle in this house. So far as I can learn that is a want that will very shortly disappear. (A laugh.) I think we shall soon have distinct parties and distinct principles for all sides. (Hear, hear.) But if any thing could be devised which could introduce into this house a timid temporising spirit it is the political and par liamentary machinery that recognises the representation of a minority of the constituent body in Parliament. A want of conviction and a want of energy in public life would be the inevitable consequence, and therefore I entirely object to the second principle the noble lord wishes to establish by this re-distribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that the principle of the distribution of seats as the noble lord applies it is perfectly unsound, that it can satisfy none of those who are opposed to the English element of parliamentary life—that it cannot satisfy those who want to re-construct the English House of Commons upon the American principle—while at the same time it fatally alters the only sound principle on which the disfranchise ment of boroughs ought to be permitted, viz., that of conferring representation on interests not already repre sented. I have adverted to the three principles of the noble lord's bill. Now what is the course we ought to take in respect to the measure ? That is the question. (Cheers.) It is a very bad measure. (" Oh !" laughter, and cheers.) That, I think, is the universal opinion in regard to it. (" Oh !" and cheers.) In point of fact I believe I do not know more than two individuals who perfectly approve of it—viz., the noble lord the Secretary and the member for Birmingham. (Hear.) And this I must say, that the member for Birmingham, with that candid audacity which greatly neutralises the pernicious opinions he expresses and the dangerous course he pursues, has already told us that no sooner does the bill pass than heshallagitate the country in order to obtain a much more extensive change. (Cheers.) But, if we reject this bill on the second reading, we know what will be said—it will be said by the noble lord, " You are against parliamentary reform—you are against extend ing the franchise, which when you were in a responsible position you yourselves brought in a bill to do." I am not against extending the franchise ' • but I say, if we are to deal with the subject at all, I think the franchise might be ex tended, and safely extended, in a way upon the whole bene ficial to the country. My opinion, so far as I can form an estimate from the documents in my possession, is that under the bill of 1859 the franchise would have been more extended , than it will be under this bill. Therefore I am not against extending the franchise if it be necessary, nor am I against the redistribution of seats if it be necessary that seats should be redistributed, in order to call into parliamentary repre sentation great interests that are not now sufficiently re presented. I wish to see whether in counties or boroughs the constituencies—if it be necessary to enter into the ques tion —may not be increased, because I think they can be increased in a manner which would strengthen the constitution, and because I think the means and materials are in existence by which that object may be attained, and by which the commercial, the manfacturin g , an d th e wor ki ng c l asses i n t owns m ight have an in crease d power of represent i ng t h e i r op i n i ons i n this house, while on the other hand, that due weight and influence, so important and so necessary to the liberties of the country,! of the landed interest, should be fairly and ade quately represented. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, so far as the alleged principle of thi s bill i s concerned I am; not justified in saying, though I think the application of the principle is most objectionable, that we ought to reject the bill on the second reading. (Hear, hear.) We shall have an oppor tunity of considering the bill in committee. What will you do in committee ? That will be deferred to a period that will enable all parties, high and low, deeply to consider the re sponsibility which rests upon those who have to deal with subjects of such importance. I do not feel called upon now to intimate what may be done by myself or my friends when the bill is in committee. I am not at all sure whether I shall propose anything myself after Easter. I am not sure whether the responsibility of the measure may not, considering the circumstances under which it was introduced and projected, fairly rest with the noble lord stud her Majesty's Govern ment. (Hear.) Indeed, if I were to take a limited and a party view of the consequencos of this bill, it would not be for the Conservative party that I should feel any very great that are toI d b o e n d o e t h t v h i e r n e k d t o h v a e t r t t h o e 0 n lO O O c b l o a r s o s u f r h h s o s o e f i E n t n e gl a nd r es and opinions, and habits are identical—l do not think those 100 boroughs are represented, generally speaking, by mem bers of the Conservative party. (Hear, kear.) And, though it may deprive this house of a vast number of members who now adorn it, and give to it weight and responsibility and knowledge, and who, though they do not sit on the same benches as myself, I should not the less regret the absence of as a great national calamity, T should be sorry to see the vast influence and authority of the Whig party curtailed. It is, I think, one of the best securities for public liberty and good government in this country that, when a change takes place in the administration of this country, power at least is handed over to the party who, on whichever side of the house they sit, are prepared to exer cise that power upon English and not on American prin ciples. (Hear, hear.) I think it is something when such changes take place that power should be handed over to those who respect the traaitions of the country, and who will be faithful to its prescriptive claims. Therefore I should deeply deplore to see this serious blow accomplished so far as the Whig interest is concerned, and from hands from which 20 years ago we should not have expected such a blow to come. (Hear, hear.) I shall, therefore, not op pose the second reading ; but I shall be curious, when the house is in committee on the bill, to see what propositions will be made to render it, even in the opinion of hon. gen tlemen opposite, who have already shown a great disposition to make amendments, a bill that will net be injurious to the Country. It has been said of English statesmen that they were more remarkable for their action than for their pre science. I am not 'surprised at that. Man is rather an active than a contemplative creature. It is the privilege of most men of ability to be active in details ; but it is the pri vilege of very few to have the power of prediction. I think upon the whole it is better for England that public opinion in this country should be generally rather in advance of public men than that it should be the reverse. One result has been to make this assembly a practical one, and although occasionally we may have blundered, it is better to blunder by adhering to an old established system than to blunder by adopting a new system that has never been tried. (Hear.) But on this Parliamentary Reform question, I admit that English statesmen have been much to blame. There can be no doubt that when the Duke of Wellington was mini ster, and before the first Reform Bill, warnings were given that were unhappily discarded, and opportunities were lost that might have been seized with great advantage to the country ; and I take it for granted that the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, remembering that re markable instance of want of prescience on the part of one of the greatest men this country has ever produced, and the great advantage which was adroitly obtained by the Whig party in 1832 in consequence, has always been nervously alive lest he should make the same mistake, and be deficient in that prescient prudence which a statesman is always anxious to exhibit. Therefore I believe that when, 10 years ago, the noble lord re-opened this question, he re opened it from a sound and honest principle. The house knows the history of those 10 years. The noble lord has been in office more or less during that time. He has kept this question always alive, so that when he was out of of it would always be taken down out of the armoury of poli tics and brandished in the face of a Conservative Ministry. The time had come when, in our opinion, the question should be terminated, and we endeavoured to terminate it on conditions which, I think, are now spoken of more kindly in the country than when they were first introduced, and which conditions, if they had been accomplished, would have so cured the constitution. But I believe the noble lord was pre mature in the measure which he introduced 10 years ago, and that those who followed him are also, in a certain de gree, to blame. Our course was, to a certain degree, in self-defence, because it was impossible to carry on the Go vernment of the country while the question was left un settled. , But I do not wish to escape from my share of the responsibility of that premature conduct. This, however, may be said in my excuse, and in excuse of the noble lord, and his successors, and his colleagues, that the time was oppor tune if changes were required. The time was opportune to anticipate political necessities. The country was tranquil and prosperous ; there was a prospect of foreign tranquillity as well as of domestic content. What is the condition of things now ? (Hear, hear.) Is the state of affairs the same as when the noble lord and his successors endeavoured to deal with this question? A great military nation, matchless in valour, with a public organisation more complete than any that has existed since the days of ancient Rome, abounding in re sources of men, money, and military material, and so ena moured of glory that it has freely bartered freedom for fame, no longer conceals its purpose of general empire. So far as Europe is concerned the prospect is infinitely more dangerous than it was in thedays of the great monarch. In the days of Louis XI V. Europe was full of military energy. Europe now is prostrate and spiritless. As far as England is concerned the prospect is infinitely more dangerous than in the days of the French Republic, or in the days of the old French Empire. France was then our implacable foe; France is now our unswerving friend. France then menaced oar hearths ; France now decorates our citizens. France then harassed our trade by a continental blockade ; France now facilitates our commercial intercourse by treaties of commerce. There is nothing now to keep the English people watchful and awake. Superior to rapine, hardly condescend ing to force, France is building up a colossal despotism by all the advanced arts and artifices of the most decided and declared liberalism, byuniversal suffrage—(hear)—bysecret voting—(hear)—by electoral districts. (Cheers.) Will you never be warned ? (Opposition cheers.) Is this the time and the condition of affairs when you should attempt feebly, but in the same track, to imitate those political doctrines Is this the time when you should still further deviate from that old, that free, and that aristocratic constitution which has framed the liberties of Englishmen and secured the empire of England ? I must say that is not my opinion. The noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, since the night when he entered into the fatal pledge, when he sat on this side of the house, which has placed his Go vernment in consequence in a position of great embarrass ment, has been called upon to preside over an office of the State very different from that which he then contemplated. The noble lord is in receipt every day of information re specting our foreign affairs which may well make him look grave, and the perusal of which I think cannot but teach him that it is a great thing for a Minister if he can fall back upon the ancient institutions of a country which have proved by their existence their ability to stem any storm. (Cheers.) Well, sir, that being the case, I will not relinquish the hope that before we are summoned to go into committee, a relieved House of Commons and a grate - fill people will learn from the noble lord that this unneces sary, this uncalled for, and this mischievous measure will be withdrawn. (Cheers.) Mr. LEATIIAM considered one of the great merits of the bill to be its simplicity, and that no attempt had been made to puzzle them with a variety of franchises. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright.) One of the great defects of the bill was the timid and tender way in which her Majesty's Government proposed to deal with the microscopical con stituencies of the country. So chivalrous was the noble lord that he let every borough in England, however small and however corrupt, retain its members, and consequently its power, the same as the gigantic borough of Salford. The noble lord had told the house that large commercial consti tuencies did not send up great statesmen; but the noble lord himself represented a great constituency, and so did the noble viscount at the head of the Government, until, probably for motives of personal convenience, he retired to Tiverton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer likewise re presented a great constituency, and so did the Secretary for Ireland. It appeared to him (Mr. Leathern), on the contrary, that great cities and counties vied with each other on that point, and that if they did not send up any more statesmen it was io nt, (m because there wore.o..bantomm) regretted oregreats that tatesm to tb en e le noble (Laughter.) lord should expend all his c0mp...1.” upon the electors of these small boroughs, and have none for in ,,,, dreds of thousands of electors unrepresented all over the country. He regretted also that the noble lord should not have dealt with the great national question in a more statesmanlike manner than by referring to parliamentary majorities. On one occasion the noble lord had acted otherwise, and had he done so on this occasion, though he might have lost the confidence of the house, he would have won, as he did on that occasion, the confidence of the country. The noble lord was misled when he stated that the people of the country cared nothing for Parliamentary reform ; they were, on the contrary, narrowly watching the course to be taken by the house, and though no violent agitation was manifested in relation to Reform, passions were asleep which it would not be wise to awake, and powers that the house would not care to face. He regretted, finally, that her Majesty's Go vernment should have taken the course they had done, be cause the work which engaged them that day would have to be recommenced on the morrow—(hear)—and recom menced, too, with the arrears of legislation; and he regretted it all the more, as a great opportunity was thus thrown away of winning the confidence of the people of the coun try—(hear)—of adding a new light to the State, of adding a new lustre to the Crown, and of adding a glorious contri bution to the history of England. (Hear.) Mr. H. J. B AILLIE could not concur in the advice given by Mr. Disraeli that the bill should be withdrawn. On the contrary, lie hoped the time had arrived when the house would be able to pass a satisfactory and permanent measure of Parliamentary Reform ; for he thought that it was far better that our institutions should have a more democratic basis than that year after year the question should be bandied from hand to hand, and made an instru• ment of agitation by the leading statesmen in the house. One defect in the bill, however, was the retention of small nomination boroughs, which he regarded as an anomaly in our representative system ; and he thought that a house hold rating franchise would have been preferable to the £6 rental proposed by the bill. Mr. BAXTER supported the bill, which with all its de fects he believed would be a great improvement, and add to rather than detract from its proposer's fame. Mr. ROLT took the true principle of the measure to be the severance of the representation of 'the people from the property of the country. It was a step towards Ameri canising our institutions, and the effects he anticipated from it he regarded with dismay. Thenceforward the policy of the Government and the legislation of that house would be tinctured by the feelings of a class of the popula tion lower in education and intelligence than the existing constituency, and cease to be the reflex of the deliberate and matured convictions of statesmen and legislators. So thinking he should give the measure an emphatic " no." Mr. W. F. CAMPBELL said his opinions were founded on the merits of the bill itself, and he was not influenced by party or local ties. The first remark which he had intended to make had been anticipated by the member for Hudders field, who observed that this bill contained no protection for the voter against illegal influences. He (Mr. Campbell) would venture to submit to that portion of the house which was in favour of such protection that if it wore ignored in such a measure as this, at such a moment, the position of the question becomes far less hopeful. It was one thing for the Government to refuse the protection of the ballot when demanded as an isolated measure, but it was quite another thing for the Government to ignore and pass over that pro tection at the very moment at which they presented to the house and country a scheme by which it was hoped that the country would acquire reform. The measure was supposed to be pregnaEt with repose, and by it the ballot would be flung to a greater distance and made more untenable than before. He contended that the measure was not founded on sufficient information as to the classes which it affected. The returns presented afforded them no means of ascertain ing in the counties the proportion which the freeholders would bear to the new electors under an extended Chandos clause. If they wanted proper statistics, they should go to a man like Mr. Newmarch, who, in one of his valuable papers, read not long ago before the Statistical Society, computed that in 1853-4 the number of freeholders in coun ties was 315,196. These returns pointed out to them that the number of occupyingtenants of £lO and upwards in counties waa567,560, giving to that class over the freeholders a ma jority of 252,364, or 80 per cent. It might be said since 1853 freeholders had increased. It might be contended also that some deductions should be made from the gross number of occupying tenants in the counties of £lO and upwards ; but freeholders; hop t st h htvooi e erelu y lt tet h hdoh r a tbieco d nerwtp n et o means of ascertainin g what deductions from pause t a s unehsa s eeAnc owbdd predominantemetu nf r hoi e enrt requisite. ssatfimrtraa ten co n sen te d considerations nonh isnests noei epVet element.drhrh eaet a stAoei t 4o e rotnvy v hs seee. the p res en t rpnhc freeholdersraheguia n sool eidn g apt eet i nd u cea measure, hei e aaoe y msu: r i gte m ohhnes e - tt: which would thrust those freeholders throughout the coun ties into a minority. He referred to a speech made some time ago by the hon. gentleman the member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), who did not hesitate to tell his hearers that, looking to the temper of the public mind—looking to the fate of previous propositions—looking to the boundless dif ficulties which attended all judicious changes in the Refo rm Act—the best and wisest course for any Government to pursue was to renounce ambitious schemes warned by pre vious failures, and, session after session, to direct their legis lative care to those pas ts of our system in which practical remedies could be applied to demonstrated ends. (Hear.) The main question, as it appeared to him, was, how long this alteration of our representative system would stand; and before the house could come to a conclusion upon that point they ought to consider how far the measure took away any causes which contributed to the puma- nency of that system and introduced new elements of die- i turbance. One of the first of these disturbing elements • was to be found in the policy of his hon. friends below the gangway. To their influence the country owed the bills of 1852, 1854, 1859, and the present bill. Were any of them prepared now to say that they accepted this bill as a settlement of the question? But even if some of them did say so, a more exact consideration of the facts would show that this could not be the case. Their conduct ever since 1833 had at least the merit of consistency. Ever since the Reform Act was passed they had declared that they looked forward to its alteration ; but so long as there had been common evils to abate, and common measures to advance, they had been content to act with the main body of the Liberal party in this house, and to keep this ques tion in abeyance. When such questions were exhausted, hon. gentlemen below the gangway would have no choice left them but to urge upon the country those organic changes which they had so long advocated. That was one cause which threatened the perthanence of the new arrange ment proposed by the noble lord. Another was the desire for change which sprang up from time to time among the working classes, and that would not be in any way affected by the bill. Another was the impulsive and restless feel ing that occasionally pervaded the electoral body itself ; and a fourth was the effect which Continental changes and revolutions had upon the public mind at home. All these causes of disturbance, threatening as they were to the per manence of the new institutions, would be left wholly un touched by the bill. It might, however, be said these ob jections were of too general and abstract a nature. Let them, then, descend to particulars, and first take the £lO rated 'occupiers in counties. The house was asked to place in the counties, as a defensible and permanent body of electors, the very class who had just been proved not to be defensible in boroughs. (Hear.) Did they think that the franchise which they had been unable to maintain in the boroughs would act better in the counties ? (Hear, hear.) He knew that right hon. gentlemen opposite proposed that franchise last year—(hear)—but he did not understand that they were now committed to such a scheme, and for his own part he saw many and grave objections to it. As regarded the £6 franchise in boroughs, there was no reason to sup pose that that arrangement would be more enduring than the £lO borough franchise had been. The £6 franchise did not coincide with any natural division of society, it in cluded a large class, who, from their poverty, must, with out any blame or reproach to them as individuals, sympa thise with all agitations or movements for political and social changes. If the measure was carried, therefore, they would not have the same men to defend existing institu tions as they had now. Men did not defend institutions unless they stood behind either an epoch or a principle, and in this case he saw neither the one nor the other, and on that ground he saw nothing in the bill which should recon cile the country to the adoption of the bill. The measure, however, ought not, he would say, to be judged on that ground alone. The question also arose whether, if carried, it would le- sen some of the most acutely-felt arid the most generally acknowledged defects of the Reform Act. These defects came home to the perception of all parties in that house—they had been experienced for the last 30 years, and the question was, whether the bill proposed any remedy for them. One of these defects arose from the nature of the bo rough franchise ; it was uniform on the one hand, and at same time it was not equal on the other, and thishad caused at once a difficulty in either maintaining or extending it. If it was rapidly extended the mere numerical majority would become the predominating power in the State. In the bills of 1852, 1854, and 1859, that had been met by providing a variety of franchises, but no such provision appeared in this ' bill. Even the noble lord himself was inconsistent in this respect, and failed to meet one great defect. The pressure of the masses upon the intelligence of the country would be augmented, not diminished by the bill, and it would be more difficult to defend the defects of this bill should it pass into a law than it was to defend and maintain the act of 1832. One great defect in the borough constituencies he believed all parties in that house were most desirous to put down, though, with the desire which existed for seats in Parliament, he did not see that this bill did anything to diminish it. It was the corruptibility of the borough electors. (Laughter.) So long as there was this strong and uncontrollable desire to become members of that house—(laughter)—he saw in that measure no means of preventing eorruttion. There was no reason to suppose that voters with a qualification between £lO and £2O would be less liable to be influenced by bribery and corrupt motives than those who would have a qualification of £6 and under £lO, but the contrary. Gentlemen who were well acquainted with constituencies knew that the region • of venality lay mainly between the £lO and the £2O voters —(great laughter)—and the question was, what proportion of such voters would be added to the counties. Allowances i must be made for the excess in some respects over the ac tual number of rated occupiers in counties between these sums ; but taking the returns as they stood, they would give rated oceupiers above £lO, and under £2O, 365,987 ; rated occupiers at £2O and upwards, 255,990 ; being an excess of 109,996 of voters under £2O. He would ask whether that fact gave the house any hope that the corruption and bri bery which existed under the present act world be dimi nished if this measure was passed ? Between 1688 and 1832 there were four great cases of exclusion from this house, Lord Bolingbroke, when Mr. St. John, was without a seat in the house between the periods when he was Secretary for Weiland Foreign Secretary. Passing over 100 years they then came to Mr. Sheridan, who was gut of Parliament from 1812 to 1816. Then there was Lord Brougham, who was also excluded for four years. Then there was the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) who was without a seat from 1820 to 1826. Then again the pre • sent Earl of Carlisle,when Lord Morpeth,was excluded from the house. The house and the country had also for some period lost the services of the hen. members for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) and Birmingham (Mr. Bright). Even Lord Macaulay was excluded and had to resign his position in ' the Cabinet. Those wereexclusions which he believed neither Parliamentary nor national feeling would sanction ; but on the contrary he thought it would hasten to prevent them if it had the power to do so. No man either in Parliament or out of doors—even those electors who took an active part in causing those exclusions—would deny the persons whom he had enumerated were not entitled to seats in Parlia ment. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion therefore was that the Parliamentary and national feeling were without a voice in those respects. A general election, though an effective engine for expressing the national opinion, had proved insufficient for a return to Parliament of all men seises. the public voice would desire to send there. Now , assuming those wetter. 4., 1.. —n, al—. „.,,,,,,, o „ i n w hi c h the present bill affected it demanded the serious considera tion of the house. (Hear.) Unfortunately the present bill but aggravated the evil—(hear)—because while it left four it disfranchised 25 seats, which were open to the whole range of political society, and open also to the whole range of Parliamentary ability, and had called into existence seats which, while they wore meritorious and valuable in their own way, were not always so. He did not disparage large cities nor counties; but no one would venture to maintain that the latter presented a fair field, except to those who had large properties in those counties, nor the former ex cept to those who were largely mixed up with manufactur ing and commercial interests in the boroughs. It was not his intention to ask the house not to read the bill a second time ; but merely to prevent that stage being adopted with out submitting that while it offered no protection to the voter, it left them in doubt,. and more than doubt, as to the position of the freeholders in counties. The bill, in fact, gave no guarantee of permanency, and imparted no good result, unless a dissolution should be viewed in itself as an object to be coveted, and an end to be pursued. (Hear.) Mr. LIDDELL apprehended that persistence in this course of legislation would inevitably result in placing all power in the hands of the " mob," by which he meant the least wealthy, the least independent, and the least intelli gent portion of the community. He believed the country was apathetic upon the subject of Parliamentary reform, for the obvious reason that it was contented with the existing system ; and he warned the house to proceed with caution, lest by the adoption of a crude and inconsiderate scheme they destroyed the great landmarks of the constitution. Mr. BRIGHT said that in one respect he was in the same position as the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks : he did not rise for the purpose of asking the house to divide on the second reading of the bill, but he did not concur with the right hon. gentleman when ho endeavoured to con vince the house that the bill was a dangerous, if net a fatal measure. On the contrary, he would discuss it in the spirit of a person anxious for the passing of a sound and useful measure, and willing to make considerable allow ances for the difficulties which the Governmust must be placed in in dealing with the question. From what had been said in the house, as well as out of doors, it, was evident that there were two kinds of objectors, namely, one class who thought it went too far, and another for whom it did not go far enough. This bill was offered to the house in the fulfilment of a pledge given by the noble lord the mem ber for London during the existence of the Government of Lord Derby. The noble lord said he would bring in a bill differing from the scheme of the right hon. gentleman then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from a measure which he (Mr. Bright) had taken some trouble to explain to his countrymen. The noble lord said that in any bill he should introduce he should extend the county franchise to £lO occupation, and the borough franchise to £6, and that with regard to the distribution of seats he was not prepared to disturb more than 25 or 30. (Hear, hear.) They who had seen the bill and who had heard the noble lord's declaration must admit that, if the measure passed, the zoble lord had redeemed his pledge. In regard to the question of the dis tribution of seats, be confessed he was one who for a great many years had held the opinion that it was much better to have this question of reform approached by successive steps. (Ironical cheers.) The difficulty was notorious, of disposing of 50 or 60 small boroughs which ought to be dis posed of, and so far he agreed wieh the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Baillie), that the Government would feel itself incompetent satisfactorily to arrange that matter. He took the liberty of recommending to the noble lord about a year and a half ago, and repeatedly since in. public, that the Reform Bill should settle the question of the suffrage simply and generously. He thought after what had been done both the country and the public would be better pre pared to give attention to small boroughs, and to come to some more satisfactory arrangement than could be done by a bill introduced such as this was. He said so much because he was not going to complain of a bill because it was not a great disfranchisement of small boroughs and did not propose a great enfranchisement of the electors. He regarded the measure as one which did not settle the ques tion of enfranchisement more than on the outside. (Hear.) He was only telling them what they were all already aware of. The bill did not settle the question of enfranchisement —it rather unsettled it. It would only add one more pre cedent to the measure of 1832, and would justify what fur ther demand the country might make in regard to that one branch of Parliamentary reform. He considered the ques tion of the transfer of members' seats from little boroughs to large constituencies to be the pith and marrow of the question of Parliamentary reform. The right hon, gentle man opposite, the member for Buckinghamshire, in his speech to-night, succeeded in perplexing his followers on the point of the bill being too extensive. The right hon. gentleman was peculiarly misty when he endeavoured to make the bill appear in the light of something very dread ful, and yet it was impossible for him to make the house believe that it was a measure extending beyond that which the Government ought to propose or that Parliament ought to pass. Now, the Parliamentary representation of this kingdom was either a reality or a sham. What could be thought of it when no more than one million of men out of seven millions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were entitled to vote for members of that house ? In the case of a great many counties the representation was as good as dead. There was no opportunity for bribery in Mich couuties--(hear)—and he had heard it spoken of as a IRE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1860. matter of pleasure—no doubt it must have been so to those who had to pay—that a great many constituencies had not even the liberty to sell themselves. (Hear.) But if one half of the constituencies of those counties were in this condition, they, on the other hand, knew that in one-half of the boroughs, probably, coercion and corruption did their work. A real bone fide representation was not, under the present system, obtainable amongst the populations in those small boroughs. Well, if that be so, he wanted to know whether the right hon. gentleman opposite really believed that 1,000,000 of voters out of 7,000,000 of men was a satisfactory state of the representation ? He asked whether it was safe or wise to maintain any longer such a state of things. The hon. and learned gentleman who spoke from the opposite benches a short time ago appealed to the house as if he believed that the sky was about to fall, and he asked, to use his own language, when the Government were going to pull up. He could tell the hon. and learned gen tleman, if he talked of pulling up, that there were two who .could play at that game—that he would find himself pulled up a great deal sooner than the people of England would be when it was proposed to add 300,000 or 400,000 voters to the electoral list. (Cheers from the Manchester party.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckingham shire, in his speech last session, told the house—he was then rather wild in his statement, but the Government was iii extremis, and it wanted to get a vote or two—that he was going to add 500,000 to the electoral list. The right hon. gentleman said that his proposition would double the num ber of the constituents of the United Kingdom. He pre sumed that the right hon. gentleman believed what be then said, but he afforded the house very little information in regard to those fancy franchises which he proposed. He (Mr. Bright), however, was sure that the result of the right lion. gentleman's calculations would disappoint himself as well as the country. Now, the present bill proposed rather less than that of the right hon. gentleman, but he thought it would add much more to the constituencies than the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman would have done. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the house spoke of the vast increase that would be made in certain boroughs, and quoted certain statements which appeared in the Times. But they all knew that there were no persons in the world more capable of dealing in mares' nests than the directors of the Times newspaper. (Laughter.) Look at Liverpool, with its 80,000 houses, and only 18,000 electors ; Manchester, with its 70,000 houses, and 19,000 electors ; Birmingham, with its 50,000 houses and only 9,000 electors. Did hon. members suppose that those restrictions were tolerable or would be tolerated ? Was that a state of things they could justify by any kind of logic, or for one moment defend without utter ing a libel upon their countrymen? He found, looking at those returns, that the number of voters to be enfranchised was small, and behind all their expectations. The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire made several blunders in his figures. He first spoke of 257,000, ' and at last brought down the number to 217,000 electors, that would be added to the list. Take the whole if the number of £6 householders and over, and deduct from them the present number of electors in boroughs, the number could not be more than 162,000. That number, compared with the whole population, was ridiculous and contemptible. Throughout the whole of the boroughs the increase of the franchise would not be more than 40 per cent. As to the counties, the right hon. gentleman said he could not make out the exact number of the electors. But what did it signify whether there were 100,000 or 150,000 mere or less electors in the counties ? Was the voter some pestilent crett• tion that they wanted to put out of existence, or a man that they were bound to take by the hand, and to ask to be a participator with them in the working of the parliamentary power of a great empire ? (Hear, hear.) Taking the whole number of the county occupiers from £lO to £5O a year, he thought the return showed something like 400,000 occupiers; but they should deduct from them the women occupiers, which made one-fifth or one-fourth of the whole number. Well, then, deducting all those new occupiers of £5O and upwards, and all those who were freeholders, Bte., they would in all probability reduce the number of those qualified to vote below 200,000. He thought that the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire last year estimated them below that num ber. According to his (Mr. Bright's) calculations they would not add to the county franchise more than 100,000. Now, the great blot of the bill of 1832 was its absolute exclusion of the working classes from the franchise, he meant those who were paid weekly, or at short intervals, their wages. If they wished to maintain that system still, let them say so boldly. They often stated that there was no clamour in favour of this bill for reform. But only let the Earl of Derby in the House of Lords, or the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire in the House of Commons, declare now, as the leaders of that same party declared 30 years ago, that the working classes should not be admitted to the benefits of a measure of parliamentary reform, and he (Mr. Bright) undertook to say that such a whirlwind of public opinion would be at once raised as would convince them of the serious mistake they had made. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, if they did not wish to exclude them from the electoral system, let them admit them immediately. If they consented to admit them, he asked how many were they prepared to admit less than this bill proposed to do ? He thought that the whole number of persons admitted by this bill, according to his calculation, in boroughs, would be 160,000 or 170,000. But how many of these were really working men ? Not more than 100,000. If that be so, he thought to reject the bill would be in effect to invite the working classes to the house, and when they were about to enter, to slam their door in their faces. He need scarcely remark that that would be a rash and a perilous proceeding. They had much better assent to the bill of the noble lord, or to a more extensive measure which he advocated, than to take any such course as that to which he had alluded. The right hon. gentleman and some other hon. members dwelt largely upon this question of swamping some of the constituencies. If they turned back to the discussions of 1832 they would find that every argument that could be used was put forward by Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. ' Wilson Croker ; and they said that persons of the position • of clergymen, bankers, manufacturers, merchants, would be • overborne by the number of persona below them in position who were admitted to the franchise. That had been said, but he never heard of boroughs which had been absolutely swamped in that way. He had represented three boroughs, but he bad never heard a complaint from the more wealthy classes of those boroughs that their influence was swamped and overborne. Take the case of the city of Coventry, which contained 4,300 freemen and 1,200 householders, they never Ji eard complaints th a t th e freeholders were swamped y the <.• that the two members for that city represented one class of ' than the other. This was altogether a childish fear; there was no foundation for it, but it was the offspring of privi lege and:of monopoly. If they looked at the class about to be admitted more fully to the franchise they would see that ' their opinions differed as much as did the opinions of those above:them on almost every question of religion, of politics, or of municipal affairs, .and they were subjected to the in.. fluence of association, wealth, character, opinion, and all those powers which directed and influenced the course of society, and every and all the individuals who composed society. As to "swamping," hon. gentlemen opposite need not cherish the fears which they seemed to entertain. They knew that half-a-dozen landholders might swamp a county, that was notorious ; but ho had never heard that in a large and free constituency there had been a large class in that constituency that had been able to swamp the legitimate influence of any other class associated with them in the franchise. The other class of argument against this bill was that it was not extensive enough. He found this part of the question infinitely more difficult to argue than the other. That was a most rational objection. In the boroughs of England and Wales the average number of adult men, ac cording to the poor law return, was about 1,750,000. Out of these only 440,000 at present had the right of voting, and the effect of the present measure would be to add only 160,000 to this number, making a total of 600,000, and therefore, in the boroughs of England and Wales only one man in three would still be entitled to a vote. But if they looked at the United Kingdom, they would find that there were 6,000,000 of families, while there were only 1,000,000 voters, and if this bill were to pass there would still, at the utraost, be only 1,500,000 voters, which would leave 4,.500,000, families, representing 22 , 000,000 of population, without a vote in the election of members of Parliament. Surely that statement would supply consolation to the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Rolt). Now this, as regarded votes, seemed a mistake on the part of the house; it indicated a distrust altogether unfounded. He thought the character of the population would justify the house in taking a more liberal and generous view of them, and in proceeding much farther than the noble lord proposed by this bill. (Hear, hoar.) But viewing this bill as only a partial act of justice, and seeing the large amount of acquiescence it obtained, he could not refuse to accept it, although only 300,000 or 400,000 new electors would be admitted by it to the franchise, though he should be glad to see the number doubled. He recollected with respect to free trade, which had only just been accomplished, that in 1842 they had made a considerable step, which was repeated in 1846 and in 1853, and at length they saw the work carried far towards completion, and so he believed that this addition would give a large amount of satisfaction, but that the time would come when of these 22,000,000 of whom he had spoken they have to open their doors to a large number, that they might participate in those rights which the constitu tion offered to them much more generously than that house seemed disposed to do. With regard to the boroughs, he should like to tell the house one or two facts—that for the consolation of the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire, who was sorely afflicted at what was about to take place— having reference to the large class of poorer voters within boroughs. With respect to them, hon. gentlemen seemed to think that a great democratic step had been taken that would materially affect the constitution of the next Parlia ment. Let the house look for a moment to the other side of the picture. Let them look at the small boroughs. In the bill which he prepared last year, and which he should have brought before the house but for the haste of the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire and the noble lord the member for London to introduce their proposals to the house, he pro vided that every borough whose population was under 16,000 should only have one member, and that every borough hav ing a population of less than 8,000 should be disfranchised. The first borough whose population was under 16,000 was Berwick-upon-Tweed, and of the other boroughs in the same classification there were 101 returning 106 members to Par liam:nt. Let the house observe how this bill affected these constituencies. At present the whole number of electors in the 101 boroughs was 61,009, and the number to be added by the bill was 17,000; the present average constituency was 610, and the average number of new electors would be 176 ; therefore in these 101 boroughs the bill would not add quite 30 per cent. to the existing constituencies. But to come to the lower class of boroughs, beginning with Woodstock, of which there were 54, returning 85 members, the present number of electors was 22,000, the number to be addeti was 5,000 ; the average number of electors was 420, and the average number o 2 new voters in each would be 102 ; therefore, in eiese 54 boroughs, the bill would add to the existing constituency less than 25 per cent. This brought the house to the fact that these small boroughs were in such a condition that no re2erm bill could help them out of it— fie , condition which called for the care and atte ntion of t he house in disfranchising them end transferring their racri hers to larger paces. If they took the 101 boroughs com prising Berwick-upon-Tweed and those below it, the y would find that these returned 141 members to Parliament, a num ber which was within nine o 4 :one-half of the entire borough members of England and Wales ; and if they compared the number of electors in these borough s with the number in the remaining boroughs, they wou ld see how impossible it w as, notwithstanding the fears of the hon. and learned gen tleman (Mr. Rolt), that this question should remain per manently where they were about to place it by this bill. From the return made to the Poor Law Board it appeared there were 14 large boroughs of England and Wales, the constituencies of which would, under the bill, amount to 262,000. In the 101 boroughs of which he ha d spoken, the constituencies would amount to 79,000, but the 14 boroughs would return only 32 members, while the 101boroug,hs would return 141 members. If they wanted to have a still more accurate illustration, they would find that, comparing the Tower Hamlets and Liverpool with 54 of the smallest boroughs in England and Wales, the former, with double the number of electors, returned only five members, whereas the latter returned 60 members to Parliament. Hon. gentle men opposite did not seem to give full credit to this state ment ; it might be that property had nothing to do with the matter, or that men had nothing to do with it. It might be that " intereete" must be taken into consideration, which were to be found in great abundance in very:small boroughs, though they were not to be found in those boroughs of which he had just spoken. But, having stated thus much about the bill, he hoped the noble lord would permit him to show where he thought the bill failed in that which the Government ought to feel themselves pledged to accom plish. He maintained, and he thought hon. gentlemen opposite would agree with him in this, that at whatever amount the franchise were fixed, it should be so settled as that it would be real, without question—that it should be made so plain and simple that all should be able to avail themselves of it to whom the act of Parliament professed to offer it. Now, in the case of the counties, the noble lord had inserted a proviso in his bill which was most objection• able on several grounds. He proposed to apply to county , electors enfranchised by the bill the ratepaying, clauses, which had given so much trouble in the boroughs. In the case of occupancies above £5O the ratepaying clauses were not to apply, but they were to be made applicable for occu pancies between £5O and £lO. He objected to that distinc tion as tending to encumber and ,embarrass the county franchise, and he hoped that when they went into com mittee that portion of the bill would be amended. Then, further, as to the question of that occupancy in counties, it was provided that if the land were not held along with the house there should be a building of the annual value of not less than £5, but if it were held with the house there was no specified value to fix the character and condition of the house—the object being to prevent persons from lettiug a field to somebody who might build upon it a hut, and claim the right of voting in respect of it. He thought that with respect to this county occupancy, the noble lord should pro vide that no person should have a vote, unlrss the building or house in respect of which he claimed should be of the annual value of £6. The noble lord did not propose that in boroughs they should go below a IX rental—why, then, should they go below it in counties ? If they allowed a man in a county to have a vote for a house of £3, £4, or £5 value, which he made up into a £lO occupancy by holding two or three fields, this would introduce into the county constituencies a much lower class of electors than those who lived in £6 houses in the towns ,- and this objection would apply with still greater force in the case of Scotland than of England. If such a provision were introduced into the Scotch bill it would introduce to the franchise a class of persons who were probably the most dependent of any in the United Kingdom. There was another question to which public attention out of doors had been directed—the payrrient of rates. He should like to ask the noble lord why, in giving the franchise of £6 and £lO, they should not let it be sufficient that a man should be on the rate-book and rated, so that his name should be transferred to the elec toral list without its being necessary to prove VW on the 20th of July he or some one else had paid the rates that were due on the sth of January ? In the borough in which he lived this peculiarity had very little result—the embar rassment was inconsiderable, and therefore he would not speak of it ; but he had seen in boroughs great perplexity and embarrassment to arise from it. From what had taken place, especially in the metropolitan boroughs and others, that condition which was of no avail in making our con stituencies more select, was a condition o: great embarrass ment. It often put men off the list, not, perhaps, the poorest, but those who had not paid their rates, and it was one of those irritations which every elector seemed to think a rather shabby contrivance to deprive him of what Parlia ment professed to give him. There was one other point in which the bill was not intended to be defective--namey, that of compound householders. In 1850 Sir W. Clay passed a bill through the house to facilitate the claims of Persons whose rates were compounded for by the landlord. lie (Mr. Bright) proposed a clause, which was inserted on the third reading, in order to meet this anomaly, and by which the tenants were enfranchised. It was held that if the landlord paid the rate of the tenant, or com pounded for it at 75 per cent., and the parish au thorities agreed to receive it, that that was not payment of the full rate according to the Reform Act, and all these tenants were disfranchised, and in Manchester 4,000 were placed on the register in the succeeding year by the operation of that clause. It had not been acted on, per haps from its not being known, in many other boroughs, but the overseers, like all officials who did not want to give themselves unnecessary trouble, disobeying the law, for he believed there was no penalty for neglect, refused in the ma jority of cases to put any one's name on the register notpay , ing rates. They put the landlord on who paid the rates, but the tenant's name was not entered and he was accordingly insisted disfranchised. By the clause he that all tenants' names should be on the rate book, and that then if their rates were paid, the tenant's name would find its way by a regular process on to the rate book and the register, and these persons would not be altogether disfranchised as hitherto. If that were not done, this extension of the fran chise, limited altogether to a great number of boroughs, would be nothing but a delusion, and when you made up the electoral roll, you would find the constituencies to be ex , actly what they were on the past. He would say nothing about the question that would have to be discussed on the motion of the hon. member for Bristol beyond this. Let hon. members not deceive themselves because the noble lord with an adherence to consistency which was sometimes ad paired, but in this case much to be deplored, had abstained from giving the ballot in this bill : that question was one nevertheless whioh was already at the door, and one which they would have to consider in a short time. He spoke now of those boroughs in which the great constituencies were to be made greater. Some of these boroughs were much in the position of the counties, excepting that the rich men in the former had factories, and the rich men in the latter large landed estates. He could conceive that in these boroughs in the north and in the south of England political feeling would run very high, and that there would be the greatest possible effort to win on one side and the other and that great numbers of men now about to be en franchised—as had been the case where a great number had already been enfranchised—would find their liberty crippled by the fierce political contention of the rich and powerful in those constituencies and towns. He believed they would find themselves driven, if they were not now almost driven, to their very wits' end, how to put an end to coercion and corruption in our constituencies. He believed that when this bill passed they would have a greater neces sity for that measure, and that they would have, as he be lieved and hoped, a still less resistible power to demand it at the hands of Parliament. Now, if they supported the bill as a redemption of the pledge given by the noble lord, and which the noble viscount willingly accepted when he took Mice, they had a right to call upon the Government to keep faith with them. When he saw men in that house who really wanted some honest, if it were not an extensive, measure of reform, and the thousands and millions not in that house who were anxious as to the result that it might L. , 3r .3. Poem le« it b. clone, and he would ask the hon. and learned gentleman whether he thought that, if it was rejected by the house that it word again come befor e th e h ouse i n a m ild er f orm ? rig— hon. gentleman, the leader of the Opposition, both in that and the other house, had had one trial. Did they sids;h them to have another ? Was it desirable that they shutild submit to what he called something like humiliation in having it put upon them to try to make an adjustment of the question. Was it not better to leave it in the hands of the noble lord the member for the City of London, who had no very strong democratic feeling, who looked with veneration to the throne, and no doubt with affection to the order of which he was so distinguished a member. Could they not leave the matter in hit hands ? He had given to it many times moreconsideration and examination than the great bulk of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and if he were one of them—fearful of such changes and wishful to go with gentle footsteps and not far—he should say the noble lord in this measure broughtforward a bill, which had considering the circumstances of the country and the wishes of the people, it was not only their duty, but their obvious and pressing interest to accept, and would give them, without any re striction, such changes as might be suggested, which might make it more acceptable to the people, and more beneficial to the country. Were not the people qualified ? The hon. gentleman said in America they had a population so edu cated that you could never hope the people of this country could reach to theirposition, or at least exceed it ; but it was impossible for men to have lived among the people for the last 20 or 30 years without knowing to the contrary. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks probably did not know much about the people down at his delightful ma - nor, where he spent the recess, in Buckinghamshire, and saw little of the classes they were speaking of between Gros venor-gate and the House of Commons; but he (Mr. Bright) lived among them when for six months down in Lancashire, and knew something of what they were. The other day, when at Manchester, he visited the manufactory of Messrs. S. and J. Watts, the most magnificent establishment per haps in the kingdom. He went through the spacious rooms and saw the articles of manufacture collected from all the looms and manufactories in the kingdom, in all their amaz ing stock, amazing variety, and amazing beauty; and when they had finished their survey he said, " Is it not an amaz ing and an astonishing thing for contemplation that proba bly if we could bring every man whose hand and skill pro duced these wonderful assortment of goods, there is not ono man in 50 of the whole of them, that by the law of the coun try was permitted to vote for a member of Parliament." (Laughter, cheers, and ironical cheers.) Hon. members might cheer, but these were men who were fit for something else than to be rated and taxed, and if the spirit the hon. gentleman exhibited when he laughed at the statement had been displayed when he sat on that side of the house, he would tell him that he was taking an infinitely more dan gerous course that he was taking in connection with any proposition on that subject that ho could make. (Oh, oh, and ironical cheers.) No doubt the hon. gentleman, if he spoke, would tell them that the people did not want this measure. He would tell them that there Was no turbulence. He admitted there was no turbulence, but advancingand strikingof there was something more than that. He had seen, and the house had witnessed a storm at sea. It was a very grand and impressive spectacle, and sometim es it was very appall ing the ng; b e u o t n t t h e e m r p e l w at a io s n so o m f t e h th e in ca g lm no a t nd le m ss a g r jesi a t n o d the tide. The turbulence and passion of 1832 were hap pily not present with us now, and nobody rejoiced more than he did that they could discuss this question under circum stances very different to the bill of 1832. There was no howling wind, no imminent convulsion, no turbulent storm; but there was existing in its place the calm, the steady, and irrisistible tide of great public opinion ; there was the con sciousness amongst the millions of our countrymen that Parliament did not adequately represent them—that, in fact, it was not just to the m ; and silen t'y, but surely and inevitably, this opinion was marching on to its triumph. The very footpath on which gentlemen on this bench trod not a long time ago was now swept away, and the stand point that they occupied not long since upon this question had been submerged, and was gone ; and he would ask them not to resist this growing and gathering opinion by a concession even so small as that which it was the object of this bill to give, and if so, they would show that they had a u t o of a generous thecountrymenrepresentationthatof peopletheycountrybe lieved andfaithin e ;; and they would show farther, what he hoped they would i e n v id by the by i all s t t i h t u e i t r i votes e o y n h thi oa s st b e i d lh s t o h ni at u t e h h ey o w f an ere will pro- fessed to love so much, should repose in the good-will and in the intelligence and virt ue o f t h e i r fellow countrymen. (Cheers.) Mr. KNIGHTLEY said the hon. member for Birming ham had spoken about the marrow of reform. For his own port, he wondered he did not say, " Go ! get thee gone : thy bones are marrowless I" The great evil in our pre sent representation was that the large constituencies were scarcely better represented than the smaller towns. The west riding of Ycrk, for instance, with a con stituency of 36,000, had only two members, and there were other examples that might be adduced. How did the bill propose to deal with these anomalies ? Lord Derby's Government proposed a bill which was open to some of these objections, and he (Mr. Knightley) expressed his dis approbation of those portions of that measure, and there fore he was perfectly consistent in objecting to the present bill. The bill of 1852 proposed to extend the area of these boroughs by incorporating other places with theia ; the bill of 1854 disfranchised many of them, and the bill of Lord Derby's Government, while it did not disfranchise, yet in troduced a considerable modification. But this present bill did not disfranchise. If they kept continually altering their policy in this matter they might eventually find themselves in the position described in the old epitaph—" I was well ; I wanted to be better, I took physic, and I died." (A laugh.) They were told that the ballot was the universal panacea for all evils, but who was it that required the ballot ? The farmers did not ask for it. " No, let the galled jade wince, Our withers are unwrung." It was in large towns that, writhing under the influence brought to bear, they called for the ballot. Mr. STANSFELD rose amidst loud cries of "adjourn" to address the house. Lord PALMERSTON said if the debate were now ad journed he trusted it would be resumed at an early hour to-morrow. The SPEAKER then put the question of adjournment to the house, and it was agreed to without a division. The debate was accordingly adjourned till to-morrow. Mr. DISRAELI said that as the hon. member for Bristol had a motion on the paper with regard to the question of the ballot, and as that was in some measure connected with the question of parliamentary reform, it would be convenient to both sides of the house to know whether a discussion upon that question would be introduced in the debate, or whether the hon. member would postpone his motion. Mr. H. BERKELEY" said, as he considered his bill to be the better of the two he intended to proceed with it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) SUPPLY.—VOTE FOR CHINESE EXPEDITION. (£850,000.) _ _ On the report of the committee of supply, General PEEL drew attention to the vote for £850,000 for the expedition to China, which he declared was not half sufficient to meet the amount that would be required. He believed that these estimates, taken in connection with the other measures of the Government, would leave them with an enormous deficit at the end of the next financial year. Mr. S. HERBERT defended the vote, and said that un less the East India Company failed in making good their payments, the sum proposed to be taken would be adequate to cover all the expenditure. _ Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was disposed to regard the joint expedition of England and France to China with great alarm. In his opinion it would be so much money thrown away, from which no advantage whatever would accrue to this country. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that the reported strength of the expedition to China was quite sufficient to justify the apprehension that had been felt as to a deficiency next year. He feared that if the war ware prosecuted upon the scale contemplated that deficiency would be not less than £15,000,000. Sir C. WOOD explained that the vote of £850,000 was to make good the deficiency for the current financial year ending the 31st inst. It was impossible to conjecture what might be the expenditure for 1860-61. The report was then agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. The house then went into committee of ways and means, and the resolutions were ordered to be reported. CUSTOMS ACTS. The house went into committee on the Customs Acts, and the resolutions on sweetened spirits, ether and spirits, Cologne water, and wood and timber, and chicory, ever• agreed to. MUTINY BILL. The house then went into committee on the Mutiny Bill. Mr. S. HERBERT stated that the alteration in the bill was respecting militiamen who deserted to join the line. It was to the effect that the Secretary for War should have the power of stoppage at the rate of ld. per day, until the:BllM reached 18s. 6d. The clause applied to embodied and disembodied regiments of militia. Colonel DUNNE thought the clause was very objection able, as it conferred impunity upon the crime of desertion. The stoppage of 18s. 6d. proposed was no punishment, and the plan offered a premium to perjury. He proposed that power should be given to the Secretary at War when the regiment was abroad. Colonel GILPIN thought the plan was an encourage ment, and not a punishment for desertion. After a few words from Colonel HERRERT and Colonel DICKSON Mr. S. HERBERT altered the clause to meet the objec tion. MARINE MUTINY BILL. The Marine Mutiny Bill then went through cemmittae. BANKRUPT LAW (SCOTLAND). This bill was read a second time. TITLES TO LAND (SCOTLAND). This bill was also read a second time. INCLOSURE BILL. The Inclmre Bill went through committee. CLARE ELECTION. On the motion of Colonel FRENCH, it was ordered that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new writ for the electing of a kaight of the shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Clare, in the room of Colonel Luke White, whose election has been determined to be void. GAS BILL. Sir J. SHELLEY brought in the Metropolis Gas Bill. The house adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHE STER-MA.RCE 17. There was a fair supply of wheat; generally the trade was flat, at is over last week's prices. Barley of all sorts keeps up in value. Beans and peas as before, but a leas supply. Wheat, white 44s to 50s Beans, Mazagan..32s to 36s I red 38s to 46s Middle & small 365 to 420 Barley 36s to 505 I 'White peas 36. to Us Oats 2os to 28s Grey.. 325 to 38d ,D-MAECH 16. it, and the best samples were aof last week. Spring corn Peas, Partridge 371 to 330 White 37s to 391 Boiling 37s to 40s Dun 32s to 35s Beans, Tick 39s to 41s Harrow Ticks 41s to 448 Mazagan 36s to 381 CHELMSFO A tolerable supply of wh firm, at about the full pric and other grain unaltered. Wheat. white 40s to 53s red 383 to 46s Barley 30s to 37s Chevalier 32s to 42s Grinding 21s to 26s Malt 60s to 66s Chevalier 63s to 68s Oats 22s to 32s DERBY—MARca 17. At our market yesterday wheat held at an advance ° lll the prices of last week, with a limited show. Barbs/ was very scarce, and inquired after at extreme rates. Oats and beans quite as dear. STAMFORD—MA.Rcu iv. .....-Aoderate supply of all kinds of grain, but the market ruled fair for wheat and barley. Oats dull, Beans wore at late rates. Wheat ....... .... 42s to 45s Oats.. 2os to 30s White do 46s to 50s Beans 4os to 42e Barley .. .....36s to 44s Ditto, old ........46s to Os KIRKAL Here to-day we had f but small of barley. Sall about late rates. Seed bai Wheat (N). First.... 428 Od Second .. 48s Od Third .. 503 Od 4DY-141Ancit 17. fair supplies of wheat aid oats, les were ready, but not brisk, at ,rleys dearer. Barley (N). Oats (N). 33s Od 22s Od 38a Od 28s Od 42s Od . 31s Od ET—MARCH 19. the close of the market.) Walls End. N. d. South Hartlepool 19 9 Thornley 17 0 Trimdon Thornley 17 0 Hough Hall 19 6 Cassop 20 6 Whitworth 16 0 Byron ....19 0 Thorpe Braddyll's Hatton 20 Z Framwellgata l9 6 Riddell 19 3 Eden Main ...19 0 Haswell 2l 0 Stewart's 21 0 South Hetton 21 0 Kelloo 2O 6 a, 80—Sold, 72. COAL MARK (Prices of Coal per Ton at a. d. Byass's Bebside West Hartley ... 16 6 Howard's West Hart- _ _ _ ley 16 3 Tanfield Moor 12 9 Tanfield Moor Butes l2 9 Lambert's West Hart- ley 16 3 Wylam l6 6 Holywell 16 0 Burnhope l3 0 Walker Primrose 13 0 Buddle's West Hartleyl6 6 Bell's Primrose l3 0 Holmside Gas 13 0 Chilton. Hartley Steam 15 0 ships at marker FOREIGN NAIL PACKET LIST. In the following table E signifies that letters are despatched by evening mails from London, and M by morning mails. Next DESTINATIONS. Despatch Port of Mail of Mails. Despatch. due. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton Aprill2,M +Southamp. Aprille Ditto, via Marseilles Bahamas and Havana via New York War. —, Liverpool.. April 12 Canada, Ac. (by Can a d n . p c kt ) M ar . 21, E Liverpool.. Mar. 21 Cape of Good Hope, Ascen sion, and St. Helena April 5, E Devonport April 3 China, Penang- and Singa pore, via Sout hampton , Mar. 20, M l Southamp. Mar. 20 Ditto, via Marseilles Gibraltar, via Southampton.. Mar. 20,M Southamp. Mar. 20 Honduras and Blewfields .... Mar. 17, M Southamp. Mar. -- India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, via Southampton Mar. 20, M,Southamp. Mar. 20 Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via South ampton Mar. 27, M Southamp. Mar. 25 Ditto, via Marseilles Lisbon, Brazils,Buenos Ayres, and F. Islands April 9, M Sonthamp, April 5 Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto Mar.l7,M Southamp. Mar. 21 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Mar. 20 ,M Southamp. Mar. 20 Ditto, via Marseilles Mar 19 , E overdue Mexico and Havana Newfoundland Mar. 30, E Liverpool.. United States and British N America (by British packet) Mar. —, E Liverpool.. Mar. 21 Ditto (by 11. S. packet) —.. Mar. 20, E Southamp. West Coast of Africa, Ma deira, and Teneriffe Mar. 23 E Liverpool.. April II West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey town, New Granada, Ac Mar. 17, M Soutkamp. April 1 CADVERTMEMENT.I—Mr. Benson, Ludgate-hill, has just published anew illustrated pamphlet en watches (free by post for two stamps). It should be read by all who are about buying a watch, as it contains prices and important informa tion as to—What watch to buy ! where to buy it and how to ase it! Mar. 25 Mar. 19 April 5 Mar. 21 Mar 20 • !overdue BIRTHS. BARRY.—On the 19th inst., at Tottenham, the wife of H. Barry, Esq., of a daughter. HUGHES.—On the 17th inst., at 1, Hyde-park, the Hon. Mrs. Hughes, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. GRAHAM—Dices.—On the 17th inst., at Dawlish, Colonel John Graham, of Barnstaple, late of the H.E.1.C.5., eon of the late Captain Charles Graham, of Greigston, N. 8 ., to Jane, the daughter of Vice-Admiral Thomas Dick, 4 01 Dawlish, South Devon. DEATHS. ADCOCK.—On the 17th inst., at Brentford, George Robert Adcock, Esq., M.R.C.S. DAWSON.—On the 17th inst., at Oakfield, Streathsm - h i h Mr. Joseph Dawson, of Streatham, and Old Jewry, s&r 68. DOUEIL—On the 17th inst., at Dover House, Georgians, Lady Dover, aged 56. /0 DWIGHT.—On the 17th inst., Wm. Moss Dwight , Es q ., Bath-terrace, Camberwell New. road, aged LONDON : Ynnted and Published by Id.UltDO YU UV L s 1 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TM Sun Office, No. 112 } Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oottsti Ki6clieees, Tuesday,_Marcla 20, 1860. Gu Cliarle€ FranciE 1 r W. 'ir Wal Thomsr ;To n John G John L; Jahn 1- ,, , ewis L .P.'jhu Tit Thp.mal I N'istered 1856-57, limited t, Ca & Posit, I.J -otel T-tarr in 1 cbex, E 9oug Bickn Gg 4.l.':aDtain k'lleward BSI= ,Itessrs. S Xatiomn. Itegarg T tonClo uc -tichard Ha 119s.srs. 2ta( London. 3.411 e1 , Smi a cseph Ic MAN. 4f :STo further an, ter VUES7 4 1 41 V ednes 40 41-uent PRP,SE - (Fre and . r Ji n • t t ASA e - in t er, manufactnri 111 , 7 esty, li€ Mr. Tenn, ITINERAL the intQresti and GEOL( PRACTI( IZALOGY Just runs PI ates VITA ..TnIAT( i u , T SMASFs STE Nr. gc,i t r i ßcl eel] kts MI, :Tny these 1, earl be ;,4teitohner A PH " Act). 4 eet, Loud oste-, v row.