The Sun. — London, England, 1866-06-08 00:00:00

D-0-ERIAL PARLIAMENT ROUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING. - The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. LORD BROUGHAM. Lord BROUGHAM took the oaths and his seat. EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN. Lord SHAFTESBURY asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a bill this session for bringing children engaged in certain trades under the operation of the Factory Act ? Earl RUSSELL requested the noble lord to repeat his question on Monday next. CHARITY TRUSTS BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR this bill was read a first time. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a s econd time :—Liver pool Central Railway Station , Saltash Road, Leven and East of Fife Railway, and Macclesfield, S.nutsford, and Warrington Railway. The Buchanan Estate Bill, the Liverpool Sewage Utili sation Bill, and the Newehurch Parish Division Bill were read a third time and passed. THE ROYAL MESSAGE. Earl RUSSELL brought up the message from her most gracious Majesty asking the house for an additional pro vision for her Royal Highness Princess Mary of Cam bridge on the event of her approaching marriage with Prince Teck. The noble lord moved a reply agreeing to the address, which was adopted. THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR the 'house went into committee on this bill, and the different clauses were agreed to, and the house resumed. THE NEW FOREST. Lord NELSON presented a petition from the com moners, freeholders, and residents in the New Forest and its neighbourhood, praying for the rejection of clauses 4 and 5 of the Crown Lands Bill, and to be heard by counsel against the said clauses. This petition was signed by 750 persons; and he asked that the bill should be referred to a select committee up stairs, in order that the apprehensions which were entertained in refe rence to the proposed alterations in the New Forest were well-founded or not. CROWN LANDS BILL. Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the seartid reading of this ;bill, briefly explained the objects of the bill, bit in so low a tone as to be inaudible in the gallery. Earl NELSON said that under an act which had been passed some time since, an arrangement was entered into With the commoners by which a large number of acres of pasturage ground was included in the dimensions of the fo rest, to the detriment of the interests of the commoners. But what the commoners complained of in the present instance was that instead of leave being given to shoot by lease it was now given by this bill by licence under sign manual. The acreage consisted of 90,000 acres in round num bers, a great portion of which would be most rigorously dealt with by the powers proposed to be conferred on the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. At the present riding and driving was impeded in the New Forest, but that state of things would be altered, and an instance of this kind had already occurre ion the case of a person who refuse d access through a porta the land which had always been used as a highway. He contended that other injuries would be inflicted on the in terests of the persons resident in the neighbourhood, and the land would be depreciated by the proposed altera tions. The Commons would not object to the bill if the noble Lord President would transfer the power of licensing the land from the Crown to the woods and forests, and substituting the system of licensing instead of leasing. The bill was read a second time, and referred to a select committee. The Nuisances Removal Bill was read a second time, and'the Hop Trade Bill was read a third time and passed. Other bills of minor importance were also advanced a stage. On the order for going into committee on the Com panies Act (1862) Amendment Bill, Lord OVERSTONE animadverted at some length upon the facilities which the Legislature of late years had af forded for the establishment of joint-stock companies with shares in which small amounts were called up, and on which the liability was limited. He reminded the house that he had objected to the passing of the Limited Lia bility Act, and had predicted the ruin which the reckless trading of the new companies would entail upon their shareholders. He objected, therefore, to passing a measure which purposed to facilitate the splitting up or multiplica tion of the shares of those companies. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY defended the bill which was opposed by Earl GREY, who moved that the committee be postponed for three months. Lord TEYNHAId observed that so important was the matter considered by the commercial world that if the present bill did not pass there were companies prepared to incur the expense of promoting private bills in Parliament for the same purpose. On a division the amendment of Earl Grey was carried by 17 to 14. The bill was therefore lost. Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAxEit took the chair at four o'clock. CHURCH RATES. Mr. L•'. HOPE gave totico that in the event of the Abolition of Church Rates Bill being read a second time he should move that it be referred to a select committee. EXPERIMENTAL GUNNERY. Mr. G. STUCLEY asked the Secretary for War whether the penetration of various guns had been tested against works faced with granite ; and, if so, would ha be pleased to lay before the house the official report upon such expe riments ; and whether the Gun Cotton Commission had reported; and, if the Commission had not reported, when the report might be expected? The Marquis of HARTINGTON said experiments bad been made with guns of various construction against granite walls, and the reports, of course, would be laid on the table of the house, but more experiments had been decided on, and, therefore, it was thought best that the whole of the reports should be produced together. The Gun Cotton Commission was a very peculiar one, and he feared it would be some time before the report was received. FENIANISM. Mr. WH.4.LLEY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the cause of the militia not being called out this year in Ireland; and whether, in particular, it was owing to the knowledge or belief that a large proportion of that force was or had been in complicity with the Fenian con spiracy ; and, if so, whether the Government was prepared to furnish the house with further information as to the nature and extent of such complicity. Mr. C. FORTESCUE presumed that the hon. member was not aware that he had already answered the question two or three times before. He had nothing to add to the answer he had given to the hon. member for the Queen's County. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. Sir A. AGNEW asked the Vice-President of the Com mittee of Privy Council if it was true that rinderpest had broken out in the Isle of Man, appearing there last week in five places almost simultaneously ; and if the information he had received led to the belief that these outbreaks can be traced to distinct sources of infection, or whether it would appear that the disease had taken an epidemic form, or that all or any of these cases had originated spontaneously? Mr. BRUCE said an inspector had been sent to the Isle of Man, and he had received a communication from him, dated the 4th inst. It was to the effect that, although the disease had the appearance of rinderpest, y e t he was not in a position to state positively that it was so. SUPPLY.—PROVISION FOR THE PRINCESS MARY OF CAMBRIDGE. The house then went into committee of supply, Mr. DODSON in the chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose in pursuance of order to move for a further provision for the Princess Mary on the occasion of her marriage with his Royal Highness Prince Teck. Th e character of the Princess was most favourably known in this country, and the same impression existed with respect to t he illustrious P n to Highness whom she was about to be united. Her Ro y al enj oye d a t present 13,000 per annum, but t hat was thoughtto be inadequate for the marriage state, with out her o 11° YalHighness united herself in marriage to a person of large resources. The members of the royal family were called u pu not so fortunat keep up a certain position, and t hey were ev t Majesty, because, ill placed as other subjects of her be easily of their expenses becom ing more than could Ymet, they could not easily re duce their expenditure. The after her marriage, would still remain a resident proposal he had to Prince, Teck would also reside -a England, where the make was that in addition to the annuity just whole £5,000. the princess already received, a , ''andrY of 43,000 which annum should be made, makin g it in the °f £2,000 per The proposal was such a moderateasr andt° litgat further r, proposal that hear.) asan sum of the house he felt would readily He therefore proposed the resolution that 11;000 per annum*be granted to her Majesty, annuity to be settled op the Princess Mary of Cambrid ge . Mt.-DODSON having formally read the resolution, Mr. DISRAELI said he had the honour to second the propOsal, and he at the same time too atek th t e h oprtunity of wishing her Royal Highness the g resappiness po from her auspicious union: The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re sume& THE REFORM BILL. The house then w en t i n to committee on the Represen tation of the People and Redistribution of Seats Bill. Clause 1 wag agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3 were postponed. On clause 4 being read, _ - The CHANCELLOR of th© EXCHEQUE R sa id. an amendment was to be moved to this clause which in volved one of the vital principles of the bfll. The amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman oppo siW (Mr. Walpole) Was to strike out the word fourteen, and insert instead thereof the word twenty, to make that the amount of the qualification for the county franchise, and to that proposal he could not give his assent. The great object of the Government in fixing £ll as the county franchise was to settle, if possible, for some time the sub ject of reform. (Hear, hear.) The Government proposal had been frankly accepted by the reforming party in the cou nptt d i t and he the Governmentcoul d not p consent rop t o o s the alteration. t f e e r l a t t t i h o n e r . e would u th l d e bill i be .efo a pr, b act u i t c hatlse adoptionettlement o o f f a t x he 2o q f u ra e n st e i his on e o w f o r u a l r d b e a n m tir en el tary yz the opinion of the Government, frustrate that much desired end. The object of the clause was to complete the enfran chisement of the middle classes, while at the same time the power of the working class in counties was by the Govern ment proposal reduced, and he trusted the house would re collect that when they came to the consideration of the borough franchise. He did not believe that there would b e a great manufacture of £l4 qualifications if the proposal of the Government was accepted by the house. One important argument in favour of the £l4 franchise for counties was that it was, in fact, the county franchise in Ireland, where it had worked well for the last 15 years, a circumstance the importance of which could not be over estimated. (Hear, hear.) The addition that would be made in the county franchise if the Government proposal was adopted would bd 171,000 per sons, whilst the number to be added by the £2O qualifica tion would be 115,000, or a reduction of 56,000 persons from the number sought to be enfranchised by the Go vernment. He, therefore, should feel it his duty to resist the amendment. Lord STANLEY said he did not rise to answer the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to ask for the postponement of this clause, in order that the portion of the bill for the redistribution of seats might be first taken into consideration. (Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion, and laughter from the Ministerialists.) His motive, he explained, was to obtain a guarantee that all the branches of the subject should be settled together and as a whole, and he feared that at this period of the Session of Govern ment, when they got through the franchise clauses, might revert to their original position, and drop the Redistribu tion BM altogether. The franchise was a simple matter comparatively, which might be settled in a couple of nights' debate, and it would be wiser to deal with the more complex part of the scheme while the House was fresh. He contended, moreover, that the House could not decide satisfactorily on the franchise until they had settled what the constituencies should be, an d by proceeding with the franchise first they would be working in the dark. Mr. E. EGERTON seconded the motion. Mr. BRIGHT—I am a little surprised at the observa tions of the hon. member for Macclesfield, when blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in what he calls a scanty measure of redistribution. I understand that the bill disturbs or rearranges 49 seats. The bill of Lord Derby dealt with only 15 seats. The hon. member i s v ery much surprised that this great blot of the unre presented towns has not been dealt with, but it was not dealt with by the bill of Lord Derby. (Tory cries of “Question.") The bill of the Government deals with just about the same number of new boroughs as the bill of Lord Derby dealt with, but the hon. member has, I presume, forgotten the bill of his leader. (" We are not discussing Lord Derby's bill.") If these changes, which are now found Ifault with, were in Lord D er b y ' s bill , t h e hon. member is hardly justified in blaming them when brought forward by the present Government. He says that the Chancellor. of the Exchequer has shownno consideration for the feelings of the Opposition, but he might add, that the Opposition has not shown much consideration for our feelings. (Laughter.) But surely no member can be unaware of the fact that from the beginning of this discussion the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in everything whichidid not sacri fice a principle, has made important concessions to the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, the fact is that his having made one great concession is the cause 3f the dilemma in which the noble Signor now finds himself. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord says to-night exactly what I said in the first speech I made on the bill, namely, that the franchise clauses were simple, easy to be under stood, and easily disposed of, and he said further that two or three nights' debate would be sufficient to get the fran chise clauses through the house. But if that be so, and if the hon. member for Macclesfield will follow the moderate leading of the noble lord in respect to the franchise clauses, and will let us go through them in the course of next week, there can be no kind of difficulty in proceeding with the clauses for the redistribntion of seats. (Cheers and laughter.) It seems to me that the answer which the noble lord gives to his own proposition is complete, and does not require that I should add anything to it. He says there is great danger in reverting to the orginal proposition in en deavouring to pass a franchise without a seats bill. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The noble lord, 'think, begins to have doubts as to the prudence of his original course in this discussion. In my opinion the arguments he now uses are conclusive in support of the course taken by the Government at the beginning of the session. The theory of the noble lord and of the seconder of his amendment is, that we should try to get eight or ten omnibuses abreast through Temple-bar, and that we, if we chanced to be on the Fleet-street side of that monumental archway, should never got to the Strand. We preferred the means which the noble lord probably felt then, and cer tainly feels now, were the right ones, and the honest course for the Government to take, if they intended to pass any bill this session. But the noble lord offered a reason of an extraordinary character for interfering with the motion of the right hon. member for Cambridge University. He says he is afraid the Seats Bill will be dropped by the house after the franchise clauses have been passed, and that there fore wo shall revert to the original proposition of the Go vernment. One of his reasons for alarm which I could not comprehend was, that the £l4 franchise in counties would raise the county constituencies, which are now so cum brous, to a much larger size, and that thus the expense of county elections would be increased, so that nobody could contest a county unless his friends had a heavy sum to back him with. But does the noble lord suppose that the great body of the people of this country are to be excluded from the franchise—because the same argument will apply to £2O as to £l4 —does he suppose the people are to re main excluded from the franchise until he has devised some mode of conducting county elections in an inexpensive manner? We know perfectly well that county elections are more or less expensive according to the wisdom of their management and the violence of the party strife which arises. The noble lord said it was a question whether it would not be wise to divide the counties still further. I have never expressed any opinion in opposition to that di vision. Hon. gentlemen opposite are proceeding by all the arguments they use to the plan of electoral districts. (Hear.) Of course all our divisions are electoral, but I mean electoral districts that are mathematically equal. I have never argued for electoral districts, but I find myself driven in these discussions to that conclusion by the argu ments and speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) I could point to a member of this house—l do not know what his colleague on the other side paid —but he, in a county where I never heard of any manufacturing popula tion or any of these great towns (for it is a county strictly agricultural), and yet every vote he polled cost him £l. I think there were about 2,000 voters, and they cost him or his friends about £B,OOO. For anything I know, about the same number polled for some gentleman on the other side of the house, and may have cost him the same ; but I don't think that in South Lancashire, where the electors number 20,000, the cost bore any proportion to the amount which I have described. If there be boroughs in which the cost runs up to several thousand pounds at every election, there are other boroughs of equal population and number of elec tors where a contest costs not more than a fourth of that sum. I maintain that the cost of elections does depend, and after all your legislation will depend, to a large extent, on the good sense of those powerful persons in boroughs or counties by whom the elections are generally controlled — I mean in the selection of candidates and the working of the contest, and by their determination to do nothing that law or morals can i n any d egree fi n d f au lt w ith. (Ch eers .) l should like to ask whether it is not a fact that by law at present the county magistrates cannot open as many polling places as they like ? (Hear, hear.) That at least would do away with the great expense which is entailed by the conveyance of voters. (Cheers, and No, no.) I have had several letters from voters in the county of War wick, asking Parliament, in this or some other bill, to in sist on having a much larger number of polling-places. The question now before the house is simply this : the noble lord (Stanley) asked the Government to bring for ward their seats bill on grounds which I thought wholly insufficient, and upon grounds which I must say were un fair, ungenerous, and such as I should not have expected from him, because they were grounds of suspicion against the Chancellor of the hxchequer and his colleagues —sus picion which I never felt—(ironical cheers)—with regard to the noble lord ane, havingdlihiscollear revail esN e v d pohuentn a largeheywereseien office. (Cheers) W ttoionadoofptthtehahtecousuerstoe_ulrhgaevithneg. sCeheanntcheellboirll and s noon oh thatu e r reposed to deal with 49 seats— theon y Governmentcrodd turns do , p round on the Chancellor havinGgovk enr:enwmntthe worsttt hheatne th x e t could or nest—the e noblelo either in this sess ion Exchequer, and says, the let us the bill says, " Don't go on with your own bill respecting the franchise this session, but to carry—(cheers) —and with the bill which pass forced you to i a s d toepnt times" The g o n noble io o r a e w lord with difficult let us throw aside for the time the bill de b a t e . (Cheers.) I which he says c an he got through in two or three nights' y g in favour of doing any shall describe this no further. I leave it to all those in the house who have a n honest feelin thing whatever w ith thi s ques tion this session. I am satis e mi;o Eed—l a m per f ectly satisfied—that there i s no m this house wh o really wishes all or any portion of this r of bill to pass this session can applaud the motion of the noble lord. I believe that as far as the great portion of the public outside this house, who are looking for some pro gress to be made are concerned, they will add this to those other propositions that are intended only for delay — (cheers)—and they will come to the conclusion which I have come to long since, that notwithstanding your fair and plausible words, you are determined, if it be possible, that no measure of reform whatever shall pass this session. (Loud cheers.) •- -- Mr. NEWDEGATE was of opinion that the redistribu tion of seats was a far more important portion of reform A than the readjustment of the franchise . g e h a d opposed THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1866. Lord Derby's proposition to disfranchise the borough free holders, but he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not pressing his clauses for giving leaseholders county votes. He considered that the great question of the day was the allocation of political power, and believing that the house was nearer a solution of it than it had ever been before, he should support the motion of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, what ever may be said about fighting in the open day, and upon the open field, I cannot but congratulate the hon. gentle men opposite upon their perfect mastery of the arts of ambush. (Loud cheers and cries of " Oh, oh.") Ten days have elapsed since the motion for going into committee came under discussion, and not until this moment when the noble lord rose was the gallant party opposite able to make up its mind as to the next step it would take. (Cheers.) Ido not complain of that step. (Ironical cheers.) By all means, if it is thought by the noble lord and my hon. friend that this is the manner in which the battle of reform is to be fought, let them persevere. This question requires no lengthened argument, no debated discussion. The purport of the motion, if not its purpose, is perfectly plain. At last, with many efforts, we have got near the point where something like decisive issues are to be taken ; and then this new strategy is invented, and kept locked up in the breasts of those who conceived it, lest it should suffer from exposure to the open air—a tender and delicate hot-house plant, not fit for the rude climate of Great Britain— (loud cheers, and cries of "Oh, oh ")—im ported from elsewhere. Sir, my hon friend the mem-. her for Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) has stated that no one has a right to charge him with motives of hostility to reform. Whatever my hon. friend states with regard to his motives will at all times command from me implicit credence. It is no part of my duty—it is no part of my right to investigate the motives of honourable gentlemen opposite ; but there is a supposition which may, perhaps, in some degree reconcile the claims of courtesy with those of truth. My hon. friend may not be hostile to reform, but he is hostile to our reform. He says there is a fatal -- I don't know what he called it. An HON. MEhinrat—A blot. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, he said it was a principle. He said that nothing would in duce him to sanction a fatal principle which put the con stitution in jeopardy, like that of proceeding with the ex tension of the franchise, before we had determined upon the clauses for the redistribution of seats. That, says my hon. friend, is a fatal heresy ; but that was the principle of the Reform Bill of 1859, which was brought in by the Government of Lord Derby, and which received my hon: friend's continued support. (Cheers.) My hon. friend was then as now the friend of reform, and he was not then particular as to the arrangement of clauses, or to the adop tion of the principle which he now declares places the con stitution in jeopardy. I make no imputation upon my hon. friend of general hostility to reform. God forbid that I should do this—(a laugh)—indeed, my hon. friend may be fanatical on the subject, but certainly he is exceed ingly opposed to our Reform Bill. I don't think it uncharitable to say that he has opposed it by all the means in his power ; and that he has taken means which are perfectly effectual for their purpose. I thank my honourable friend. We understand both the motion and the reasons for the concealment. There.is a great deal iu.the speech of the noble lord of that everlasting arguing in a circle. "Do not," he says, " draw your outline before you fill in your details." Well, the outline is geographi cal ; but the details are human beings. We contend, in opposition to the noble lord, that it is quite as judicious to say, "Before you fix the limitation of counties, let us know what your franchise is to be," as to say, " Before you fix on your franchise, let us know what is your limitation of counties." (Hear, hear.) If we are to have these narrow party objects in view, if we are to endeavour to neutralise to-morrow the effects of the concessions of to-day by under hand or oblique arrangements, then this question of limita tion assumes, no doubt, uncommon and transcendent importance. We say, Trust the nation with power to enfranchise those of the people whom you deem worthy of enfranchisement : and having done that the question of redistribution will be easily dealt with. (Hear, hear.) This is not a case without a precedent, and in 1832 the prece dent was not so successful as might have been desired ; but hon. gentlemen seem to have a love, which I should have thought unwise, with reference to their objects, power, position, and prospects, for the retrial of experiments which in other times have conspicuously failed. In the House of Lords, on the 7th of May, 1832, Lord Lyndhurst made a motion to postpone not only the preamble but the first or disfranchising clauses of the Reform Bill, till the en franchising ones had been dealt with. But what did Lord Grey say ? He hoped, " that noble lords would not deceive themselves, for he must say that the motion would be fatal to the whole bill." As regarded the direct merits of the motion, he went on to say, " that its effect would be to escape, evade, and pass by those great decisions on great issues which had been taken—(cheers) -and to lose the debate upon the question in an interminable labyrinth of discussions on the redistribution of seats." But there are other things to be considered beside the effect of this pro posal. My hon. friend says, "What pledge have we that the Government will not fall back on their original method of proceeding ?" I suppose my hon. friend thinks the word of the Government is no pledge. Their word has been given that they will abide the pleasure and judgment of the house —that is the pledge they have given. But the Government will not consent to any motion on a question of this cha racter that takes the conduct of the bill out of their hands. (Cheers.) They have been charged with many things. Many hard words have been used -naturally, and perhaps necessarily, used at crises like the present—but there are no words that would be hard enough to describe their de gradation if they were willing to sit helplessly here from day to day, and leave their Reform Bill to be manipulated by the hands of a hostile opposition, that, from the first hour till now, has not ventured to avow its purpose. (Loud cheers.) We intend, so far as it depends upon us, to obtain the judgment of this house upon the important propositions we have made with respect to the popular question of this country. That is the en deavour we have sot before us. Towards that end we will steadily walk, so long as we are supported by this house ; and to the judgment of the house we will cheer fully bow. I thank the noble lord for raising the issue in so decisive a form ; and he will not find us unwilling to accept the indications which will be given by a hostile vote. (Loud cheers.) The committee divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment 260 Against 287-27 The amendment was therefore rejected. • As soon as Mr. Brand, the Government teller, received from the clerk the paper upon which the number was re corded, a loud cheer rose from the Ministerial benches, and was continued so long as materially to delay the announce ment of the result of the division. When the numbers were declared the cheer was repeated with increased ardour and still greater enthusiasm. Mr. WALPOLE then moved his amendment, substi• _ _ _ toting £2O for £l4 as the qualification for the county franchise. In support of the proposition he argued that, according to " the old lines of the Constitution," property had always been predominant in the county representa tion, and that if the present occupation franchise were to be reduced no better resting-place could be chosen than £2O, which was the jury qualification and the point at which the house tax commenced. He dwelt on the im portance of keeping up a distinction between borough and county constituencies to preserve the varied character of the House of Commons, and, referring to a remark of Mr. Gladstone, asked for some explanation of the nature of the compact between the Government and the Reforming party. Mr. VILLIERS opposed the amendment, and derided Mr. Walpole's argument as obsolete. Mr. HUNT argued that the £l4 line was chosen, not so much to increase the number of county voters (to which he had no objection), as to increase it in a particular direc tion, and to give an advantage to the urban element. In the discussion which followed, the amendment was supported by Mr. Beresford Hope and Mr. Liddell, and opposed by Sir E. Buller, Sir F. Crossley, and Mr. Pease. Mr. ADDERLEY maintained that a £l4 franchise— added to the borough freeholders—would in the midland counties make the town voters two-thirds of the consti tuencies, thus destroying the balance of the urban and county elements. But in the absence of any assurance as to the form in which the Redistribution Bill would pass, or if it would pass at all, it was impossible satisfactorily to decide at what figure the franchise should be fixed, and the real obstructives, therefore, were those who had op posed Lord Stanley's motion. Under the circumstances he intended to vote to omit £l4 from the clause, without pledging himself to the exact figure to, be substi tuted. After some observations from Mr. B. STANHOPE, who said the bill involved this dilemma—either it would swamp au the agricult ura l e l emen t i n coun ties or would leave large urban dist r i c t s unrepresente d— an d who also refused to pledge himself t o an y p ar ti cu l ar figure, Sir G. g GREYpo to bo sa tt i a h d ine that though the Franchise Bill was introduced weeso, three months ago, and the Seats Bill some k those bills. (H ear , hearap.)rseiseognite vote e e o t p h o e n G t o h v e e p rn ri m n e o n ip t le ha o d f been unable t dilatory Hitherto t a h o e d d ls c evasiveus s i o n had t a k e n place upon m o ti ons of acharacter. (Hoar, hear.) After the scene they had witnessed in the early part of the evening ho should have thought that there would not so soon have been another attempt to ob struct the progress of the bill—(h ear , hear)—the former attempt having been defeated by a decisive majority, and that the time had now arrived when a definite issue m be taken. Nothing could be fairer than the issue proposed by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole); but hon. gen tlemen were now trying to wriggle out of that issue, and the hon. gentleman declared that, though he should vote against a £l4 franchise, he would not pledge himself as to a £2O or a £3O franchise. There was another peculiarity in the debate. They did not find any gentleman saying that a man who occupied a house and land of £l4 in the county was unfit to be entrusted ;with the county fran chise. (Hear, hear,) That would include the upper strata of the artisan class. But it was said that that would admit i class so numerous that they ought not to adopt the pro pOsal. The hon. gentleman (Mr. B. Stanhope) seemed greatly alarmed because he thought his county condi tuency would be overwhelmed with an urban population. For his part he did not know whence this large population in North Lincolnshire was to come. As to the numbers to be added to the county constituencies it was difficult to form an accurate estimate, because it was not easy to cal - culate as to those whose rating was £l2, and whose occu pation was £l4, but he believed the number of new elec tors would be about 160,000 or 170,000. Many of these would be in counties where there was a mixed population, such as South Lancashire, the west riding of Yorkshire, and Cheshire, where it would be impossible to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the urban and the rural districts. The now voters would be unequally distributed ; in some cases there would be a large increase of voters and in others comparatively few. In many cases the addition would con sist of shopkeepers andothers dependent on the agricultural interest, and he believed that the extension of the franchise would in very many cases throw additional power into the hands of the landlords and the agricultural interest. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Adderley) and the hon. gentle man (Mr. Stanhope) objected to the £l4 county franchise, but they did not say what they would substitute for it. The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cam bridge laid down something like a principle, because he said those possessing the £2O franchise had to perform certain duties, but that argument did not hold good in all cases. The right hon. gentleman had also advanced an argument which had been used with great effect by Lord Russell in that house, that there was an essential difference between the borough and the county qualification, the former being founded on occupation, and the latter on property. But who were the first to disturb that principle ? At the time of the first Reform Bill the first inroad on that principle had been made by the Chandos clause. Let this proposition be com pared with the bill of Lord Derby. The hon: member for Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) did not say a word about the bill which his leaders had brought forward, though Lord Derby's bill began by subtracting 100,000 freehold voters from the counties, and reducing the county qualification not to £l4 but to £lO, which would would go far to swamp the freeholders. He did not mean to say that the right hon gentleman was responsible for this, because he knew that the right hon. gentleman left the Government of Lord Derby on the question, but the bill brought forward by the Government of the noble earl assimilated the borough and the county franchise. It was said that there ought to be different constituencies, but such a course was not likely to produce them. It might be very disagreeable to hon. gentlemen opposite to be reminded of these things—(" No, no," from the Opposition), but when the Government were accused of subverting the institutions of the country— (loud Opposition cheers)—he would remind honourable gentlemen that their leaders went farther in the same direction. (No, no, from the Opposition.) He quite agreed that there were some constituencies of a very mixed cha racter, such as that of North Staffordshire. Wherever it was practicable, they thought that the best test for the parliamentary borough would be the municipal limits. It would be impossible to draw a sharp line between the rural population and the town population. At present they had not to deal with questions as to a larger disfranchisement or as to a third member to certain counties or boroughs. They ought to restrict themselves at present to what was really the objection to a £l4 county franchise and to a £7 town franchise. One word as to a charge made by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cam bridge against his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arising no doubt from a total misapprehension of what had been stated. The right hon. gentleman had supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that ho had entered into some contract or engagement with the Liberal party by which, if the £l4 and £7 fran chises were defeated they would be released from the con tract, and that they would be at liberty to propose any other figures. Mr. WALPOLE —The note I made of the words was that the actual engagement between the Reform party and the Government would be at an end. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, but sat down in consequence of loud cries of order from the Opposition. Sir G. GREY s aid what he understood his right hon. friend to state, and what was the fact, that the Government, without any previous contract or private engagement, had, on their own responsibility, proposed what they had thought it their duty to propose. The great party of advanced Re formers who advocated franchises of £lO and £6 had recog nised in the bill an honest attempt to settle the question, and had determined to support the bill. There was no contract or enagement, but of course his right hon. friend said that if the bill was defeated it would be open to them to propose any other arrangement for the settlement of the question. The Government thought that this bill offered a fair prospect 01 a settlement, and they deprecated any attempt to put off the question to a future time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should like to know the words he had used, and which the right hon. gentleman said he had taken a note of. Mr. WALPOLE said the words were, " The virtual en gagement with the reforming party will be at an end." (Loud cries of " Hear " from alb Opposition.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his right hon. friend would see that he was wrong in his con struction of-the words he had quoted. Those words con tained no mention of any engagement or contract on the part of the Government. What he had spoken of was a virtual engagement with Parliament and the public, and not with the Government. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI.—I do not think that so very important a question as this should be decided on casual expressions used on either side. What we have to do is to decide what is best for the country. These personal controversies about comparatively small points are of little or no importance in reference to the question before us. The Secretary for the Home Department has alluded to the bill of 1859 ; but it is no answer to the right hon. member fo r the Universit y of Cambridge to throw at his head the Reform Bill of Lord Derby's Government. On the o ther hand it is no answer to m e u m s b t e o r t f h o r r o t w ii e mut University u v e r r h s ietayd ofs t e h a e mb views r id g e o . f Wea r r ig e h n t ot hon an swerable for those views ; and though lam ready to vin dicate the policy of Lord Derby's Government, that is a question of a very secondary interest at this moment. What we have to decide is what is the policy necessary now, and not to enter into endless recriminations. There were un successful Reform Bills before that of Lord Derby's Go vernment, S and Reform Bills the provisions of which were entirely inconsistent with those of the present measure. The proposition of Lord Derby's Government was not made on the sole condition , referred to in the present discussion that freeholders in boroughs should vote where their pro perty was situated. The house was told over and overagain that our propositions must be taken as a whole, and it was avowed that one great consideration for proposing that the county qualification should be £lO was that there should be the same franchise in boroughs. (Hear,hear.) Whether our views were right or wrong they were distinctly stated. But to return to the question before us. What we want—and I believe I express the opinion of all sensible men in the house —(a laugh)—is that there should be a bona fide franchise. (Hear.) We say that those who exercise the franchise in counties—where interests and industry are in the county— should not be interfered with hymen who have no interest in the county. We are told that we want to expel from the counties the whole of the urban element, and the Secretary of State has to-night repeated the charge. What I want to impress on the committee is that before settling the proper franchise for counties we should clearly understand what counties are. The Secretary of State said that we wished to enfranchise every town with 5,000 inhabitants. No human being ever made such a proposition. (Hear, hear.) Before you settle the proper franchise for counties you should understand what those counties mean. We do not under stand from the speech of the Secretary of State that the Go vernment has a clear idea of what the population of the counties is. (Hear.) If you throw out all the population of the unrepresented towns up to 5,000 you still have in the counties 500 unrepresented towns with a population milder 5,000 ; and irrespective of these 500 towns you have a vil lage population equal in amount to all the population of the represented towns. We have heard a great deal of the population of Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and Shef field, but I say that the population of those great towns and cities, and of all the great towns together, does not exceed the village population of England irrespective of the non-represented towns and the 500 towns with a popu lation under 5,000. What, therefore, can be more absurd than the statement we have just listened to from theSecro tary of State, that if such arrangements as were intimated about restricting the exercise of the franchise by free holders were adopted we should really have a population for our constituencies consisting solely of an agricultural population without any urban element in it ? It is not the fact. Those who are attempting to settle this question with such general opinions are acting in the dark, although endeavouring to arrange affairs to their own satisfaction, because they are not sufficiently acquainted with the cir cumstances with which they presume to deal. (Hear,hear.) In dealing with the population of counties you have to rest on certain accurate ideas of what the general character of the county population is. You will find in the counties of England that half the population—half the nation—is in the counties, and that half of the population of England should have secured to it the fair and legitimate exercise of their suffrage. (Hear, hear.) To a certain and great degree the population of counties possess that privilege No one grudges it. We are told night after night that we are representatives of farmers and farm labourers. Grave, very grave, Secretaries of State tell us this. I have the honour to be the representative of a constituency which may fairly be described as being a completely rural con stituency, because in Buckinghamshire every town is re presented. What are the facts of the case as to the pro perty qualification in that county ? In a constituency ex ceeding 6,000 what is the number of voters under a £5O qualification that ar e on the register for the county of Bucks ? 1,200. Well, i n a per f ec that is only a fifth. Wh o are the others ? They are free holders. And where d o th eyreside ? Wh y th e y constitute a • part of those great v ill age populations, or li ve i n towns with a population under 5,000, which are unhappily not taken into consideration by r i g h t hon. gent l emen o pposite. If this element of the population is to be invested with the fran chief it is a point to be argued, and one on which w e should have a most disti nc t understanding, whether, if this popu lation be invested with the franchise, they should not have the privilege of exercising it in defence of their own pro . perty, industry, and interest s , an d not be interfered with by comparative strangers who have no sympathy with them and their interests. (Hear, hear.) It is no answer to say that in Lord Derby's bill this was not done, or that it was impracticable. What we have now to do is to do the thing completely and satisfactorily. (Hear.) The question of the boundaries of towns should be fairly and completely dealt with by any minister who attempts to settle this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer night after night made admissions on this question, but coupled them with elaborate descriptions of the difficulty of satisfying them. No doubt there is difficulty, but it is a difficulty which a government undertaking to deal with the question ought to and must encounter. (Hear, hear.) We have a right to expect that the question of boundaries should be completely and satisfactorily settled. (Hear, hear.) We may be told that the Government of Lord Derby did not meet in as large a spirit as they might have done, the ques tion of unrepresented towns. But hon. gentlemen forget that the census of 1861 has appeared since the Government of Lord Derby. (Hear.) We now know a great deal more about the condition and population of the country, and the manner in which the population is employed, than we did in 1858 or 1859. (Hear, hear. And are we no.L to profit by that valuable information? We know that a number of con siderable towns have arisen in England of much larger po pulations than are described in the census of 1861, and it is absolutely necessary that at a time when we are attempt ing to settle the amount and character of the county franchise we should have a clear conception as to the man ner in which political power is to be distributed in this country. I admit that when the Government brought in their bill for the Redistribution of Seats they did not give a dis tinct programme of the manner in which the claims of the country would be met. It was most unsatisfactory, but it was clear and definite. The Government night after night have given up every point on that head. (Hear, hear.) Ac cording to the Secretary of State, the whole affair is now in nubibus. (Hear, hear.) There is not a question respecting the direct representation of large bodies of people not now represented that is not now completely unsettled and thrown upon the table for discussion. (Hear.) We have no plan of the Government to guide us as to what their views are ; and until we have some complete idea of it I am totally in capable of entering upon the discussion whether the county franchise should be £5O, £2O, £l4, or £lO. I should be per fectly ready myself to support a £lO qualification for coun ties if it were a bona fide qualification. And if the inhabi tants of counties—whatever their pursuits or callings—if that moiety of the English nation which is described by Secretaries of State as a collection of farmers and farm la bourers, are permitted to enjoy their franchise without in terference from strange elements, or are directly repre sented in this house, lam the last person in the world who would shrink from a large and liberate estimate of the ques tion. But as now proposed by the Government, if the boundaries of unrepresented towns are not to be settled—if the great industrial communities which have arisen since the last Reform Bill are not to be directly represented in this house, I say you may fix upon a franchise for the counties, I do not care whether it is £lO, £l4, or £2O, which may end in giving you a representation for that part of the English nation which will not be a fair and just representation of its property, feelings, industry, or interests. (Cheers.) That is the question before us. I think the fact we have just listened to is a strong argument in favour of the amend ment of my noble friend the member for King's Lynn this evening. (Hear, hear.) I consider myself that it is utterly impossible to deal with this question, except in a factious and hurried way (laughter), until we know what the Go vernment are going to do particularly. Sir G. GREY—I did not say that we were factious. (A laugh.) Mr. DISRAELI—I say it is impossible to deal with the question except in a factious and hurried way unless we have some plan from the Government. (Hear, and laughter.) Those who sneer at these observations will in a year's time find out that they are perfectly true. I maintain that you cannot settle the amount satisfactorily of your county to deal with the large unrepresented towns. So far as I un derstand the Government are going to do nothing. The allusion made to the subject by the Secretary of State is absurd, for he assumes that there are towns with 5,000 inhabitants which are not represented. I never heard such athing. On the contrary there are many towns of 5,000 in habitants or more whichgrow naturally out of the industry of the counties and ought to be represented by county members; but there are large towns and distinct commu nities which ought to have a distinct representation in this house; and if they have not they necessarily prevent the legitimate representation of the county population. There are, for example, the manufactories. What we object to is that in addition to those manufactories there should be a process of manufacturing county votes. (Laughter.) The population of the counties does not, so we are told, consist merely of farmers and farm labourers. I showed that these farmers and farm labourers amounted to 2,000,000, and if you enfranchised the unrepresented towns, and if you leave the 500 towns under 5,000 of a population, you would still have the population in the counties equal to the po pulation of the great represented towns. (Cheers.) I say that the counties have a right, at whatever limit you fix the franchise; to exercise it for the protection of their property and their industry (cheers), and they have a right not to be interfered with, in such case as I mentioned before, where one-half of the population of the enormous towns, which are as much connected with the counties as London is with Westminster, marched into the county town and voted for the members for the county, although in every point of view, in everything that could create sympathy, in the in vestment of capital, in the employment of industry, iu their political opinions, iu all their municipal sentiments, they are entirely in accordance with the rest of the towns that have the privilege of sending members to Parliament. I say, therefore, under these circumstances, it happens fre quently in this country that one-half of the town popula tion, because it is not within the Parliamentary boundary, returns the members for the counties. This is not psli• tically just, and that which is not political justice must end in political disaster. (Cheers.) All we say is that if her Majesty's Government will come forward with a distinct proposition to give to the population of the counties the fair exercise of the franchise, I have no doubt that any proposition that they may make for reducing the franchise will be treated by us with the utmost consideration—. (cheers)—but they make no proposition ; and if you greatly reduce the franchise for the counties under existing circum stances, if you leave all these towns with distinctive inte rests of their own unrepresented, and if you do not in a complete manner deal with the question of Parliamentary boundaries of represented towns, whatever figures you fix upon for your Parliamentary franchise in counties will end in disappointment and disaster. (Loud cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Mr. Dod• son—Having been patiently heard in the beginning of the evening, I shall only detain the committee for a very short time ; but we are approaching a division of very great importance, upon the issue of which, I do not conceal, we look with great anxiety. The character of this measure, which, in my judgment, is capable of being a satisfactory settlement of a great constitutional question is involved to a considerable degree in this division ; and I therefore take the liberty of noticing one or two things with regard to the course of this debate. So far as I followed the debate I have not heard any one deny that the persons whom it is proposed to enfranchise in virtue of the £l4 occupation in counties are, taken as a body, fitted for the exercise of their franchise. This being so, I beg to observe that it is a fact of the most vital importance, The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, much to his credit, has upon former occasions deprecated the nicely-calculated less or more of this or that particular number, and has said distinctly, "I look to the fitness of those you are going to enfranchise." I beg the committee to observe the ac ceptance of this principle from this source of high autho rity. But the objections which have been taken are two, and those who took them appear to be moved by distinct and separate lines of action. There is the objection of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, who repeated, I do not mean in terms, but in concurrence with most of those on his side who preceded him, that be fore you settle the franchise for the counties you must clearly understand what the counties mean. Again, the right hon. gentleman said, " We must know what the Go vernment propose to do with reference to the large unre presented towns." Well, what I say is, that if we are to go on in this way we are in danger of arguing in a circle. The demand of the right honourable gentleman would be a perfectly fair one if the business of the redistribution of seats was one which the Crown could settle by its own prerogative. He might then require that we should lay down in a complete manner our proposals. But when the right hon. gentleman says he wants to know what we are going to do, the meaning is, not what we are going to do, but what the House of Commons is going to do after hearing our pro posals. I am surprised at the argument of the hon. member for North Staffordshire, who argued that it was impossible for him to say anything of the county franchise until he I knew what was to be done about the boundaries of the boroughs and unrepresented places. Thus the right hon. member reverses his own course in 1859. (No, no.) Why the right hon. gentleman then supported a bill which was to deal with county franchise an!,erior to any settlement of the borough boundaries ; and that which he would make a mountain of now was then a molehill, and he then found no difficulty in swallowing the camel though ho now can not swallow the gnat. (Cheers.) The house cannot legis late on all parts of this subject in one and the same man ner, and if everybody is to make an objection to every pro posal because every other proposal is not then settled, the result will be that no progress can be made. (Cheers.) This is the advantage of all the stages in a bill, that at one time you examine its principle, at another you examine it in detail. Upon this question of the county representation the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) departs from the old rules of the constitution, and sets up instead the distinc tion between urban and rural districts, a purely modern in vention. This question divides itself into two particulars. He says we have done nothing that is satisfactory. We have sacrificed a constitutional principle, that is, the exten sion of the voting for counties in respect of freeholds in boroughs to leaseholds. But the question of unrepresented towns appears to me to be one of no very great magnitude. If you make some extension of the number of towns to be enfranchised—and I have :already intimated an opinion it would be well that we should proceedfurther in this direc tion--but it would be absurd there should be any of those wholesale representations of which the right hon. gentle man gave us some idea, by which there would be a town of 50,000, or 60,000, or 80,000, or 90,000 inhabitants with one member. It is impossible for us to give the least coun tenance to an idea of this kind—(cheers)—but as regards the representation of a number of large towns, that is a question which we propose to consider. And let it not be supposed that we have abandoned our intentions with regard to the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. My right hon. friend the member for Cambridge Universitywill understand that I have not the slightest intention of imputing to him any inaccuracy of quotation. I feel confident that the words were as I stated, and that they did not contain any compact. There was no mention of a compact, or under standing, or anything else, between the advanced party and the Government ; we spoke of the engagement which the Government made with Parliament and the public when we took a certain course at a certain juncture. My right hon. friend has not made any complaint against the £l4 county franchise ; but he says he could not see anything in the na ture of it to make it a stopping place. Well, I answer that in the first place the £2O will not be a stopping place any more than £l4. He does not give us the jury franchise; that in counties, as I understand, is not a rating franchise, but one of £2O and £3O respectively—does ho propose that? Mr. WALPOLE—The second part of my motion shows a rating or assessed amount. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Does he propose a rating franchise ? Let us be clear upon the point. Mr. WALPOLE—I say the jury franchise, or a rating upon which the person is assessed to the relief of the poor, or to the inhabited house duty. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—My right hon.friend is doubtless aware that he does not copy the exact words of the Jury Act. I now understand him to say thathe does give the jury franchise and a rating franchise. This it should be understood is a proposition that will raise the county occupation franchise from£l4 to bet ween£23 and.£24. That is not a jury franchise at all if it is not a rating fran chise, for in no other point is it a jury franchise, and a worse franchise than on the house duty I cannot imagine, for• the duty itself is, as it were, a casual one, and why it should stop at £2O it would puzzle any economist to understand. The Government entirely decline to recognise the jury fran chise, for if adopted for the counties it must be recognised in the boroughs, and the result will be to land as in house hold suffrage, because household qualification for jurors is that adopted in boroughs having theirown quarter sessions. The Government have proposed the £l4 franchise with the earnest intention of making it a complete plan, and there is reason for considering that the £l4 franchise will be a stopping place, as it as nearly as possible describes thepoint where it completes the enfranchisement of all the middle classes ; and further, this figure substantially works well in Ireland. But the clause before the house is a capital member of the bill, and the proposal of my right hon.friend essentially mars and maims the effect of the clause. On that ground I earnestly entreat the house to negative this pro posal. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") _ _ Mr. HENLEY said he had listened with great attention to all that had been said by the right hon. gentleman, and he was the only one who gave anything like a reason for the £l4 franchise. Every one seemed to think that what would be done now would be a settlement of the question. It was said the house had assented to a £lO franchise, but that was not the case. What was the security they had that this would be a permanent settlement from the advanced re formers ? Would they accept this £l4 as a settlement? No. At all their meetings they distinctly stated that the Government bill was only a step in the right direction and an instalment, and one hon. member of the party had echoed that sentiment in the debate, by saying he should prefer £6 10s. to £l4. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re ferred to the £l2 rating in Ireland, but that was not the same as £l4 occupation in England. The circumstances of the two countries were quite different. Their position as to money's worth was dissimilar, and the man rated at £l2 in Ireland would belong to a superior class to the one having a £l4 occupation in England. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman asked whether those holding £l4 occupations ought not to have the franchise ? That was not the question. The question was whether that sum would not introduce so large a number of the occu pying voters as to outnumber and outweigh the property qualification for the counties. (Cheers.) That was the real question to be considered. The right hon. gentleman said that it had been stated in the house that a £lO occu pier was a loyal man. He did not believe that they could judge the loyalty of a man by the number of pounds he had, as a man with no pounds at all was often more loyal than one with a great many. What he looked at was this —that three-sevenths of the county electors would be in troduced by the occupation franchise. That was a serious matter, and too large a proportion, and would outweigh the present qualification in counties. He would just say a few words as to the amendment. As he understood the amendment, it was this. The right hon. gentleman thought that taxation of some sort or other ought to attach to the franchise. Now, the Government was getting rid of that principle. (Conservative cheers.) They were getting rid of rating, which used to be the foundation of house hold suffrage in the towns—the old scot and lot franchise ; all that meant payment ; and the franchise followed pay ment. His right hon. friend proposed two things. He said a man who lived in a £2O house ought to have a county vote, and he (Mr. Henley) agreed with him. The next thing was the jury franchise. That was not based on house alone ; it might consist of house and land. But it was an occupation franchise, with rating to the poor to the amount of £2O. This led to two parties who ought to have the county. franchise ; and whether we took the jury franchise or the gross estimated rental or rateable value, it was an occupation franchise to the amount of £2O. Such a franchise, he believed, would not extend the constituen cies more than 40,000. He thought that would give a fair addition to the present occupation franchise for counties. (Hear.) He should support most cordially the amendment of his right hon. friend Mr. Walpole. (Cries of " Divide.") The committee then divided on the question that the word " fourteen" stand part of the question-- The numbers were— Ayes Noes ... 297 ••• ... 283 Majority 14 The announcement was received with loud Ministerial cheers. The house presented a most exciting scene. Hon. members were standing crowded together some way within the bar, on the floor of the house, and the cries of " Bar, bar," intermingled with " Adjourn," and " Report pro gress," prevented the Chairman from being heard for some seconds. Amidst the confusion that prevailed, Lord CRANBORNE, from the floor of the house, moved that the Chairman report progress ; and Mr. BAGGEfrom the side gallery moved the adjournment of the house. The CHAIRMAN, however, put the question of report ing progress, which was received with loud cheers. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that considering the hour, 25 minutes past twelve o'clock, ho could not resist the motion. (Loud cries of " What day ?" " When ?") but he proposed to resume the committee on this day (Friday). The announcement was received with loud Ministerial cheers, and cries of " No, no ; on Monday," from the Op position side of the house. The CHAIRMAN said what he had to do was to put the motion for reporting progress. It was for the house to decide to what day. The motion for reporting progress was then agreed to, and the house resumed. The SPEAKER having again taken the chair, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved tho resumption of the committee on this day (Friday), which was met with loud cries of "No, no," and "On Monday." The SPEAKER then put the question, amidst the-con fusion that prevailed, when Lord ROYSTON moved the adjournment of the com mittee until Monday. (Loud cheers.) The SPEAKER again put the question. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and amidst the excitement that prevailed said that the Govern ment had not interfered with Tuesday of late, that being the day devoted to private and independent members. But this was a different case. The Government were responsible for Fridays subject to certain rules of the house. Inde pendent members of the house,as was perfectly well known, had a right to make their own motions on going into com mittee of supply, but when they were disposed of the Go vernment were responsible for the order of business. He found from the paper of to-morrow that the notices of /motion, which were given on going into committee of sup ply, were of a character not likely to occupy any length of time. That being so, the Government were responsible for the disposal of the rest of the evening, and it was not their intention to waste any portion of time. (Loud cheers.) So far as depended upon them, they would move the house to employ their time in the progress of the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) _ _ . . On the motion being put there were strong expressions of dissent, when Mr. DISRAELI said the proposition of the Government did not in any way interfere with the privileges of private mem bers. There would be the motion that the house go into committee of supply, when any gentleman might bring on any motion upon the paper or any other motion ; but at the same time he had no doubt they would confine them selves to those motions of which they had given notice. The proposition of the Government did not at all interfere with them, and it would be unreasonable to interfere with the fair prerogative of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He was quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not keep them to any very late hour. The motion for the adjournment until to-night (Friday) was then agreed to. STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND COINAGE COMMITTEE. This bill passed through committee. NATIONAL GALLERY ENLARGEMENT BILL. This bill passed through committee. TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL. Sir C. O'LOGHLEN moved that the house go into com mittee on this bill. Mr. WHITESIDE appealed to the house and the Go vernment not to press so important a measure at that late hour (a quarter before one o'clock). Sir O. O'LOGHLEN said the principle of the measure having been affirmed by the house, he must press his mo tion. Mr. W HITESIDE then moved the adjournment of the debate. The hcuse thereupon divided, and the numbers were — For the adjournment Against it The announcement of the numbers was received with semo laughter. The SPEAKER then announced that at that hour of the night (five minutes to one), and as one-half the house was indisposed to proceed with the bill, he would give his cast ing vote for the adjournment. (Renewed laughter.) THE FINSBURY ESTATE BILL. Mr. AYRTON having moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. BRUCE said he would not oppose the motion, but he believed the bill ought not to pass without considerabl e modifications. By the measure one-half of the increased value of the Finsbury estates would be devoted to the par' ment of curates, but he thought it would be better to ap ply the money to the endowment of new districts. On the motion of an Hon. MEMBER, the house was counted, and there being only 22 members present, an ad journment took place at five minutes past one. COUNTRY MARKETS. MANCHESTER—MuusDAy. Since Monday the trade has assumed a much more ani mated tone, owing to the threatening aspect of affairs on the Continent, and both wheat and flour have sold more freely at full and improving prices. Our market th is morning was only moderately attended. Holders of wheat, both English and foreign required an advance of fully le. per qr., at which the business transacted was not large. Flour was also held for an amendment of 6d. to is. Per sack, which checked sales. Oats and oatmeal were takes slowly, at late rates. In beans or peas no change was ob servable. Indian corn was the turn lower. BIRMINGHAM—THunsDAY. During the present week the little wheat offering hag been taken off at rather over previous rates. Heavy barley scarce; light ls. lower. Beans and peas fully as dear. At this day's market there was a fair supply of English wheat, which sold readily at an advance of fully 2s. per qr., and foreign only Is. higher. Barley unaltered. Oats held for quite as much money. Beans and peas less in request. The millers raised the retail price of flour 3s. 4d. per sack. BRIS T OL—THURSDAY. Under the influence of more warlike rumours and excited reports from Mark-lane, our market to-day, with a veil short supply of wheat from farmers, was steady, at an ad vance of Li. to 2s. per qr. Foreign, I.s. per qr. higher, with a good consumptive demand. Notwithstanding very large supplies of barley, the demand is active, and prices have somewhat improved from the extreme depression of this day se'nnight. Oats in moderate supply, and trade very slow, at last week's prices. Indian corn in limited demanot and rather cheaper. EDINBURGH—WEDNESDAY. Wheat on the top, 2s Od up average, is Od up. Barley on the top, Os 6d down average, Os 2d doWn: Oats on the top, Os 3d up average, is Od up. do Beans on the top, is 6d up average, 2s ld up. Total supply and sales. Wheat 7BO qrs sold 614 Barley ,207 qrs sold 156 Oats BO5 qrs sold 57 6 • Beans 36 qrs sold 10 Average prices. Wheat, 48s lld I Oats, 30s Od Barley, 37s 10d 1 Beans 52s 2d Town-made flour sells as follows:—White, 40s 6d; est ° superfine, 37s 6d; superfine, 36s Od; fine, 35s Od. GLASGOW—WEDNESDAY. To-day's market was well attended. Wheat was 6d• dearer per 2401 b, and flour 6d. to ls. per sack, with a fat sale for consumption ; barley and peas unaltered; oats, oatmeal, peas, and Indian corn the turn cheaper. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton June 19• Ditto, via Marseilles June 13. Brazil and Cape Verde. by British packet. ..... July 4 . Ditto, by French packet Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Jane 22. China, Penang. and Singapore, via Southampton. June 19. . Ditto, via Marseilles June 13. Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton Jane 13. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton June 19. Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via Southampton. June 13. Ditto, via Marseilles .. June 7 : Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton June i 3 Ditto, via Marseilles June 23. Mauritius, via Southampton June 13 Ditto, via Marseilles June 7. Newfoundland ..s p ..... June 7. Portugal July 4 ' Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon ....... United States and British North America, by Bri tish packet ... . . June it Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp ton Ditto, via Cork Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry ..June 8• West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe _June 1 0 . West Indies and Puiflo (except Bahamas and B ondur as) Cuba and Mexico Bahamas, via New York. June 28• Bermuda, via Halifax .July 4, DEATH OF MR. MWOUGALL STUART, THE At ls° TRALIAN EXPLORER.—The death was announced yesterday of Mr. John M'Dougall Stuart, the•well-kno ve explorer of the interior of A us t ra li a . M r . Stuart was cs Scottish extraction, and was born in 1818. In early life he was engaged in business, but having determined to emi grate, he proceeded to Australia, where he settled, but was not successful in the pursuit of agriculture, to which h e devoted himself. In 1857 he made an effort to explo re the range of count r y wes t war d o f L a ke Torrens, a salt lake, or marsh, of South Australia, bending in a sew' circular form round an arid and mountainous pettintt l. In 1858 he made a second attempt, and was more for ", nate. He suffered great hardships in this exploration, 70 he succeeded in opening up a large tract of country bef oo unknown, and Lake Torrens has now been traced for 4 miles. For these services the Colonial Legislature of Ad e ' laide rewarded him with a 14 years' lease of 1,000 squ er : miles of land. In 1860 Mr. Stuart successfully effected 11l journey across the interior of Australia from south to no Ili He was an honorary fellow of the Royal Geograpbl; Societies of London and Berlin, marks of distinction Nvi lie w were conferred upon him in acknowledgment of his e° tributions to geographical science by his exploration s. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. —The following places ' 6 ', now certified to be free from disease :—Cornwall, Dev.°oll shire, Durham, Dorset, Essex, Gloucester, 11acIP s , i li A l io . ' Huntingdonshire, Herefordshire, Kent, Isleworth si a), Monmouth, Northumberland, Rutlandshire, Sussex, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Wiltshire, NVestmoreland. " II or [ADVERTISEMENT.]—That the fearful annual morta..',o 6"•,0 0 young children and delicate persons of all ages °to; arrested, if, instead of flying blindly to pills and MeV. its which, though apparently relieving the patient, nig, reality no other tendency than that of increasing deb boa and with it the clangor of life, we were simply to sttid i ,d, to Inc, ease the vital force by imparting new and pure 07108 upon which the harmonious development of the whole 1,1. depends, has been suooessfully proved by Du Barry' s itid lids' and Infants' Food, the Revalenta Arabic* , ce ,„ - fin o2ll thousands of cures annually. It yields three tittles d fOt easily assimilated nourishment as the best meat, - Dt children it is the best substitute for human mil l t 01 4 Routh, physician to the Samaritan Hospital for Vi r ec l _ m o s— 11' Children—the best authority on bitch matters —in his able publication on Food, says—Amongst the vegetabl e i t iott stances, th ,t which comes closest to milk in its con l ll o o. is, without doubt, Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica F ccu ;de 0 1 raining both phosphoric acid in abundance and chl er :0,0 11 potassium ;it also includes casein, the same principle err is found in milk in its constituent parts. No wonder, 'job fore, that under its influence many children affect ed i itl atrophy (wasting away of the body), and marked deb toot have completely recovered. I have given it with the of advantage in such oases ; and so far as I may judge tr „. ° off own experience, practice fully carries out what ' 4 ' te / from a knowledge of its composition, led us to anticiPagilb. In tins, 11b, 2s 9d; 21b, 48 6d; 51b. 11s; 121 b, 2 ? " 40 01 +OB.—Barry Dn Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, .0-000 also Phillips, tea dealers, 8, King William-street; at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, BishePersos- j; street Within ; 63, 150, and 298, Oxford-street ; 330 ' ° A t. 9d ' 54, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-court - r O O OO Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, Notting- 1111 " t ' Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen's-ten 7 o be • John's-wood. London; and all respectable grocers mists.—Beware of emulous imitations. Births. p y ja GEDDES—On the 6th inst., at Dover, the wife Of Geddes, 44th Regiment, of a son. C apt . KNox—On the 6th inst., at Southsea, the wife Of , 1 , of S. Knox, V.C., Prince Consort's Own Rifle B ri g s-- daughter. ov oor MAxwELL---On the 6th inst., at 128, Park-street , Oro square, W., Lady Anna S. Maxwell, of a sou. ~jfe Of SPITTY—On the 4th inst., at Billericay, Essex, t he Major Spitty, of twins—son and daughter. Marriages. st 4 , 11 6 1 11 STANLEY—EDWARDS—On the 7th inst., at - • 0 Knightsbridge, Hans S. Stanley, Esq., late of th %op (Queen's) Hussars, only son of W. H. S. Stat!l e 2 s oe i la of Paultons, Hampshire, to Emilie Josephi y ," o e, 0 . 9 daughter of Francis Edwards, Esq., of Eaton-Pt' " Pickerage, Bucks. Obl irePt WIIITE—STANHoPE—On the 6th inst., at Eccles hil L Arthur Robson, younge r son o f th e late J. W l rciae% of Upperwood House, Apperley-bridge, to Leu t ,ides ter of Lieut.-Col. S. St an h ope, of --- Deaths. 10 1111 hull ATHERTON—On the sth i ns t. at at Mal, Lanette'' Atherton, Esq., aged 86. • BELDAM —On the 6th inst. at at Royston, je- -° "'- t i tra , - - " ticila Esq., F.R.G.S., P.S.A , barrister -at-law, of _tridget Temple, J.P. for the Counties of HertfozleadoN)B%Boo and Chairman of the Royston Bench, EAMES—On the sth inst., at Dunstable, Bede , „ W . • j' d .401•1 Esq., Lieutenant of the 4th Beds RN., age fjo atb" RICHARDSON—On the 6th inst , at her residence, Anne, relict of the late John. Richardson e ,l e s q rrace , RUE—On the 7th inst., at 84, West bourn park, Thomas De La Rue, Esq., T ,i n cole S WlLsoN—On the sth inst., at Bauceby tu t " , `" Anthony Wilson, Esq., aged 55. London: Printed and Published by VVILLIAJ!-::. , 00. qt of No. 112, Strand, Punter, at Toff Surf Ofrootint7 Strand, in the Precinct of the SaPoy, in T l. Middleser..—Friday, June 8, 1868. I XOl , Jo' lie bl:w se ve th er a lly or 1, 13 - e l'er E of tt 11 041' 21 1„ A , Ae, Ant or4 ot Qal ~h; ii Di