The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1859. boroughs. This question lies, in fact, within narrow limits. No one wishes to see a system of equal electoral districts, and the only practical question before us was whether 50, 60, 70, or 80 small boroughs should be disfranchised, and their seats distributed among the large towns and dis tricts. I am not about to enter upon an argument whether these very small boroughs (whatever incidental advantages they may possess) ought to form a permanent part of our velitical system. I think it would be difficult, if not possible to defend them on grounds of principle a s a per =amen;possible, part of our system. But I look at the matter in a practical point of view, and I ask if a large measure of dis franchisement had been contemplated by the present bill what would have been the result? Why, besides those who oppose all reform on principle (if any such exist), and be sides those who would oppose this bill for not going far enough, there would have been arrayed naturally against this bill the representatives of those 50 or 60 small boroughs who would have been in no small degree instrumental in its rejection. I believe that the practical difficulty arising from that opposition would have been fatal to the success of this bill; and as the object of the Government was not to make the best bill that could be framed, but the best that had a chance of passing this house, I contend that that fact is in itself a sufficient vindication. But another difficulty would have arisen. If the disfranchisement had been large, the question would have arisen, "What are you to do with the vacant seats ?" You would then have epened up in a large measure the whole controversy as between counties and boroughs. If the principle of this bill be accepted you raise it in a form in which the claim of the counties becomes much stronger than they ever were before. So long as you had borough voters with a qualification of £lO and county voters of £5O it might be argued, that an exact comparison between the numerical proportion in which boroughs and counties were represented was unjust, for that the boroughs alone represented the £lO householder who had no share in voting for the county members. But that plea is done away by the uniformity , of franchise, and when you have the same constituency both in boroughs and counties, it seems impos sible to refute the reasoning used by my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), which proves that the representation of the eounties is inadequate. The principle was admitted by the noble lord the member for the city of London 'in the Bill of. 1854. But then the question would stand in this way—that a large change being about to be made the counties who do not ask it must in justice have the principal benefit, while the towns from which the demand arises will be affected in a comparatively small de gree, and will have a very small share of the benefit. For these two reasons—the difficulty of disfranchisement, and the difficulty of distributing the seats—we thought it better not to attempt to deal with the subject, except so far as the pressing exigency of the times demanded. (Hear.) The next objection to the bill is the restoration of out voters in boroughs. It is argued that their abolition at the time of the first Reform Bill was an acknowledged benefit, and, therefore, that their restoration is an abuse. I accept the premises, but I deny the conclusion. I am ready to admit that it was politic in 1832 to do away with out voters ; but why ? Because at that time the payment of travelling ex penses by a candidate was permitted, and, the means communication being very different then from w h at _y are now, :these expenses, whether they fell on the candi date or on the voter, necessarily constituted a very heavy tax on the one or the other for the performance of a public duty. But in this bill it is p ro posed that the payment of these expenses by the candidate should cease, and if the house will sanction the system of voting papers, or any sys tem by which voters shall not be compelled to travel to the poll, that difficulty of travelling expenses and the objec tion to out-voters derived from it will be entirely done away with. But, whether the house sanction that plan of voting or not, two things are equally clear—first, that these expenses are far less than they were, and next, that they will not fall on the candidate, which was the principal ground of complaint, (Hear, hear.) But I am ready to contend, further,. that this theory of re quiring residence from a voter is unfitted to the ideas and habits of the present time, because it assumes that a man's interest in respect to which he votes must necessarily be there alone where he happens to reside: We know that hundreds and thousands of persons whose busi ness lies in towns are in the habit of residing along the great lines of railways, often at a considerable distance from their places of business. That is one of the features of the social life of our time which it is impossible to ignore. (Hear.) Then, again, if you are to require residence in boroughs, why should you not require it as a qualification for counties also P (Hear, hear.) The argument for requiring it in counties is much stronger than in the case of boroughs, be cause there the area within which the voter may reside is larger and the restriction is less. (Hear.) It is no answer to say that occupation is the qualification for boroughs and ownership for counties, since that distinction ceased to exist when the Chandos clause was passed. (Cheers.) If you are to draw such a distinction you must base it on some clear, intelligible rule, and if no such rule can be laid down the alternative is either to require residence in both town and county, or to dispense with it in both. (Hear.) The last alternative I beheve is the best, since no person would be disfranchised, and in a country where the territorial area is so limited, and the means of locomotion so great, the theory that residence is essential to having an interest in a locality has ceased altogether to apply. (Cheers.) It has been argued that to do away with this requirement would give facilities for the manufacture of a number of fictitious votes which would swamp the resident electors ' • but in the sixth clause of this bill there is a proviso which will have a considerable effect in checking any such practices. It is there stipulated that, with certain exceptions, not more than two votes shall be allowed in regard to the same tenement. I believe it is the habit, when fictitious votes of this kind are to be created on a large scale, not to give distinct ownerships of freeholds, but to create joint ownership, and to give a number of rent charges upon the same property. (Hear, hear.) I come now to the feature of the bill in which more than any other its principle may be said to lie, and against which the prin cipal attacks of the noble lord were directed—the iden tity or uniformity of borough and county franchise. I quite agree with the noble lord that we ought to consider that principle without any reference to the particular amount at which the franchise may be fixed. The question is, is it or is it not right that the franchise should be made equal and uniform in towns and counties—or ought that distinction, which I admit has existed from the earliest period of our history, still to be retained ? The first plea which I offer for the identity of the suffrage is that unless you adopt it you will always have dissatisfied classes. (Cheers.) However low you put the franchise—say you take a £lO franchise in counties and household suffrage or rating suffrage in towns—clearly those inhabitants of coun ties who, if they had lived within the limits of a borough, would have been entitled to the franchise, but who living beyond those limits are excluded, will complain that they are overlooked and unfairly treated ; that the distinction thus drawn is an unfair one, and they will set on foot a new agitation for a f urther reform. (Hear. hear.) It is not an agreeable thing to be excluded from the franchise • but exclusion on the ground of the want of some gene ral qualification is at least intelligible, and can be understood even by those who think that they have a right to complain, but to shut a man out because he lives on one side of a street while his neighbour, who lives on the other, has a vote—and we know that the boundaries of boroughs are drawn as arbitrarily as this—must appear capricious, oppressive, and even incomprehensible. (Hear.) The lower you carry the franchise in boroughs the more will this grievance be felt, because that class becomes larger, which, if they lived in boroughs, would be admitted, but who, living beyond the limits of a borough, are excluded. (Cheers.) I say, then, that no measure which does not assi milate these franchises can really stop agitation for afurther extension. But I go further, and ask what is the theory, the principle, on which distinction of the franchises rests ? I have a right to call on those who support it for their defence, because one may safely assume that no person creating an electoral system would propose to fix two unequ al franchises, divided by purely arbitrary lines. I know, of course, what is . supposed to be the constitutional answer given t o this inquiry. It is said, " the franchise in counties is based on ownership, and represents the permanent interests of property; the fran chise in boroughs is based on occupation, and represents temporary or fluctuating interests." On that distinction I have more than one comment to make. Assuming it to be true, its maintenance is hardly expedient. I cannot conceive a more clumsy arrangement, nor one more likely to bring different classes into collision, than to say that so many members of this house are to be considered as repre senting property, and so many others as representing occu pancy. (Cheers.) There is another blot in it, perhaps more important still. It ignores every form of property except real property. A man may have an inadequate fortune, say £lO,OOO in the funds, and, living in a hired house, he will be held not to represent property, but occu pation only. But if out of his £lO,OOO he set aside £5O and buys a 40s. freehold, he passes at once from one class to another; and, though all the rest of his fortune only en titles him to be considered as representing occupancy, the £5O places him in a different class, and ranks him among those who represent property. Again, this scheme of sepa rating boroughs from counties fails entirely in its applica tion in this respect—that it never has been consistently carried out ; for if, on the one hand, you say that a 40s. freeholder, wherever he may reside,' shall be entitled to a vote for the county, it follows from analogy, almost as an inevitable consequence that the £lO occupier, wherever he may reside, shall b e ent i tled to vote, not" for the county, but for the nearest town. But that provision has never been contemplated, and never could be introduced into any bill. But if this were the case before 1832, if even this alleged distinction between the representatives of owners hip and the representatives of occupation was as serted only in a partial and incomplete manner, the incon sistency becomes much greater since the Chandos clause was passe d. (Hear, hear.) For the l as t 27 years you have adnutted occupation as giving a right to vote for counties. You have broken down the wall of separation which for merly existed, and I defy any one to say on what clear, in telligible ground that distinction is now maintained. It does not even rest on any general rule or understanding that the qualification shall be higher in countie s th an in boroughs, because, though you now exclude £lO house holders from votes for the count ies, you ad m it the 40s. free holder, who undoubtedly stands no higher in the social scale. (Hear.) But other reason s exist wh y the distinction cannot be maintained . In order to maintain it you must be 7;11on able to draw an exact line between town slid count • you must be able to say that all on one side is town an the other country. But that is exactly what you cannot do. Take the case of London—who can say precisely_ where London ends and the county of Middlesex begins r Take Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, or any other densely peopled city, it is the same. You have long lines of suburbs stretching out along roads and railways far beyond the limits of the borough, yet all having the town fortheir centre. In some parts of England, ag ain, you have boroughs that are in effect small counties ; in other parts boroughs that do not include more than a part of the town in which they are situated ; and in others large dis tricts densely , peopled, yet not capable of being included within the limits of a borough. That is the state of things existing at the present day, and with the growth of our population that condition of things is likely to go onincreasing. In many parts of England the distinc tionbetween town and country is one much more of degree than of kind. (Hear, hear.) Some have more the charac ter of town, some less ; that is the only difference. (Hear, hear.) But there is another point of view from which this question of identical suffrage may be considered. By adopting it as a principle, the disfranchisement of small and decayed boroug hs_ ultimately inevitable as new towns arise requiring to be r euresented—beenmes at once less im portant and less difficult. At present, when you disfranchise a borough, you take away the votes of the £lO householders within it, and you don't give them votes for the county. They naturally object, and the difficulty of the process is greatly increased ; whereas, under the system of uniform suffrage, the only result of disfranchise ment i s to transfer the votes of the borough disfranchised into the county , the on ly result of enfranchisement is that yo u t a k e a certai n • number of votes out of the county, and make them into a separate constituency. Both the demand for enf ranc hi se .. ment and the fear of disfranchisement are thus greatly in creased, and a partial solution is offered of a ,question which has given, and may again give, rise to a great deal of agi_ t a ti en . I now come to another part of-the bill, to which th e noble lord made some objections—the transfer of freehold to towns. Let me here say that I regret votes in counties the amendment by which the life interests in these free holds are to be respected did not originally form part of the bill. Reserving such interests is an ordinary practice, as in the ease of freemen of boroughs; and there is ne deper trim from a principle in making temporary exceptions to it. I cannot help lamenting that many persons out of doors, and, possibly, some in this house, do not appear perfectly to understand the nature of the change proposed. It is re presented as a proposal to disfranchise men who have held the right of voting for many generations ; that they will now be deprived of it by an Act of Parliament. Now, how does the bill operate ? In the case of a county freeholder who does not vote for a borough, though living within it, there is no disfranchise ment whatever. (Hear, hear.) He only had one vote before, and he retains that vote still. And, in point of fact, the amount of political power possessed by the county voter who is transferred to a borough is greatly increased. (Hear.) The county constituencies are very much larger than those of the boroughs ; and we know that the value of an indivi dual vote depends on the smallness of the constituency. You take the voter from a constituency where he is one in 5,000 who return two members, and you put him where he is one of 500 who return two members ; practically, his power of affecting the representation is increased tenfold. (Hear, hear.) In the case of the freeholder having two votes—one for the county, and one for a borough—and whom, after the life of the existing holder, you take away one vote. But the question is whether upon any intelligible principle, or one that can be defended, he has any claim to the other vote. If any man has a dozen freehold qualifica tions in a county do you allow him to have a dozen votes ? No ;he has only one. The duplicate vote of the borough freeholder is only an accident of our political system—not an essential feature of it. It is hardly worth while to ad vert to charges of interested and party motives having in fluenced this transfer. We have been told we "want to cripple the operations of the freehold land societies, because they interfere with landlords." Now, first, there can be no object to induce any action against those societies, because, as far as we can ascertain, their voters are very equally divided between the two great po liti ca l parties. In the next place, these societies are not crippled, bec ause it is j ust as easy to buy land beyond the limits of a Parliamentary borough as within them, in which case the votes remain unaffected by this bill ; and, lastly, it is a singular mo d e o f attempting to diminish the political power of a class of voters when, as I have just shown, by transferring them to boroughs that power is actually increased. (Hear, hear.) And now one word as to the term " disfranchisement ;" it has been much used in reference to this bill, but not with much accuracy. I s uppose it means depriving a man of the right of voting ; but under the provisions of the bill not one man will be deprived of that right; the constituencies will not be narrowed by a single voter; there is a transfer of votes, indeed, and a loss of second votes, but not one in dividual will be struk off the register. The effect of these clauses will be much less than supposed. There are now about 95,000 freeholders residing within the limits of bo roughs ; we cannot pretend to any certainty on this point; but we believe that rather less than half of these have one vote only these are not disfranchised—only transferred. The remainder who have a second vote will prospectively lose it, but only when, by the operation of other parts of the bill, a great number of new voters are brought on the list. We have heard much of the smallness of this mea sure ; but to the 900,000 £lO occupiers now existing the bill will add 200,000 voters ; and this addition may by the new franchises created be extended to 100,000 more. If the amount of personal property on which a qualification is given is thought too great, that is a point for future con sideration ; a principle is laid down in the bill on which, by after amendments, the constituencies can be still further extended. I believe, looking at the question in a practical point of view, that the choice at the present time lies be tween a comparatively small bill and no bill whatever. (Hear, hear.) I believe the attempt to carry through Par liament a large measure of reform would share the fate of the measures of 1852 and 1854. I believe it would fail, and for this reason—that the working classes are not now pressing in the same manner as they did 27 years ago for the possession of political power, and that the middle classes, having a much larger share of political power than they then possessed, are not disposed to part with it. We hear it sometimes assumed that the Government of this country is exclusively or mainly in the hands of the aris tocracy. I apprehend that is an entire mistake. I believe that practically, ever since the passing of the Act of 1832, what is called the "middle class" has had the prepon derating power in our Government. Even the Act of 1832 did not create the great power of the middle class, it merely recognised and embodied in the political institutions of the country that which it found already existing. In all countries the importance which belongs to the middle class and the amount of power which it possesses have been taken as a fair test of social progress. In England it is that class which has always most strenuously vindicated the principle of personal freedom, both against royal prerogative and ec clesiastical power. It is that class which has given us Pro testantism in religion and constitutional government in the State. It is that class which has laboured to protect the finances of England against the extravagance of armies and of courts, and which has striven to preserve the peace of England against the popular passion for war. It is by that class that British trade has been extended over every quar ter of the globe, that British shipping has been sent into every sea, that India has been conquered, America colo nised,,Liverpool and Manchester created. I see nothing in the manner in which the members of that class have used the preponderance of political power vested in them during the last 25 years to make me believe that they are unworthy to possess it still. It may be right that they should share that power. It is not right that they should lose it ; and lose it they will if an indiscriminate extension of the fran chise (for you will find it no easier to stop at £6 than at £lO, and what you give to the boroughs you will not be able to withhold from the counties) you should place every class in subordination to one, and that one by no fault of its own, but by the nature and the necessity of the case, the least independent and the least instructed. (Cheers.) Mr. H. G. STURT (who spoke from a back bench on the Ministerial side) said he rejoiced that ' the noble lord at the head of the Government had had the moral courage to come forward and grapple with this question, which had now been hovering over the country forthe last dozen years. At the same time, he deeply regretted that that noble lord had not gone a little fUrther, and, through his representa tive in that house, laid on the table a bill that was likely to satisfy the just expectations of the people. (Cheers from the Opposition.) In an able speech delivered to his con stituents, the noble lord the member for King's Lynn seven or eight years ago declared that he was strongly op posed to anything in the shape of piecemeal legislation on the subject of Parliamentary reform, and that he ardently hoped, when the question was introduced into the House of Commons, that a full and comprehensive measure would be proposed, and one which would satisfy the people if not for ever, at all events for a considerable time to come. It would appear that the noble lord had now somewhat modified his opinion, for he must be well aware that the bill before the house, so far from being accepted by the country as a proper and practical solution of this difficult question, had been but the signal for renewed agitation and general discontent. (Cheers.) He had heard the intro ductory speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with considerable astonishment—(a laugh) —for it was surprising that one who was second to no man in that house for poli tical sagacity should in 1859 coolly, gravely, and deliberately propose to deprive 100,000 of his honest, intelligent, loyal, and patriotic fellow-countrymen of their inestimable privi lege of voting at county elections. He was obliged to look about for an explanation of so extraordinary a proceeding. The hon. member for Birmingham was quite right in de scribing this as a sop thrown by the Government to the county members on their own side. No, doubt it was kindly intended, yet it certainly paid the county members no very high compliment. (A laugh.) He wondered that they did not regard it in the proper light—viz., as a great political insult offered to themselves and their constituents, and did not protest as one man against a scheme manifestly so un just and so unconstitutional. (Cheers.) Instead, of doing this, however, his hon. friends first took the sop and then did not like it—(laughter)—because a few days afterwards down came the hon. member for Somersetshire, generous man I and gave notice of amendment to maintain what he called existing rights—a proposition which was nothing, more nor less than a miserable compromise. County mem bers generally on the Mintsterial side were not supposed to hold very enlightened views, or to have very expansive in tellects, and after mixing considerably with them himself during the last six weeks, he must say he was rather in clined to share in that opinion. (Laughter.) He wished to ask his hon. friends in public, as he had asked them over and over again in private, why they were so suspicious and distrustful towards the people ? (Cheers.) For many years past the decent and loyal behaviour of " the masses" had been the theme of admiration throughout the world. Itwas said that there was a danger of the people undermining the throne and subverting the aristocracy. He shared in no such apprehension—he laboured underno such hallucination. It was because he had faith in the people that he protested against any attempt to tamper with their constitutional rights. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He so protested be cause he was a Conservative. (An ironical cheer from the Ministerial side.) Yes, he repeated, he made that protest because he was a Conservative ; and he would tell the hon. gentleman who raised that malevolent cheer, that that man was more worthy the appellation of Conservative who ad vaned with the times in which he lived and identified him self with the principle of progressive improvement than one who had no trust in the people, and who, whenever an opportunity presented itself, :was invariably found raising his voice and recording his votes in favour of a retrograde po licy. (Opposition cheers.) Moreover, when the proper time arrived he(Mr.Sturt)should recordhisvote in favour ofextend ing the borough franchise,because in his conscience he believed there were tens of thousands of the working classes in the country precluded from that right to which their intelli gence and education so eminently entitled them. (Opposi tion cheers.) Desirous as ho was to see a satisfactory mea sure of reform passed in the present session, the question naturally suggested itself—would he assist in attaining that object by voting with the noble lord the member for the city ? He thought not. (A laugh, answered by counter cheers.) If the resolution of the noble lord were carried all chance of passing an effective Reform Bill during the present ses sion would be lost. Surely it was in the power of any hon. member, wh en th e h ouse wen t i n t o comm itt ee on thi s bill, to lo move_ a resolution e m b o dyi n g the objects of the no bl e rd ? (Hear, hear.) Surely the Government had not . sh fe wu ro one and aenyhesitation to advance halfway in the path of im provement,he could not see any reason why the bill, or two omission s , some alterations, and a few addi tions— (alaugh)—should 'not eventually assume a shape con sonant with the feelings and opinions of the house. And now for the question of part on the opposite side of the likely to derive from joining mem ber for the city in what he (Mr. ex tremely dexterous party movement a disunited party. Y. He ho wanted to ask hon:gentlemen I, ll , 7 t e h wat advantage they were s i t s noble friend the He would justg refer,en u t A fl eaoi must goehnx a. laugh.) call riiTplhe e, h yt i o s w . a s i ne qua non in themeconsidertaittiheen thee ballot. He was convinced hon. side below the gangway would m the ueesegositef reonsfoluoa yaPg'atsinsiWhim and in Reform Bill. Believing, then, that no good could accrue the ballot e ti i o th n e o r f t th o tehneocbolune lord, he r h t e o s an ho y ui p d ar v ty ote b favour of the second reading of the bill before the house. (Hear.) He had, in conc lusion, to thank the h ouse for the . indulgent attention they had granted h . im. H o h oped he that had not(the h urt the Ministerial) side of theclany of his right hon. fri en d s on house. (Laughter.) He trusted none of his hon. friends near him had been petrified by aught that he had said. (A laugh.) He would only fur ther state that he had addressed the house as a free and independent member, having no ambition to gr4ify, and animated onlyby the wish—which he was sure guided every member of that assembly—to secure to the utmost extent, the safety, honour, and welfare of this native country. (Cheers.) Viscount BURY said he must congratulate the Govern • ment on the speech which had just been delivered by one of theirown supporters. (Hear, hear.) As to the hon. member's allusion to party, he must remark that no one could accuse the opposition of any factions conduct in reference to the Government. The support rendered had, however, been always understood to be dependent for its continuance on one condition, namely, that when the proper time arrived they would bring in a satisfactory reform bill; and having failed to fulfil that condition, they had no right now to com- , plain of being taken unawares. Before he could vote for the second reading of thi s bill he must ask himself what was ' meant by reform ? If the Government rdeant by reform 1 merely the redistribution of a few seats—a sort of Locke- King and water change, that was not his meaning. He was for an extension of the bill of 1832, which would embrace persons who were not then perhaps, but were now, fitted to exercise the franchise. (Hear, hear.) The whole scope of legislation since 1832 had been to elevate the classes below the middle class, so that they might be prepared for the en joyment of political privileges ; and any reform bill which did not let in the classes who were omitted in 1832, would be simply a mischievous innovation. The bill before the house did not let in the working classes. As to the £6O in the savings bank, that would admit to the franchise scarcely a single working man, and, generally speaking, the Govern ment were giving the country just the name of reform, and dealing with it as if it were a child and might be pacified with a toy. He objected to the bill, not only on account of the smallness of the reform proposed, but because it was not in the right direction. In fact this bill ought to be nailed to the table of the house as a bad shilling was nailed to the counter of a shopkeeper ; it was not true metal, its ring was not satisfastory. It removed no incongruities, it grappled with no defects, it did not give political power to any large class who did not now possess it. Sir Robert Inglis, who was a great authority on the ministerial side of the house, said that if they were to have a Reform Bill, it should come from the friends, and not from the op ponents, of reform. The right hon. gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the bill, told the house why he considered her Majesty's Government the fittest persons to introduce the question. He might have spared himself the trouble ; for the history of his party showed that they resisted reform as long as they could, and then did not hesitate to propose it themselves. But the Government had not consistently followed the precedents of their party. When the Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel at length proposed measure of reform, they proposed a satisfactory settlement of the questions dealt with, and in this respect her Majesty's present Government had not, imitated their example. He was well aware that they dif fered from him as to the safety of admitting the working classes to the exercise of the franchise; but he ,might refer to the conduct of the working classes even at the general election, immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, to show that they are worthy of confidence. At that time they were invited to join an agitation, because they were not included in the Reform Bill, but they had the good sense to refrain from accepting the invitation. When the House of Commons was asked to extend to the working classes the benefit of political power, it would be most un grateful in the middle classes, with the remembrance of former agitations before them, not to give to the working classes their aid. He thought that as the Government sought to act for the general good, it should be the repre sentative of the working, as of every other, class. And he would especially remind that section of the house which stood in fear of the working class, that there was more con servative feeling in the working man than in many of the classes above him. He had, moreover, remarked that the masses, when entrusted with either privilege or power, were always induced to use it, not in furtherance of any supposed views of their own class, but in the cause of law and order. Take, for instance, the case of the police. Every one knew from what class the police were taken, and yet when any disturbance took place amongst the class from which they came, there was no body to be more relied upon than they. Indeed, if by entrusting the working-class with the privilege of having a voice in the management of the country, the course of Government was imperilled, it could only be so because our Government was a tyranny. Now, beheving, as he did, that it was not a tyranny, he believed that no peril would ensue if the franchise were extended to the class he had named. For all these reasons he believed that the working classes were fit for and entitled to a real and substantial extension of the suffrage. That extension was not to be found in the present bill, andhe should there fore vote for the amendment of his noble friend. Nor was this all, but on the second reading he should likewise give to the measure his most strenuous opposition. Mr. K. SEYMER said that those with whom he usually acted took this view of the present state of affairs. They desired to maintain the security of property and the pro sperity of the kingdom ; and, believing that those ends would be attained by a moderate and judicious extension of the franchise, they gave their support to the bill of the Go vernment. That was the principle on which they went ; for they knew nothing of the rights of man. Let the house bear in mind, at the onset, how different were affairs now to what , they were 30 years ago. At the time of the Reform Bill many of our greatest towns were unrepresented, and ofthose which were represented, in many cases the members were elected by close corporations, and in no way represented the towns themselves. Seats were bought and sold, he might say openly. Under these circumstances, the Reform Bill passed; and speaking from those—the Conservative—benches, he did not hesitate to call that a great and successful measure. It was not a perfect one—the absurd formulary, " the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," once so popular, did much to spoil it ; but with its defects is was on the whole a great success. And yet the country had been told that they were but the slaves of an aristocracy. The house had, in 30 years which had gone by, passed many measures of great importance and of progressive improve ment. It might, perhaps, be said that he had no right to take any credit for this, for that the party with whom he acted had always opposed such measures. He would not go into that question, for it was immaterial to his argument, which was this—that during the last 30 years the House of Commons had uniformly acted on the side of progress, and was therefore not open to the charges which had been plen tifully brought against it during the recess. Take the question of free trade. The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was no doubt well aware that at the com mencement of the agitation on that subject, it found so little favour with the working classes, that they were only ad mitted to its meetings by tickets. But that question of free trade was carried by a large majority, both of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Again, he would ask the house, and especially the hon. member for Birming ham, who was it who supported the Ten Hours Bill ? Was it not the country party headed by Lord Shaftesbury, while the opposition to the measure came from the hon. member for Birmingham ? The principle of that bill was that of interference in the cause of young children ; but had the House of Commons been a house representing the working classes only would the bill have stopped there ? They had heard of an eight hours' cry for adults, and no doubt an attempt would be made to push through some measure of that kind if the operative class got the opportunity. In deed he found that the principles of the working classes on questions of political economy like these were essentially defective. He might mention a case which had only just occurred amongst a class of operatives whom as a body ho might be justified in calling Radicals. He referred to the shoemakers. This class, notwithstanding their Liberal views, had only just now been banding together for the purpese of putting down the introduction of machines into their trade. This reminded him somewhat of the licensed victuallers of Marylebone, who at a recent meeting passed a vote of confidence in their hon. and learned new member as " a decided Liberal, and one who was opposed to the open ing of the victualling trade." He must admit that he re gretted that the Government should have taken the course of disqualifying the county freeholders in boroughs. He looked upon that class of voters as amongst the most independent and honest in the country. That, hdwever, he thought was a question which might well be considered in committee. Another principle of the bill was that by which certain dis tricts were disfranchised. He admitted that the public had expected that the nomination boroughs would have been dealt with by the Government, but he believed that if they had been, the loss would have fallen much more heavily on the Whigs than on the Tories. As it was, they had dealt with fifteen Whig and fifteen Tory seats, and had in the same fair way dealt with the enfranchisement, striking as fairly as possible the balance amongst all parties. He could not, he must say, see why so much abuse had been cast on the voting-papers. Some gentlemen liked the ballot because it enabled them to vote secretly, and if others wished for a plan which should enable them to vote, in case of illness or infirmity, without leaving home, he did not see any reason why they should not be gratified. As to the noble lord's resolution, he must confess he could not imderstand on what principle it was founded. The noble lord alleged that what it aimed at was the principle, and he (Mr. K. Seymer) had always understood that the principle of a bill was always decided by a direct vote on the second reading. He confessed that in spite of the disclaimer of the noble lord, he believed that the country would better understand the noble lord's motives about changing places with the gentle men on the Treasury bench, than respecting any expansion of the franchise of the people. Alderman SALOMONS hoped for the indulgence of the house while for the first time he took a brief part in one of its debates. (Hear, hear.) He wished he knew its members sufficiently well to be able to distinguish between the two hon. members from Dorsetshire, with one of whom he agreed, whilst from the other he differed. With the first of those hon. members ho entirely sympathised—all but the conclu sion to which he had come. He (Mr. Salomons) had often been brought into contact with the working classes, and he believed that if any idea was more firmly fixed than another in their minds, it was that they were entitled to a fair . share in the representation of the country. (Hear, hear.) He believed that they could not, without danger, be ex cluded from a reform bill, and, looking at the immense strides they had of late years made in intelligence, it seemed extremely odd that at the present time their claims should have been entirely overlooked in the Government measure. (Hear, hear.) Much had been said in favour of the savings bank franchise, but he believed it had been found that the working classes generally were not depositors, but preferred investing what little money they might have in building societies, which were, he feared, not the most profitable of investments. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said about party influences. He must confess that his sympa thies were with the liberal party, but they were more with liberal measures, and if he voted with the noble lord the member for London it was because he believed that no reform bill could be successful which did not give the working classes their proper share in the representation. They should remember that during the last three weeks the bill of the Government had been condemned on every hustings in the kingdom, and it was to him a matter of surprise that not even in the counties had a single meeting been got up in favour of it. He regretted that his first vote in the house should be given against the Ministry, to whose exertions he was in some respect indebted for the privilege of sharing in its debates, but he owed it to his country and his conscience, if he thought a measure not calculated to be beneficial to the country, to give his vote against that measure. Such being his conviction respecting the Govern ment measure, he felt bound to vote in favour of the noble lord's resolutions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LIDDELL said he should vote for the second read ing, but as he did not consider that in its present shape it was in all respects calculated to allay the agitation which prevailed on the subject of reform, he should hold himself free to deal freely and impartially with any proposition which might be brought forward in committee for itsamend ment, with the view of still further enfranchising the work ing classes. Being really desirous of seeing the question satisfactorily settled, and believing that the noble lord's reso lutionwould practically have the effect of delaying such settle ment, and interposing a difficulty in the way of a bill which being brought forward by the party now in power, was likely when it went up to the other house to be received with favour there, he felt bound to oppose the noble lord's motion. Sir C. WOOD congratulated her Majesty' Government on the kind of support they had obtained. Both the hon. gentlemen who had just spoken and his hon. friend the member for Dorchester had stated that they found grievous and serious faults with many of the provisions of the bill and had even argued against that pro Vision which,' accord ing to the noble lord (Stanley) and the Chancellor of the itdheenottihtyerof ofth e th franchise m ( e i tn le h a e r rs , h h e a ar d . Exche quer, was the principle of the bill—namely, the tthheeironinetaennd )declared tion to consider in committee such amendments as might be brought forward for the purpose of lowering the franchise in boroughs, the maintenance of which at the same rate as the county franchise, the „proposers of the measure held to be one of its main principles. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Stanley) seemed to think that to entertain the proposition of his noble friend (Lord John Russell) would be to prevent the passing of any Reform Bill during the present session. Ho (Sir C. Wood) did not agree with that view, for seeing that the great majority of the house, as he believed, was anxious to see some measure of the kind passed before the session terminated, his opinion was that whatever Govern ment might be in power, a Reform Bill would pass, and, as he sincerely hoped, a far better one than that now before the house. He looked upon the principle of the bill not only as most objectionable but as revolutionary, but it ex cluded the possibility of any lowering of the franchise. The noble lord asserted that the bill would admit the working classes to the franchise in large numbers, but as it stood, and if the principle for which the noble lord contended were maintained, it would admit scarcely any of the working classes. (Hear.) What was it that had led to the men tion of reform in the house ? It was that politicians of all sides felt that the time had come when it was not only desirable, but necessary, to admit the working classes, to some extent, to the exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) From the time that the noble lord (J. Russell) made the declara tion that the admirable conduct of the working classes of this country in the trying crisis of 18 48 proved them to be in every way qualified for the exercise of electoral rights down to the present time that opinion had gone on increasing, until it was now shared in by men of every party—(hear) —and he was glad to hear his hon. friend the member for Dorchester say, in the course of his able speech, th a t he was fully persuaded the working-classes might be safely ad mitted to participate in the electoral franchise to an extent far beyond what was now proposed. (Hear.) He (Sir C. Wood) did not agree in the numerical franchise which was advocated in some quarters. He believed that any such measure would be attended with great danger. By the Re form Bill of 1832 the predominance of the aristocracyf in the constituencies of the country was swept away, and he for one was not prepared to place that preponderonce in the hands of another class—the most numerous and the least educated of the community. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the savings bank franchise, he would in passing observe that, whatever the amount of deposit which was to be the qualification, it ought to be held for a longer period than the bill proposed, otherwise there would be an opportunity of creating fictitious votes. But, as far as he knew of the working classes, it was not their habit to depositlarge sums in savings banks, but rather to invest their savings in building societies and other institutionswhich paid a higher rate of interest. He did not anticipate that any of the new franchises proposed in the bill would bring in the working classes to any large extent. His noble friend (Lord J. Rus sell) had proposed, in one of the bills he had laid before Par liament, a £6 borough franchise, and in another a V fran chise. They had not much information to show the extent which either of those propositions would have given in ex tending the borough constituencies, but from inquiries he had made in the borough he had the honour to represent, he be lieved that the number of additional voters thus introduced would have been comparatively small, and would have con sisted chiefly of foremen and the higher class of 'workmen. The first proposal of the Government was to eliminate one fifth of the independent electors of the counties. What would be the effect of the £lO franchise as proposed by the Government ? When his hon. friend the member for Surrey (Mr. L. King) first proposed to identify the town and county franchise he voted against it. He was told that he had to apologise to his constituents for giving so illiberal a vote; but the fact was that he explained to his constituents his reasons, and they were satisfied. He ex plained to them that such a measure would put it in the power of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood to swamp the electoral body. He happened to know the re sult which might be effected by what had taken place in the borough he represented, where a proprietor, by divid ing a field and erecting a number of sheds upon it, had created ten votes, which were held by dependents of his ' own. Under the proposal of his hon. friend (Mr. Locke King) it would have been perfectly possible for any gentle man of landed property to cut up his estate into £lO votes, and thus to destroy the independence of a county. The house, it was said, was left to choose between the bill with all its objections attached to it, and the taking a course which would be fatal to the bill. But the proposition of his noble friend need not necessarily be fatal to the bill, for it left it open to the Government, if they adopted the course suggested by the resolution of his noble friend, and which he believed would be recorded as the opinion of a large majority of the house, to follow some different mode of dealing with the franchise in counties and boroughs. If the Government did not choose to take that course, on them and not on his noble friend would be the responsi bility. If the Government was so wedded to the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the noble lord that night, ho should not regret their doing so, as he believed that no bill at all would be better than that which was now before the house. Mr. HORSMAN said the gravity of the occasion, so forcibly described in the speech of the noble lord the mem ber for the City, emboldened him to give expression to opinions which, though it gave him pain to differ from many around him, were yet felt so strongly by him that h e could not incur the responsibility of suppressing or conceal ing them. He had great doubts as to the expediency of the course proposed by the noble lord, and those doubts were much increased by the speech of the right hon. member for Halifax. (Cheers.) The right hon. member, in order to sup port these resolutions, had found it necessary to represent this bill as one which the House of Commons was bound to reject at once as beyond the possibility of amendment or alteration. If that were really the case, on that side of the house there would be no two opinions as to the course which ought to be pursued. But he could not see what was to be gained by encouraging a notion which exaggerated so much the power of the Government, which depreciated the ability of the house, and which was so much at variance with their everyday proceedings. (Hear.) The hon. member for Dor setshire had reminded the house that if they differed from the principle of the bill the proper time for enforcing that difference was the second reading ; if with the details thatit ought to be dealt with in committee ; but that the occasions on which measures were dealt with by abstract resolutions were extremely rare, and the results not encouraging. (Hear, hear.) If he might venture on any criticism of the speech of the noble lord the member for the City of Lon don, it would be that it was an extremely powerful speech against the second reading of the bill. The same, too, might be said of the speech of the right hon. member for Halifax ; but if this bill deserved one-tenth of the condem nation which had been heaped on it, there was no reason why it should not be condemned on the second reading instead of being met by a resolution which, as the hon. member for Dorsetshire said, was so skilfully drawn as to provoke, if not to justify, the accusation of being a mere party move. (Hear.) In what position did the house stand with regard to this question of Parliamentary Re form, and how ought they to deal with it? During the recess the question had been put to him by his constituents which he observed by the newspapers had been put to many of the gentlemen about him, " What do you intend to do with the forthcoming Reform Bill ?" To that he had given the answer which was given by most of the members of the Liberal party, " I will give a full and fair consideration to it, irrespective of its parentage. (Ministerial cheers.) If it be a good bill I will support it ; if it be a bad bill.l will endeavour to amend it in committee—(renewed cheers from the Ministerial benches)—but after I have seen the effect of our amendments in committee I will then determine what course to pursue on the third reading; but I will not join in any party move against it." (Loud cheers.) That pledge, as a man of honour, he felt bound to redeem, and he was sure those of the Liberal party who had given the same pledge would also redeem it. If the interests of reform were to be considered, what did those interests demand at their hands? It must be remembered that it was the Liberal party who had excited the popular expectation of reform, and pro clamed its necessity. (Ministerial cheers.) It was adniitted that their efforts at legislation had hitherto failed. It was admitted that it was the most difficult of all questions to cope with, and the most delicate and perilous to trifle with. (Hear.) It was admitted that a settlement was desirable, that a period of tranquillity was the most favourable for that settlement, and that it could only be accomplished by the honest co-operation of both sides of the house, and a scrupulous abstaining from all mero party moves. (Minis terial cheers.) Above all, and over all, it was admitted that the Liberals had an immense numerical majority in that house—(cheers and laughter)—and if they went into com mittee sincere and united in the desire to pass a good bill 'this session, they had absolute power to mould the present bill into any shape they pleased, and to cast on their oppon ents the responsibility of rejecting it. Yet, with all these ad vantages, they were invited to-nightbya short and summary, and as it might prove, an unfortunate and suicidal process, to forego them, and to incur the odium which must, sooner or later, attach to rendering all legislation at this time impos sible, and to postponing legislation possibly to a distant period, when the passions of the million might be brought in to override and usurp the functions of statesmen. (Mini sterial cheers.) What he felt was this, that 'there never was a question with regard to which it behoved the Liberal party to walk more warily and more circumspectly, whe ther they considered the interests of reform or collectively and individually their political character. It was they who had kept the question since 1851 dangling before the eyes of the nation. It was by them that promises had been made, and performance had been postponed in a manner which had certainly not diminished the difficulties of legislation. (Ministerial cheers.) There was on the Liberal side a numerous and active, and they ought to be an influential body, and yet while they were on those benches doing penance for past mistakes they were on the point of preci pitating themselves into another mistake, which might be greater and more unpsrdonable than all. (Ministerial cheers.) He differed from what had been said by the right hon. gentleman below him as to the effect of passing this resolution. He could consider it as nothing but tanta mount to the rejection of the bill. (Hear.) He should be very much surprised if the Government received it in any other form. His Parliamentary experience was not quite so lengthened as that of the hon. gentleman, but at the same time. in the course of twenty-three years, he could recollect no precedent of a Government accepting such an amendment on the second reading of a bill and retaining office one day afterwards. (Hear, hear.) It was a rejection of the bill which was to be brought about by an alliance of all those on the Liberal benches who had mostinfluence among Liberals. All the great Liberal potentates, the noble lord the member for Tiverton, the noble lord the member for London, and his hon. friend the member for Birmingham, had agreed to vote for this resolution, but the house should consider what was the real character of this unanimity. Was it founded upon an identity of sentiments ? (Ministerial cheers.) He felt bound to put the question in order that they might clearly understand what, upon the question of reform itself, were to be the conse quenCes of the vote they were to give to-night. He asked whether the unanimity which had been arrived at was founded upon the love of reform ? Was it founded upon an identity of sentiments on the shortcomings of the Govern ment bill, or was it founded on a common understanding as to the basis of the bill which would be substituted for it P (Ministerial cheers.) h H e f e lt 'th a t b e f ore th e y r u s hed into this division they ought carefully to contemplate the conse quences. He knew there were many people who imagined that the very dwarfish p ro p or ti on s of this bill, which called down consistently the condemnation of his hon. friend the member for Birmingham, were merits in the eyes of other opponents, and might have induced them to support the s:,- cond reading. As to the opinions of the member for the City of London on reform there could be no doubt, and if any question was anywhere raised as to the motives by which he was actuated on this occasion, throwing any doubt on his zeal or attachment to the cause, it would meet with no sympathy in that house, and would be refuted by the whole tenour of his life. The noble lord had stood 'out among public men so prominently as to be almost alone in his advocacy of reform, and his name would go down im perishably engraven on the Act of 1832. Ho was the pa rent of the bill of 1862, H e was th e au th or o f the bill - of 1854. In reality it was the secret dread of the noble lord's influence which exacted the pledge of the bill of 1847, and again it was th e same mys t er i ous t error o f the noble lord which impelled a Conservative Ministry to make reform a Cabinet question. (Hear, hear.) This power was founded in the conviction of the noble lord's sincerity, but it cast upon him a proportionate responsibility; for no one knew better than he did the difficulties which surrounded the question. :(Hear, hear.) Twice had he essayed to cast bills of his own. The last, in 1854, went further than anything sketched in the amendment to night in extending the franchise, in extinguishing small boroughs and granting. all that he could again attempt in another bill. Why did that bill fail ? because, as the noble lord told them, the country failed. The bill excited no sym pathy in the house. (Cries of "No.) He begged pardon. He remembered the noble lord's last words. The noble lord knew it excited no sympathy in the house, and he stated that it created no enthusiasm out of doors. As a proof of the national apathy, the noble lord, in withdrawing that bill, stated that in the course of the whole session only 11 peti tions had been presented in favour of Parliame n t ar y reform, and only four of them were in favour of the Government measure. (Hear.) He had always thought that it was a mis take on the part of the Government of 1854 to lay down the resolution to deal with Parliamentaryreform only by a large and comprehensive measure. He thought it a mistake for two reasons. In the first place, he thought that the Minister of the Crown, in his very responsible position, before he pro posed a great change in the constitution of the country, ought well to estimate his strength to carry it. While he thought nothing so mischievous as for an honest Minister to open a question which he could not settle, and let loose opinions which perhaps he could not guide, he thought it positively criminal in a colleague of that Minister to become a party to proclaiming to the world that the representative system was replete with injustice and abuses, unless in heart he was clearly convinced of the existence of those abuses, and resolutely determined to correct them. (Hear, hear.) ' The second reason why he thought it a mistake was, that the bill, which was intended to propitiate a large section of Reformers, did not touch the question to which they attached the utmost importance. Every re presentative of a popular constituency must be aware of one fact. It might be right or wrong. It might be rea sonable or unreasonable. But of the fact there could be no doubt, that the point in reform to which popular constituencies attached the most importance was the ques tion of the ballot. They . said that, compared with that question, all other concessions were insignificdnt or worth less. (Hear, hear.) Many who were without the suffrage said that enfranchising them without protecting them was conferring a curse rather than a blessing. (Cheers.) If that were so, the opinion must be known to every Liberal mini ster who attempted to settle the question. Therefore in 1854 without the ballot there was no popular support, the bill failed, and they unsettled the question. At the same time if the bill had succeeded, as regarded the largest sec tion of Reformers, without the ballot it would have settled nothing. (Hear.) Subsequent experience had only con firmed him in the opinion that there was no wisdom in mak ing legislation in Parliamentary reform an exception to legislation on all other subjects. In other matters the rule was to proceed gradually, safely, and with as little general disturbance as possible, but on the question of Parliamentary reform they had laid down the rule that they should only legislate once in a quarter of a century, that for 25 years abuses and evils should go on accumulating, that reform should be postponed until it became a revolution, and no sooner had they settled down after one revolution than Ministers had to ask them to enter on another. (Hear.) ; There were the bills of 1852 and 1854, and the Cabinet Bill of 1857 ; the last measure, from causes unnecessary to go into, never came before the house. The Ministers under took to steer it through the question ; but the old hand was not at the helm, and it lost its way. (Hear, hear.) Three Liberal Ministers, one after the other, failed in their mis sion ; a Conservative Cabinet had now undertaken it, and it was with their bill they had to deal. They invited the house to read the measure a second time, that the necessary amendments might be made in committee. (No, no, and cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had given notice of some amendments—(hear, hear)—and he did not put the construction on the speech of the noble lord (Lord Stanley) given by the right hon. member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) —that he intimated the house must accept or reject the bill as it lay on the table without any amendments. (Hear, hear.) Ho had read the bill, and compared it with the previous measures, perhaps, as care fully as any honourable gentleman who would vote on it. And he would state boldly and without fear of refutation that in committee they could make it a better bill, not only than the measure shadowed forth in the resolution of the noble lord (J. Russell), but they could make it a better, a more popular, and more comprehensive bill than any that had been prepared since 1832. (No, no, and cheers.) Let his statement be contradicted by any hon. gentleman who had read the bill ; both lawyers and lay men would have full opportunity of showing whether he was wrong. He repeated that they could do so by amend ments shorter and more simple than wero made in 99 out of every 100 Acts that were passed by Parliament and became law. (Hear, hear.) He should be surprised if that state ment were contradicted by any layman who had read the bill ; still more surprised if he was contradicted by an y lawyer familiar with the construction of Acts of Parliament. No one who had spoken against the bill had shown that it was incapable of amendment. The rignt hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood) did not make the slightest suggestion to that effect. No one had shown that the bill could not be so amended as to become all that the great body of members on the Opposition &de of the house desired. If this were the case what excuse, what justification could they offer to the public for taking on themselves the responsibility of throwing the country into all the turmoil and confusion that might arise from an adverse decision to the Government by rejecting the bill—(hear)—which they had the fullest and most favourable opportunity of amending and passing ? (Hear, hear.) He wished to make one remark on what had been said, rather hastily he thought, as to the position in which the Government had placed itself towards the house and the country by proposing a very small and inefficient measure. Many hon. gentlemen expected that the Govern ment would propose a very large measure, that it would make a very high bid for Radical support. Some believed that, if it did not rival the plan of the hon. member for Bir mingham (Mr. Bright), it would at least relieve the hon. member for Bristol (Mr. H. F. Berkeley) of the necessity of makinc , his annual motion. (Hear.) For himself he had no such expectations, and therefore felt no disappoint ment ; and for this reason, he had no wish to see the Minis ters of England pursuing a course of conduct detrimental to public morality. They had seen great measures carried in that house by Ministers surrendering their party ; and it had not induced in him any way to see the experiment re- Rewed. (Cheers.) Tie had observed that these surrenders never took place till public opinion had practically settled the question. The very acceleration 'given to a. popular triumph was a very small compensation for imputations, often most unjustly cast on party leaders, the shock given to the confidence reposed in them, the loss of influence by those leaders themselves, which was still more valuable to the house, and, above all, for the wound inflicted on every heart in the nation, once proud and secure in the unsur passed and priceless honour of public men. (Cheers.) They heard the other night the hon. member for Cambridge Uni versity (Mr. Walpole) and his colleague (Mr. Henley) ex plain to the house why they had quitted office. They wero Ministers of the Crown; in their reasons for ceasing to be so, the house might or might not concur; but the position those hon. gentlemen now occupied was at least as exalted as any that office could bestow. (Cheers.) And all, on both sides of the house, political friends or political opponents, owed those hon. gentlemen a common obligation for adding another proof of the many already given that there was - something higher than talent, and nobler than eloquence, which constituted the true greatness of the assembly to which they,were all proud to belong. (Cheers.) It was therefore no matter of regret of astonishinent to him, that a Minister in the position of Lord Derby should not have propounded a scheme that would justly have excited the indignation of his friends and the scorn of his opponents —ay, and the scorn of the country. (Cheers.) He felt the difficulty in which ho stood when expressingopinions with respect to the bill which. of course, were not favourably received by many with whom he whs anxious to agree. At the same time, it was the duty of every ono to study the measure for himself and form his own opinion on its merits. The resolution of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had certainly hit two of the blots of the bill, which were not only defects, but great defects. Others might, perhaps, be pointed out ; he was no t prepare d to say that others could not be selected as great as those on which they were asked to pronounce condemnation. But still less was he prepared to say that they could not be amended in committee. The first fault was the provision as to the 40s. freeholders and the town franchise ; but what propor tion of the bill did those provisions form ? They were con tained in the first clause ; and in how much of the first clause ? That clause ran through three pages. By striking out the last line of the first page, and 18 lines of the second, or about one-fourth of the first clause—in a bill containing 70 clauses—they would get rid of the provision affecting the 40s. freeholders. Was that a very serious amendment ? (Hear.) Why, he had often seen whole clauses expunged from a measure ; and it would be a far more regular busi ness-like, and effective way of getting rid of the obnoxious provision to make the amendments in committee, than to meet it by a resolution on the second reading. (Hear.) The other defect was in th e p rov i s i on re l a ti ng to the franchise in boroughs. That was also dealt with in the bill of 1854 ; and how? By one single clause. He had this bill in his hand, and the 18th clause provided for voting in boroughs under certain conditions. But if they were anxious, by the present measure, to extend the right of voting in boroughs, he asked any candid man, whether it was not the most reasonable course to propose it as an amendment in com mittee, and move its insertion in the bill ? The amendment of a bill by a precise clause, stating the exact point to which they would reduce the suffrage, was surely a more business like proceeding than the adoption of a resolution as vague and indefinite as the one before the house. The provision respecting voting papers was another defect in the bill ; but nothing could be more easy than to move that it be ex punged. He could conceive of only one reason why the Reformers should not go into committee on the measure. If they went into committee there might not be that per fect unanimity among them which would be necessary to carry out the amendments which they desired. (A laugh.) They might apprehend that the same course would be pursued which was adopted last year in the case of the Indian Bill, when they were defeated on the details. But if those who sat on that side of the house—the great Re form party—really had no common creed on reform—(a laugh)—and could not trust each other in committee, how could 'they tell hen. gentlemen opposite to make way for a Government that was ready to settle this question ? (Minis terial cheers.) Union for one pitched battle might be prac ticable; union for a campaign might be impossible; but unanimity even for 24 hours seemed to be such a godsend —(a laugh)—that they must make the most of it ; and, if they damaged the cause of reform, at any rate they might let hon. gentlemen opposite see that they thought they could storm Downing-street. (Cheers and laughter.) If the Opposition were ready to assume office and anxious to turn out the present Government it would be a more direct and manly course—and, considering the enormous disparity of force between the two sides of the house, it would surely be a more magnanimous and elevated course—for them to meet their antagonists boldly before the country with an avowed purpose and on a true issue, insiead of masking their ad vance under a disguise too flimsy to conceal their real objects and intentions. (Ministerial cheers.) They were all party men in that house—(oll I and a laugh) —and he was as ready as any one to join in any party move that could be openly avowed and justified,. But he had seen party moves there that could not be justified, and the disastrous conse quences of which had recoiled on those who made them. Not many years ago a great Minister placed himself in the power of his opponents by a display of patriotism which exacted sacrifices from him proportionate to the benefits he wished to confer on his country. The natural—it might almost be said the pardonable resentment of that Minister's friends had put him in the power of his antagonists. It was an occasion for magnanimity. The temptation was great. In an evil hour that temptation was yielded to, and the Opposi tion perpetrated a great crime. (Cheers.) His own vote of 1846 was the one act of his political life to which he had ever looked back with shame and self-reproach. The last on that memorable occasion to enter the division lobby most re luctantly, he , had also been the first to upbraid the new Mi nistry for endeavouring to proceed with the very measure on which they ttid utigi64 01e'lf opponents. The vote of 1846 had conveyed to his nihici d p painful impression of something more than the fallibility of those who had the absolute disposal of the fortuneg a'fkl character of the Liberal party ; and whenever party motives had 15ertt hitt& singe ikehad sought to exercise that independent judg ment which oould surrender without incurr ng a heavy responsibility. hit the effect of that vote on indi - vidual leaders, serious as it was, was as nothing cora , are 1 with its effect on the party generally. A speedy retribution followed. Was it not matter of history that the g fddt Whig party had never prospered since that day? (Laught er and cheers.) - Unhappy dif f erences dealt a deathblow to the Cabinet of 1851; humiliation befell them in 1853 ; and a still heavier scourge smote them in 1855 5 when the most illustrious of their body separated from them to seek other sympathies for the time—(a laugh)—taking with him all the noblest traditions and living renown of the party, and leaving such a void behind I In that material and moral ruin of a great historic party the world saw both a retribu tion and a moral. And did the plague which smote the leaders spare the followers ? Why, in what condition had they been ever since ? (Laughter.) In what condition as a party were they now? Could they justly be dignified with the title of a party ? For the last 12 months they have been less a party than a mob—(laughter)—without leaders with out union or combination, without a common policy, prin ciple, or purpose. Why, they had exhibited, the most piteous spectacle— (laughter and cheers)—a spectacle of the utter disorganisation and the low estate to which a great party might sink, never to rise again until it recognised and dealt with the real cause of its calamities. Look at the resolution before the house. Wise heads, secret influences, had been at work upon it. It had come forth in the name of the noble lord, who was the putative parent ; but whose image and superscription did it bear ? (Laughter.) Not the noble lord's, for it was a satire upon the manliness awl directness with which he had grappled with the bill on its first appearance It did not reflect the wishes of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, because they were welt assured that his sympathies•and sagacity wculd lead him to favour the second reading of this measure. (A laugh.) It rather indicated . that another victory had been achieved by that lower substitute for statesman ship which had too often meddled and manoeuvred in the Whig Cabinets, both of the noble lord the member for Tiverion And the noble lord the member for London, discrediting their Governments, and involving them and their followers in one common ruin. (Cries of " Name I" He could only now repeat what he had stated at the outset, that the gravity of the vote they were about to give could scarcely be over- rated. If he felt that by supporting the amendment he should be increasing the noble lord's influence for public objects, he should be anxious to afford him every assistance ; but be lieving, as he did, that if they rejected this measure, they would be rendering legislation this year impossible, the success of the noble lord would only be the commencement of his difficulties, and would involve the country in greater difficulties. The Ministry had been likened to a sick roan, sick even to death; and he (Mr. Horsman) thought, if the noble lord had to rush in to despatch him, it was unfortunate that this question of Parliamentary Reform should be used as the instrument to deal the blow that was sure to recoil upon himself. If the Ministry had to go out upon reform, they (the Opposition) would have to reconstruct their new Govern ment on that question. (Ministerial cheers.) They would have to propose a larger measure of reform ; but could they carry it ? (Hear.) Nothing could justify a Minister propos ing a large measure of reform except the certainty that he had the strength to carry it. Popular support failed in 1854. Had they the certainty of that popular support in 1859 ? Be that as it might, they would have a more compact and for midable Opposition; the contest would be embittered by their contumelious rejection of this bill ; and that Op position,' if it chose, might use Parliamentary Reform as an instrument for embarrassing them. What would be their position? The hon. member for Bristol would place on the books of the house a notice of motion that no bill having for its object a reform of Parliament ought to receive their sanction that did not concede the ballot. (Hear, hear.) But suppose gentlemen who would be then on the Opposition side of the house, instead of taking part in the division on that question, should go home to a family dinner —(a laugh)—what would become of the Government? They would be outvoted by 5 to 1; the Government would be gone; but would the question of F.`arliamentary Reform be gone ? (Cheers.) It would then have slipped from the hands of Parliament, but it would fall into other hands else where ; legislation the then Government had made impos sible, but agitation they had made inevitable and more suc cessful. That agitation would proceed year by year. The question of reform would have more and more party dirt thrown into it, and the Ministry, Parliament, and public men bo discredited, un til a p er i o d Might arrive when the sky would not be so tranquil as now—when commercial dif ficulties and manufacturing distress might dispose an ill-fed and ill-employed population to co-operate—then, with tumultuous gatherings in the provinces, with telling refer ences to official speeches delivered for one purpose, but now available for another—(cheers)—with the table of that house Laden with petitions, and its avenues thronged with excited crowds—perhaps the hon. member for Birmingham, even if his influence should then remain—for a man who only said what he believed, and believed what he said, would see num - berless candidates for popular favour anxious to discredit him—if even his influence should remain—would be looked to as a preserver, and his bill accepted as a compromise against the angry passions which the blindness and folly of that house would have done so much to stimulate and in flame. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Horsman) could understand gentlemen voting against the second reading of the bill ; and he could understand gentlemen votin g for it, in the hope of having opportunities afforded for amending it in committee ; but he confessed he could not understand how any gentle man in that house could have the courage to lend himself to the rejection of a measure from which his own judgment could not altogether dissent. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr. A. MILLS said, he had voted against the motion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton, to which the noble lord the member for London had referred, because he regarded it as a great Parliamentary evil, that members' of that house should be called on to give a vote that might be misconstrued unless it was explained. It appeared to him that the movement on this occasion was dis tinctly open to that objection. The practical consequence of passing the abstract resolution of the noble lord would be the indefinite postponement of all Parliamentary Reform. The noble lord had said his amendment would not neces sarily lead to that result ; but if he (Mr. Mills) had enter tained a doubt on that point it would have been dispelled by the able speech of the hon. gentleman who had just ad dressed the house. The antecedents of the noble lord cer tainly afforded a guarantee that he was incapable of trifling with the question of reform ; but if the necessary conse quence of his resolution would be, as he (Mr. Mills) con tended, an indefinite postponement of the subject,he thought the house in assenting to it would afford a practical proof that they themselves were disposed to make light of the question. It had been said that the measure was unpopu lar, and no doubt a great number of meetings had been held at which it had been condemned, and at one of which, at Rochester, a resolution was unanimously adopted that, un less the police interfered, the party assembled would not "go home till morning." (A laugh.) For his own part, however, he was not disposed to attach much importance to these demonstrations. He did not believe that they repre sented the real feeling of the country. On the contrary, he was of opinion that if all the electors and non-electors of England were polled it would be fOund that there was a general disposition to allow this bill to go into committee. Ho acted from no party motive in this matter, and if the bill should be rejected he should feel it his duty to give his earnest support to any Government which would promise an adequate and satisfactory solution of this question during the present session. (Hear.) Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN congratulated her Majesty's Government upon the supporter whom they had found on that side of the house. After the very lukewarm support which they had received from their friends, it must have been satisfactory to them to find upon the opposite benches a right hon. gentleman, never very famous for agreeing with them. Parliamentary Reform had become a matter of necessity, and, in his opinion, no measure would be satisfactory to the country unless it contained these two ingredients—a large extension of the franchise, and the redistribution of seats. Tn -the latter respect he did not go so far as the honourable member for Birmingham. The destruction of all the small boroughs would be a great misfortune, but it was impossible to deny that during the last 25 years great alterations had occurred in the circumstances of the country which ren dered it necessary that members should be withdrawn from some places and given to others. He was not in favour of either manhood or household suffrage, but thought that a rating franchise, which should give a vote to every man who was rated and paid rates would be satisfactory both to the house and to the country. This might not satisfy hon. members below the gangway, but he reminded them that the Reform Bill would have another ordeal to pass after it left that house, and that it was desirable to adopt such a franchise as was likely' to receive the sanction of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) The Government bill not only fell short of these requirements, but in many cases it offended against the great principles which ought to govern the de cision of this question. Like every other measure which the present Government had brought forward this was a measure of compromise. Before his accession to office the present Prime Minister said that the British constitution was founded upon compromise, and his followers, with a fidelity worthy of a better cause, had ever since been endea vouring to prove the truth of this assertion by abandoning one by one all the great political principles of their party. The supporters of the bill said that no reform bill would be passed this session unless the second reading were carried ; but, rather than accept a bad measure, he would consent to the postponement of reform. They said let the bill go into committee and then the Government will effect alterations ; but that which needed alteration was not a mere matter of detail, but the very principle of the bill. (Hear.) He knew that the Government wished to put the opponents of the bill in an awkward position if they presumed to vote against the second reading. The Government would, no doubt, say upon the hustings that those who voted against the second readinc , voted against all reform; ; but the opponents of the bill did not mean to be done in that way. (Laugh ter.) They meant to place an intelligible issue before the country. They meant to tell the country that they did not wish to postpone reform, but that they would postpone it rather than accept the miserable abortion that had been presented to the house. (Hear, hear.) The Government, no doubt, anticipated that those hon. gentlemen who were members for small boroughs would, out of fear for their seats, vote for the second reading of the bill. 'He repre sented a small borough which appeared in one of the sche dules—(laughter)—and when the proper season arrived he should be quite prepared to support the claims of that in creasing and independent borough. (Laughter.) But he should be ashamed to go before his constituents and tell them that he had been deterred from voting against the second reading of a bad measure, lest by another measure their borough should be disfranchikd. The Government wished, by holding out the threat of a dissolution, to compel the house to agree to their measure ; but he believed that the Government durst not appeal to the country—(derisive cheers)—and that if they did appeal they would find them selves wofully mistaken. Mr. NEWDEGATE would ask the Government whe ther they had not created their own difficulties on this sub ject by adhering to the principle of uniformity of qualifica tion? (Hear ' hear.) He was ono of the earliest Reformers on that (the Ministerial) side of the house. (Laughter.) He could call many gentlemen to witness that he had for years endeavoured to impress on the Conservative party that they ought not to refuse reform to the people of this country. (Cheers.) He had urged them not to oppose the second reading of any Reform Bill unless it contained something highly objectionable. (Laughter.) The misfortune of the Government was, that they had introduced a Reform Bill which was objectionable to both sides of the house. (Cheers.) He regretted to be at variance on this question with those with whom he had acted for 14 years, but nothing should induce him to vote for the equality of suffrage. (Hear, hear.) Nothing should induce him to give a vote that would place the institutions of England upon that false principle of equality, which, when it Was adopted in France, led to the destruction of the liberties of that country and plunged it into anarchyand bloodshed. Nothing should induce principl e o f equa li ty wh i ch was to thvoo basistefe r that of the constitution of the U n it e d adoptedhim as States, and which was rejected almost as soon as adopted; for any one who knew the constitution of the United States knew that soon alter its establishment the whole population were declared to be incapable of the franchise. Was it for a Con:.... , srvative Government to force on the house a mea sure so democratic that the hon. member for Birmingham, thinking that /t would legitimately end in the establishment of electoral districts, said it contained the most democratic principle that had ever been enunciated ? The counties, as soon as they obtained equality of suffiuge, would demand equality of representation, and therefore one principle of the bill, identity of franchise, was inconsistent with the other, preservation of small constituencies. He hoped the Government would still yield to the remonstrances which had been addressed to them, and abandon at least so mush of their bill as related to the £lO occupancy in counties. Lord R. CECIL had not heard a single defence of the Ministerial preposition for taking away the double votes in boroughs, and yet it was in itself absolutely and intrinsi- • cally just. There was at present no equality in the repre sentation of the counties and boroughs. The rural popu lation did not enjoy that consideration in the apportion ment of seats which their wealth and numbers deserved. If we enfranchised the £lO householders in counties we im mediately infused into the rural populations an enormous element, the sympathies of which were exclusively with towns. The populations ceased, in fact, to be rural. Some counterpoise must be given, and how was it to be obtained except by taking away a franchise which was utterly anomalous and without principle ? It appeared from returns recently presented by Government, that the property assessed under schedules A, B; and D, in counties, was £117,000,000, and in boroughs £101,000,000 ; while the proportion of representation was as 159 to 337. If property was to be taken as the test, the proportion of members ought to stand as 262 to 234, or as many as 103 members ought to be taken from the boroughs and given to the coun ties. If schedule A was to be adopted for the basis, mem bers ought to be transferred from the boroughs to the coun ties ; if schedules B and D, 84 members : while the test of population would require the transference of 137 members. Even the number of electors—and that was the weak point of the counties—would demand 81 members to be taken from the boroughs ,and given to the counties The hon. member for Birmingham saidthat there were many boroughs which were rural in their character, but he left out of con sideration the difference between the franchise in counties and towns. There might be many acres round boroughs, but those acres would not give a vote, which every housein the town would, and therefore a large extent of rural pre perty could not outweigh a small amount in boroughs. In the case of those boroughs which the hon. member had called small counties the fields round the outskirts were held by large farmers, and no large amount of rural rating was infused. Nor was it correct to saythat agricultural boroughs were entirely rural in sympathies and feelings. A shop keeper was a shopkeeper still whether he lived in a large or a small borough, and took an interest in none but shopkeeping questions. In agricultural boroughs they did not ask you about the malt tax or financial boards for counties, but the teadealers asked you about the tea duty, the chemist in quired about the Sale of Poisons Bill, and the attorney re quested you to oppose any scheme for registration. (IL laugh.) The truth was that in small as well as large boroughs, every man looked after his own interest, and did not care a straw for those of his neighbours—(a laugh)— and that small boroughs were as much urban in their sym pathies as large ones. But, said the noble lord the member for the City, the counties were so dependent upon the will of the landowners, that it was necessary to pour in some 95,000 or 100,000 borough freeholders, because they were more independent and liberal than the rural voters. He did not understand the tone adopted by the noble lord the member for the City of London with respect to the county representation. Some people seemed to think that the in fluence of an educated man over an uneducated was noxious, and regarded that as a model constituency where none were influenced by those above, them. As, however, the men of property would always be outnumbered by the men of poverty, he did not think it wise to depreciate the influence of the superior and educated over the uneducated. The noble lord, in supporting the second part of his resolution, argued on a fallacy. The noble lord contended that the franchise should be extended to the working men, not be cause their admission to the enjoyment of the franchisewouldl improve the character of that house, but because the working men were worthy of the franchise. He admitted that five sixths of those excluded were as worthy of the franchise as those who had it, but their worthiness was not the ques tion. The real. question was whether the extension of the franchise to them would contribute to the security of the institutions of. the country, and give a beneficial character to the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) The reason why there existed restrictions on the admission of the working classes indefinitely to the enjoyment of the franchise, was because their numbers would swamp every other class. (Hear.) The great object of constitutional restrictions was to pre vent any one class dominating over other classes. (Hear.) And when it was said that the . working classes ought to have a share in.the Government of the country, he must observe that it was not a question of a share merely, for their numbers were so great that, when once they were ad mitted to the franchise, the other classes who now exercised power must abdicate. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the matter was surrounded with difficulties, and the work ing classes were naturally sore at having this privilege taken from them by an arbitrary line. The only way of recon ciling these difficulties was by maintaining that very influ ence of the educated classes over the lower which it seemed to be the object of modern reformers to destroy. With re spect to one portion of the members on the Opposition benches, it was quite obvious that the public opinion, on. which they relied to discredit the Government, was not the public opinion in which they sympathised. Every public meeting of late in the great towns had pronounced in favour of manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, and electoral districts, which the right hon. gentlemen opposite refused to grant. (Cries of " Non In the Times of that morning, which, no doubt most hon. members read, there was a report of a meet ing-held at Walsall, which an hon. member well known in that ,house, attended. Mr. Duignan, a banker, who seemed to wnret more explanation than was given him, cried out— " What about John Bright ?" In reply to this question. Mr. Forster, the hon. member in question, replied—" I believe it will be found that John Bright and Lord John Russell will sail in the same boat." (Cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches.) "If my friend," pro ceeded Mr. Forster, " will only wait , till next week, het will see that there is perfect agreement between John Bright and Lord John Russell. I may say that John. Bright fully concurs in the confidence which Reformers en tertain in Lord J. Russell. (A voice.--' Let John Bright form a Ministry.' Laughter and confusion.)" (Ironical cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches.) Tho hon. member for Walsall (Mr. Forster) was well known in that house as having played an important task last year, when he was selected to fulful, in respect to a portion of the Liberal party, the delicate duty so long performed by the right hon. member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter). He pre sumed that the hon. member for Walsall was fully in. the confidence of his leaders, and his statement was, no doubt, based on good authority. Probably the hon. member for Birmingham was too pure a statesman to have anything to do with so degraded a machinery as that of " whips " (laughter)--but still the hon. gentleman (Mr. Forster) must have had his information from high authority. Per haps he would enlighten the house upon this remarkable conversion, but hon. members opposite (pointing to those above the gangway) would do well to reflect upon this ominous alliance. Directly the sacrifice was consummated a test would be applied. Tho noble lord would probably form a Ministry, and they would soon find out whether per fect unanimity prevailed between Lord John Russell and John Bright. Either, however, this assertion was incor- rect or hon. gentlemen opposite must be the first to desert the Ministry they were now so industriously forming. The allies would endeavour to oust one another in order to attain the objects at which each aimed for itself. Which party would succeed—whether the moderate Liberals, who sought to climb to power over the shoulders of the Radi cals, would afterwards kick the Radicals into the gutter—' (laughter)—or whether they would continue to act with , men whose opinions they did not share—it was impossible to predict; but certainly out of such an alliance would come a gain of political credit to neither party, and he thought that each would regret it. (Hear, hear.) The time might come when the dark picture drawn by the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. Horsman) might be realised. If the house lost the present favourable opportunity for settling this intricate and thorny question, a season of difficulty and of crisis might shake public confidence and provoke an excitement which would force them to consider a reform measure under very different circumstances from those which now existed. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WILSON moved the adjournment of the debate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it would be for the convenience of the house that the debate should proceed continuously, and called upon lion. mem bers who had motions on the paper for this day (Tuesday) evening to give up their prior claims. The debate was then adjourned until this evening. COUNTY PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee pro forma. SAVINGS BANS (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE BILL. The Savings Bank (Ireland) Continuance Bill was road a second time. SUPERANNUATION BILL. The further commitment of this bill was adjourned till Monday nest. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS OF WAR) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law concerning patents for inventions with respect to inventions for improvements in instruments and munitions of war. The bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time. LUNACY REGULATION ACT (1853) AMEND- MENT. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Lunacy Regulation Act (1853). The bill was brought in and read a first time. COMMON RIGHTS, &c. (WAR DEPARTMENT). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a bill to make further provision for the purpose of com mon and other rights by her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, and in reference to land vested in or taken by such Secretary of State. The house adjourned at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock. BIRTIIS. BOYLE.—On the 20th inst., at Rusham house, near Eg ham, the wife of John Boyle, Esq., of a son. CA.nus-WiLsoN.,---On the 19th inst., at Eastry Vicarage, Kent, the wife of the Rev. Charles Cams-Wilson, of a BOIL ELA3I.—On the 20th inst., at York Villa, Gloucester-road, Regent's-park, Mrs. John Elam, of a daughter. MARRIAGES ATTER—MORLAND. — On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, James Atter, Esq., Stamford, to Mary Agnes, youngest surviving Esq.. barrister-at-law. daughter of John Morland, BAR RETT— APINTOSH.—On the 19th inst., at Aber, North Wales, Octavius M. Barrett, son of the late Edward M. Barrett, Esq., to Charlotte, daughter of the late John Macintosh, Esq., DEATHS. BARcLAY.--On the 20th inst., at Walthamstow, Ford Barclay, Esq., aged 65. GRAHAM.—On the 17th inst., at Edinburgh, R. Graham, Esq., of Redgorton. LYSAGHT.—On the 19th inst., at Twickenham, Arthur Lysaght, Admiral of the Red, aged 76. PRENDERGAST.—On the 20th inst., at Highgate-rise, after a short illness, Michael Prendergast, Esq., Q.C. Judge Gf the Sheriffs' Court, London, and Recorder of Norwich. SHIFFNER.—On the 18th inst., at Coombe, Sussex, Vice- Admiral Sk Henry Shiffner, Bart., aged 69. DEVON.—On the 19th inst., the Earl of Devon, aged 82. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county Of Middlesex, Tuesday, March 22, 1869. B Partie amine tl of inter( Depos Without The it For THE CAP IVith po Capital t Compan , be offere; holders. Deposi le:Ltion Chairma Deputy -4 of th 6ir Jame William Co, Xord AU Patrick I , 45riei ic l ear-Adi place *John Dal tieutenai Robert P ' squar George E . Co.),. Ilenry TI Rally Franc se isarteis hir V • Nano Joseph B 1 CortsuLTlperty ZNGINEEI 13ANKEI SOLICIT IllioxEns- l tPPlicatic Mices Pawee to Joh Thomf kalifs Bell, from i Applie n RNA ‘-• and 11 8SOrtmeil1 !WEB Inks • Italian Imported talogist to 'rem .51 • - NERAI Interesting GAOLOGI 4ALj'ffieTl OGY EPPSI Lon( duced spec been adopt principal g homceopatl tCON( (eq ß ual oIiERY, 245. per Do Pozen' Ca fraporters, o h ailed 183 TIENE Dozen• IIENEB Per Gallon 11ENEK fitronzest bozen. Packages is. per Gall Paid. Country Gray's Inn VINE( Govi ,TRA tielous T Vi m cent. See " Rassall, of the Trade, liing will sent free to UP' It PAT 2 00 professi slats of a si (lnstea( . 11 0 closely a be had, and DI the bod kanufactur Sinele Tr Doubla ditt, John Whit( Inge, Knee- NEW 1 Patent OM Pharmaci dicine, Vi The Patei ford -street, 6 till 8, whe , TRIESE] lozenge, del Waistcoat pi doses, as ad: 4:c , adaptec TRIES] TIOIS Oonsequenct Or too long : and sexual individuals functions anSQUALI ally subdue( effectually, i entirely era and aggraw 1 1ladder, N 4 kidneys, an Of a vast po: is the great %try Sympi Scrofula, an Mies from the virus of Irepos of th °f disorders treats with atitution, RE restore. Price lls., street, Oxfo "Y p art of 33s . b y post .avinv, of £ to Medicos, sent by retu To be had naniel Choi fling Will Hannay, O~ Manchester. HUMA ./0 Dost free, i ° ma , P s i t u rn ! o c n t s i o o n f s Pence by it also showin; and syphilis and the exa i ructed mic the Establi I° l d by J. 11l agent On Will .1( lOW vai Pei an( 2s. Gen men new =en matt fecti The play and 9 • cl M. I' Thu] even] that Lead a-pis artist Euo Mann tenor N.l] Balls, Room H'