The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING. The LORD CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented 40 petitions against this bill, and said that he had already presented 00 petitions on the same subject. THE IRISH CHURCH. _ _ . The Earl of BELAIORE presented a petition against any interference with the funds of the Established Church in Ireland. - PRIVATE BITSINESS. - _ The Paisley Water Bill was read a second time. The Southgate and Colney Hotel Gas Bill, and the Manchester Royal Exchange Bill were severally read a third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL Earl RUSSELL, moved that the house should go into committee on this bill. The noble lord, who was almost inaudible, was understood to say that he wished to cor rect some errors of a verbal character in the bill, and ac cepted the amendment which had been proposed. The LORD CHANCELLOR made some observations bearing on the legal construction of some of the terms of the bill which bad reference to the amendment alluded to by the noble lord. The house then went into committee on the bill, and clause 1 was agreed to. The Marquis of BATH moved an amendment with re ference to the admission of Jews into Parliament, but it was negatived without a division. Lord CHELMSFORD then moved a proviso, saving the supremacy of the Crown. Lord CAMOYS, as a Roman Catholic, did not object to the amendment personally, but he feared that many of his co-religionists would regard it as making them parties to a declaration of the supremacy of the Crown. • Lord CHELMSFORD contended that the Royal supremacy was an essential part of the Sovereign's pre rogative. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII would vote for the amendment, although he had no doubt that it would not be long before there would be a proposal to repeal it. Earl GREY believed that no substantial advantage would accrue from passing the proviso. Earl RUSSELL accepted the amendment as a compro mise, and expressed his appreciation of the course taken by noble lords in not raising a factious opposition to the bill. The Earl of DERBY hoped there was no foundation for the apprehension uttered by Lord Ellenborough that there would hereafter be an attempt made to disturb the settle ment provided by the bill. The proviso was then agreed to, and the bill passed through committee. The Cattle Contagious Diseases Bill and the Cattle sheds in Burghs (Scotland) Bill were also passed through committee, and the standing orders having been suspended were read a third time and passed. _ _ _ The remainder of the sitting was occupied by a discus sion on tho state of the Court of the Queen's Bench in Ireland and Chief Justice Lefroy's capacity to continue in the discharge of his judicial duties, and the subject of breech-loading small arms. Their lordships ajourned at a quarter past eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LIST EVEN VG. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The fqllowing bills were read a third time and passed:— Bridgewater and Taunton Canal and Bristol and Exeter Railway, Ross and Cromarty Road; Stourbridge Gas Act Amendment, Tain Water, and Wrexham and Minera Railway. HORSHAM ELECTION. The report of the Horsham Election Committee was brought up by the Chairman ; it was to the effect that Mr. It. W. Hurst, the sitting member, was duly elected. PO OR REL IEF. Mr. CHAMBERS asked the President of the Poor-law Board whether it was his intention, and if so when, to in- troduce a bill into Parliament founded on the recommen. dations of the select committees on poor relief, in reference to the religious rights of inmates of workhouses ; and further, if such be his intention, to ask that he would give sufficient notice of the same for boards of guardians, unions, and parishes to have the opportunity of express- t ing their opinions upon such an important measure. Mr. VILLIERS said at the close of the last session he introduced a bill for the amendment of the poor law, and in it were clauses relating to the subject mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman. lie intended to reintroduce the bill this session, and full time would be allowed all parties to consider its provisions. CHOLERA. Sir J. C. JERVOISE asked the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the attention of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council had been di rected to a statement in the newspape,rs that the Emp6ror and Empress of the French had visited the cholera hospi tins in Paris, and that M. Gustave Girard had made experi meats in demonstration of the non-infectious nature of the cholera ? Mr. BRUCE said the medical officer of the Privy Couu . 'cil,likeUther persons, had seen an account of the merito rious act performed by the illustrious personages referred to, and also to the daring experiments performed by 31. Girard,. who had placed a portion of the perspiration from the brow of a man who had died from cholera to the tip of . his tongue ; but such an-act 'did not prove conclusively that cholera was non-infections. The steps taken by the French Government by directing strict quarantine against cholera in the East showed that they were as much alive to the dangers of cholera as the English Government. PRUSSIA AND SAXON Y. Sir H. VERNEY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government had gua ranteed to Prussia the portion of Saxony united to her dominions by the treaty of Vienna ; and whether, in case Prussia should now engage in war, that guarantee would be upheld ? Mr. LAYARD said it was well known by the 17th article of the Treaty of Vienna that this country did guarantee that portion of Saxony to Prussia. In the event. of war it would be the duty of the Government of her Ma jesty to consult the co-guarantees, which was to be done if war occurred. Of course he could not at that moment say what would be done. THE TREATY WITH FRANCE. Mr. COWEN asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the peculiar circumstances connected with the treaty of commerce between this country and France which disinclined her Majesty's Government to claim from the French Government the same commercial privileges as those which had been accorded to Monaco ? Mr. M. GIBSON said there was nothing in the treaty with France to disincline her Majesty's Government de manding the same privileges accorded to Monaco. It was the cpinion of the Government that such a course w3uld be an extreme assertion of our rights. As the matter was of no importance, her Majesty's Government had not thought it right to claim them. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY. Mr. CRAWFORD asked the President of the Board of Trade if it had been proposed or was intended to carry the Metropolitan District Railway along the whole or any part of the Thames Embankment between Westminster and Blackfriars-bridges, in an open cutting instead of a tunnel or covered way underground. Mr. GIBSON said a large portion of the railway would certainly have to be constructed by tunnel ; but a letter had appeared in the newspapers that day stating that about one-eighth of a mile would have to be constructed in an open cutting. Beyond that he could not give any further information. FICTITIOUS SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS. Mr. FERRAND said it had come to his knowlege that a great number of fraudulent signatures had been appended to a petition presented to the house in favour of the Re form Bill from the village of Arden, in Yorkshire. He contended that a gross breach of the privileges of the house had been committed, and the petition therefore ought to be referred to a select committee in order that the whole matter might be there thoroughly inquired into. A short discussion took place, whichiterminated by the motion being withdrawn, on notice given to make the motion on another occasion in conformity with the rules of the house. THE REFORM BILL—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. The adjecurned discussion on the second reading of the Reform Bill was resumed by Mr. GRAHAM, wh o said ho was quite sensible of the impatience of the hoes, to hear the opinions of persons of . more weight than himself, but he could not lose the op portunity of expressing his views upon the matter without . considering it a neglect of duty. He was of opinion that the bill was just in principle, although he could not but say there were some defects in it which he could but wish had not been the case—he alluded to the disfran chisement of dockyard artisans and the savings bank quali fication. He bad said the bill was just i n principle— (hear, hear) — he furt her thou g ht it w as moderate in scope, an d one calculated to co n fer a g rea t and lasting benefit on a great number of her Majesty's subjects. (Bear, hear.) He was of opinion that the objections of the great party who occu pied the opposite benches were alto " ' gether fallacious, and he could not at all agree with the hon. and gallant member for Huntingdon. He had de ' noutced the measure brought forward by the Govern ment as blind, precipitate. :and reckless; but instead of that he thought it w as wise, prudent, and satisfactory. ITe could not agree with many ofthe right hon. gentlem en on the other side of the house, because they differed from the opinion that had teen expressed by the leader when he on the part of the Government of Lord Derby introduced a bill for the amendment of the franchise. When he brought forward the subject he declared that the Government proposed by the vote they introduced to confine the scope of the - measure to England and Wales, leaving that for Scotland and that for Ireland for another occasion. (Hear, hear.) And now that her Majesty's Government proposed to do that they were blamed for not introdecing a broad and comprehen sive measure for the United Kingdom. The numbers pro- posed by the right hon. gentleman opposite to enfranchise were extensive, yet he declared that supposing they were twice as large, provided it was right and expedient, they ought to be admitted to the suffrage, and now, forsooth, because the measure of the Government proposed to enfranchise 400,000, they, the Opposition, thought the constitution was in danger. He did not think that if some men of - violent and extreme views obtained a seat in the house it could be considered as a calamity ; on the contrary, he though it would be a great good, because he would soon find his views and feelings undergo a change. He did not thinll that any danger was to be apprehended from increasing the number entitled to the franchise conse quent upon the lowering of the qualification. He did not think it was alarming, and it was only those who struggled for vested interests who thought so. He advised the house to accept the measure proposed by the Government, because it was founded on justice. He felt certain that on the house dividing the majority would be found to be on the side of her Majesty's Government. Lord ELCHO said, according to his notion, the Govern ment had treated the matter of reform with too much haste ; he might almost say indecent haste. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told theca that they had twelve days to pull the bill to pieces and put it together again—(laugh ter) and six of those days had already gone. He must say he saw with alarm the wild senti mentalisms with which the bill was supported. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Southwark had said he was an enemy to all reform—he denied it. (Hear, hear.) Why he supported the measure of reform brought for ward by Lord Derby, when other persons who called themselves consistent Liberals strongly opposed it. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had twitted him (Lord Elcho) before Easter with feeling strongly on this question. He admitted that he did feel strongly, because he dreaded the impulsive, fragmentary, and hasty way in which the Government appeared inclined to deal with this vital question. Above all was he alarmed at the wild seu: timentality with which the bill was defended in default of argument. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped the house would not believe that it was a feeling of egotism which led him to refer to his own position with reference to this ques tion. The tactics of the Government were to damage their _ _ opponents by stating things which could not be maintained. (Opposition cheers.) His course, though it might not have been wise, had been consistent, and certainly it had been dictated to him by his own conscience only. He sup ported the Reform Bill of Lord Derby when all the Libe rals opposed it. (Opposition cheers.) If the Reform ques tion was not settled in 1859, it was not the fault of himself amongst others, but of the course of action taken by the great majority of the Liberal party. On the hustings he had advocated the settlement of the Reform question. In his addresses he had advocated the settlement of this question. During the past year he had opposed the bill of the hon. member for Leeds because it would hare been a --- ---- ---___ ___ fragmentary settlement, and he was happy to say that the course of the Government since had justified what was then done, as they were opposed to the £6 franchise, which had been successfully resisted last year. He said then that he was not opposed to Reform. All that he wanted was that there should be an inquiry into the question, so that they might be quite sure of the nature of the grothml on which they were invited to tread. It was on that grUund that he had moved for a commission of inquiry. Refer- ring then to the allegation that the course adopted on the subject of the amendment had been dictated by a feeling of hostility to the Government, the noble lord said that Earl Russell, at the recent meeting, had made a state ment which, when he read it, had astonished him not a little. He said, " I inquired of a gentleman whom I considered well informed Whether Lord Elcho intended to propose, as last year, that there should be a commission in order to obtain information with regard to all the per- sons who might be in possession of the franchise, and the answer given was No—that intention is given up because _ _ _ it is believed the Government will be got rid of without having recourse to that measure." Now, if there was any _ _ _ . meaning in words, the impression which the Prime Minister meant to convey to the meeting was that he (Lord Elcho) had brought forward the measure in a spirit of hostility to the Government. Now what were the facts of the case? ,He came to London to attend Lord Palmerston's funeral, and happening to meet a member of the Government, that gentleman remarked that he thought a good deal of the Royal Commission which he had suggested for inquiry into the franchise, and asked him to put in writing his reasons for the COmmission. He went home and spew the best part of a night writing his- reasons.. He did so not in any hostile spirit, but in the interest of the country as much as of the Government. He heard that Lord Russell had seen the paper he prepared, and the re- suit was the electoral returns which had been laid on the table, and a friend of his said, " I think these returns will take the wind out of Elcho's sails." (Laughter.) He had since made inquiry into the matter, and ascertained that Lord Russell had seen the paper. As an humble mem ber of Lord Aberdeen's Government he could never forget that Lord Russell, the present Prime Minister, loft that Government in the face of a threatened hostile motion by an hon. member who sat opposite. He was ready to admit, however, that Lord Russell was one of the most distin guished statesmen the country had ever seen, and that no man had done more for liberty and the good government of the empire. He would, therefore, only say upon this' point that he was surprised that Lord Russell, with the knowledge of the spirit in which he knew 'the paper was written, should have expriefeed himself as he did at the meeting in Downing-strtet, and still mordthat he should have spoken of him in salt a manner in his absence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing in this bill, laid great stress upon the fact that the subject of reform had been mentioned in many Queen's speeches, and that a great many Governments had introduced a Reform Bill, and the right hon. gentleman ended by saying that Par liament was pledged upon the question of reform. Many people, he thought, might say that this argument about the question having been agitated for 14 years rather cut the other way, because if there had been any urgent necessity for the measure, or any desire for it on the part of the country, there would not have been fourteen months' agitation for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said Parliament was pledged on the subject. On the contrary, he maintained that Parliament was not _pledged: (Opposition cheers.) What were his grounds for denying that Parliament was pledged ? During the debate on the bill of the hon. member for Leeds, the Home Secretary (Sir G. Grey) distinctly asserted that the Government of Lord Palmerston did not go to the country upon the question of reform; or, in the words of the right hon. gentleman, "We are not pledged, and do not intend to ask the support of the country, as the advocates of a great measure of Parliamentary Reform. We are not pre pared to go to the country as the advocates of a measure of Parliamentary Reform, without reserving to ourselves the discretion to act upon that matter as upon all others as the interest of the country demands." - (Cheers and counter cheers.) The right hon. gentleman, in his speech on the hustings, justified the course taken by Lord Palmerston's Government on the Reform question, on the ground of the disinclination of Parliament and the apathy of the country with regard to it. In the election address of the late Prime Minister there was not one word, from beginning to end, with reference to Reform ; and when the noble lord was asked upon the hustings why he was not for Reform, his answer, as given by his hon. friend, was, "Because we are not geese." (A laugh.) He had seen an analysis of the Liberal members in the present Parliament last September, which showed that the Liberals who expressed themselves in favour of Reform numbered 160—that the Liberals who made no declaration on the subject amounted to 165—(a laugh)—and that the supporters of Lord Palmerston were 42—making a total of 367 members. .Now his authority for this statement was the Leeds Mercury. (Renewed laughter.) All these things tended to show that, so long as Lord Pal merston was aline, there would be no Reform. Under his judicious and calm leadership there was no chance of Reform ; axd when the hon. member for Birmingham was invited to go down to Glasgow to agitate the ques tion, his answer was that it was no use trying it on as long as Lord Palmerston lived. (Hear, hear.) Unhappily Lord Palmerston died, and peace appeared to die with him. Lord Russell became Prime Minister, agitation succeeded, and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leader of the House of Commons, went and stumped it in the provinces. (Opposition cheers.) The eloquence of his right hon. friend was un rivalled in that house, and he would advise him to con fine it to th a t h ouse i ns t ea d of stumping it in the pro vinces, and following in the steps of a person he could name. (O h, oh.) H e h a d t wo o bj ec ti ons t o th e bill, fi rs t because it was a f ranc hi se bill ; an d secon dl y, b ecause while it meant one thing he was confident it would do another. (Hear, hear.) It professed to be a bill for en franchising working men. The working man had been the stock argument of Reform agitators for many years past, and was supposed to have no voice in the representation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Liverpool, last autumn, that he did not know whether there were 50,000 or 100,000 working men on the register. The Prime Mini ster lately said the working man had no representation, and the hon. member for Leeds said their number was so small as to have no appreciable weight in the representa tion. (Hear, hear.) He had always doubted this, and now they had it on the authority of the electoral returns, that more than one-fourth of the working classes possessed the franchise. He thought they should pause before they made any change which would give a preponderance in the constitution to one class of the people. He believed there was danger in this, and that the electoral returns showed there was necessity for caution. Lord Russell, in the introduction to his work on the Constitution, did not support the doctrine of the abstract right of individuals to the franchise, but laid it down that the problem to be solved was good government and best means of attaining it. The hon. member for Westminster, in the retirement of the study, h a d wr i tten forcibly on the evils w hi c h m i g h t arise from giving a preponderance of power to the working classes with regard to matters affecting wages and labour. Reform,ln 1848 Mr. Cob upon the ground advocated grnundo the Mr.great y oti f o o n r for an alteration of taxation, and said that the instinct of selfish ness on the part of the working classes would induce them to place taxation upon realised property. The Chancel lor of the Exchequer said his object was to place the working men in boroughs on an equality with the other classes. That might be very well in 1866, but how would THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 20, 1866. it be in 1876 ? That was the point upon which he wanted information, but the right hon. gentleman would not give it. Indeed, he had been laughed at when he asked what the effect of the bill would be in the future. He hoped it would not be supposed that in voting against this bill he was the enemy of the working classes. He only voted against it because he saw danger in giving a pre- ponderance of power to any class. Justice to all, prepon derance to none, was his motto. His noble friend who moved the amendment did so in a manner so straightfor- ward and manly that it was not necessary for those who followed him to justify the course they were pursuing. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend the Under-Secretary for . . . Foreign Affairs told them the other night that he (Lord Elcho) would not let him answer the speech of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). Mr. LAYARD—I said, gentlemen opposite will not allow me. Lord ELCHO—He would remind the house that his honourable friend began by saying, with the utmost self complacency—(Opposition cheers and laughter) - that he intended to answer the argument of the noble lord. _(op- position ironical cheers.) However, he very soon left the noble lord and took to Smith the plasterer—(great'laugh ter)—and the temptations to which he was exposed, pray ing that Smith might be delivered from these temptations. Well, he was sure . there was scarce a single member pre sent listening to his hon. friend who did not earnestly pray that he might be delivered from Smith the plasterer. (Great laughter.) The truth was that valuable and useful as were the services of his hon. friend in digging Assyrian antiquities out of the mud—(cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches) —no one was more ready than he was to do honour to his hon. friend for the signal services he had rendered to the country in digging Assyrian antiquities out of the mud—still, valuable as had been his services in that respect, it must be owned he was not exactly the per- son to pick this proposal of the Government out of the mud. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) But, in default of argument, the Government had resorted, first, to defa mation of their opponents—(loud cheers) —secondly, they threatened them with the - fear of their constituents ; thirdly, they cried out for fealty to party. (Hear, hear.: The opponents of the bill were said to be actuated by in. terested and sinister motives; and his right hon. friend the member for Caine was especially charged. Now, he might mention that about the time the bill of 1864 was in troduced, his right hon. friend and himself were in the habit of walking home together from their respective offices. The bill of 1854 proposed a £6 franchise, and upon that occasion he remembered well his right hon. friend and himself both made up their minds to leave office rather than vote for a proposal which, in their belief, might give a preponderance to one class Of the community. (Cheers.) The year before the present his met his right hon. friend in the lobby on the Franchise Bil 4 division, and when he called upon him to fight that bill, his right hon. friend replied at once, " Al though it was - Contrary to his interests as a party man to do so, yet he felt so strongly upon the question of a £6 fran chise that he would do his best to throw the bill out." (Cheeri.) The only thing against his right hon. friend was that he had voted against the proposal of tfie Derby Go vernment. (Ironical cheers.) But his right hon. friend frankly owned that upon that occasion he acted with his party. (Loud ironical cheers on the Ministerial benches.) Well, let those who found fault with his right hon. friend for acting with his party on this occasion throw the first stone. (Opposition cheers.) Let it not be forgotten that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the pro posal of Lord Derby, he was himself now bringing forward one of very much the same character. (Cries of "No, no," rorn the Ministerial benches, with Opposition cheers. Therefore, on the score of consistency, the two right hon, gentlemen might pair off. But then some of them on that side of the house were described as Adullamites because they were discontented. Well, he might say they were dis contented, and they were discontented because they dreaded the tyranny of the Saul on the Treasury bench, backed by bis armour-bearer behind him. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) That was the improper motive which had driven them into that Cave of Adullam, where they were a happy family, daily, nay, hourly increasiag in numbers, and where they would remain until they went forth to de liver Israel from tyranny and oppression. (Renewed cheers.) Rut the Treasury screw had been also brought to bear, and recalcitrant members were threatened with the fear of their constituents. That had been applied, in some cases, with great severity ; and he must say he did not know a more pitiable spectacle than that preseuted by the right hon. member for Gateshead (Sir W. Hutt) — (great laughter and cheers on the Opposition benches) — who, haying been submitted to this torturing process, now lay upon the floor of the house a crumpled mass of withered lags and dislocated joints. (Prolonged laughter.) Valuing as he did the privilege of a seat in that house, he would ask where was the honour confeired thereby if those two letters which were appended to their names be came only symbols of moral degradation ? (Cheers.) Well, then, in respect of the fear of their constituents, it was evident their choice lay between a cave and a hut - (great laughter)-between Adullam and Gateshead. (Re newed laughter.) Ho could not doubt the alternative which all independent men would adopt if this screw were turned on. (Cheers.) At the same time, if he were pledged up to the eyes on the question of Reform, be should have no fear of his constituents in giving his vote upon the amendment. (Hear, hear.) That amendment was a protest against the rash and fragmentary manner in 'which the Government proposed to deal with the queStion of Reform ; but it was something more : it was also a pro test against the Government asking for confidence from followers in whom they showed no confidence. (Hear, hear.) Then with respect to tho cry of "fealty to party." His right bon. friend told the country that he brought forward his proposals in a fragmentary manner, because he knew the people he had to deal with. (Ironical cries of "Hear, hear.") It seemed to him his right hon. friend had made a great mistake. The' very way he brought in that bill, and the language of the press, showed very clearly that he did not know the people he bad to deal with. Indeed, some on that side of the house felt that so strongly that at any risk they felt called upon to vote for the amendment (eheers)-and let not his right hon. friend think that they were a mere fraction of the party. On the contrary, he fearlessly asserted that if the majority of the members on that side of the house only spoke as they felt they would speak as he had done. (Opposition cheers.) And though they might follow the right hon. gentleman into the lobby, there would be a grudging, a hesitating, and a sulky alle giance ; while he might rest assured they would not forget what he had done. (Renewed cheers.) He protested against the attempt to coerce them. (Cheers.) In con cluding, he wished to say a few words with reference to the position of the Moderate Liberals upon this question. Last year he had ventured to point out that he believed the time must come when the moderate men on the Liberal side of the house could no longer act cordially with the extreme section of the Liberal party. There was a small section of most honest and sincere and able men, who honestly held extreme opinions, which they took every opportunity of pressing upon the house and the country. They heard a talk of conspiracies; but the greatest rebel he knew-the greatest conspirator since the days of Ceti line-was the hon. member for Brighton (Mr. White). What was the policy of this extreme section, so far as could be gathered from their speeches ? It was this. To establish in this country so powerful a House of Commons -a house so democratic in its nature that ho believed the balance of the constitution would be upset. As regarded questions of property, the policy of this party was the abolition of .the law of primogeniture-(hear, hear, from the Oppositip,n)-and the breaking-up and division of large estates. (Ms. Bright-No, no.) He could not, of course, quote exact passage, but a pamphlet had lately been printed by the hon. member for Birmingham containing an authorised revision of his speeches. These, however, it would seem the hon. member did not like when he saw them altogether, so he bought them up. (Loud laughter.) Mr. BRIGHT-I may, perhaps, sir, be allowed to say that there is not a word of truth in what the hon. member has said. (Renewed laughter.) Lord ELCHO was glad the hon. member had given this the most direct contradiction. All he (Lord Elcho) knew, however, was that he had tried to get a copy - (Mr. Bright -So have I) - but have not been able to do so. However, if the speeches were so popular, and were so eagerly bought up, there was great necessity that such dangerous opinions should be met. To continue what he was on the point of saying when he was interrupted. The policy of the ex treme Liberal section as regarded the Church was a com plete severance of Church and State--(Hear, hear, from Opposition)-and as respected taxation they desired to put it all upon realised property, and relieve all other descrip tions. Now, if that was the programme of this extreme section, he should like to know whether it was also the programme of the large majority of the Liberal party. Ile believed the policy of the Government tended in this direc tion. (Cheers from the Opposition.) His noble friend (Earl Grosvenor) had raised a standard in order to rally those who felt that this was not a policy which would con duce to the permanent prosperity' of this country, but that it was rather subversive of the present stateof things. He had raised his standard, and by so doing he had laid himself open to much obloquy and abuse. Should he succeed, as he (Lord Elcho) conscientiously believed he would do, in carrying his amendment-(loud cheers from the Opposi tion) -he was certain of this, that a very short time would elapse after his success before those very men who were giving a faltering support to the Government would thank him for what ho had done. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) He had been the means of saving what was necessary and desirable in that house-the existence of the Moderate Liberals. He would, therefore, make an appeal to those gentlemen on the opposite side - he would paraphrase words which he had heard in that house-he would appeal to them not to sup port a policy which tended to Americanise our institutions - (cries of Oh, oh)-and to change our kingly common wealth with all its liberties into a democratic tyranny (loud cheers from the Oppositiou)-he would appeal to them not by their hands-for by their hands alone could it be done- to help to unmoor the constitution of these lands from its strong fastenings in the past, from its safe ancho rage in the present, and let it drift at least two thousand miles towards the west. (Opposition cheers.) Sir W. HUTT replied to various criticisms and unjust misrepresentations to which he had been exposed. He ac cused Emil Melee of having given way to the cry of fana tical partisanship. 110 maintained that the position he had occupied in reference to the amendment which he had put on the paper and withdrawn subsequently was not in any way hostile. The measure was, in his opinion, a salutary _ _ and Conservative one, and as such he should give it his cordial support. Mr. B. HOPE felt much opposed to the modern system of petting and patronising working men, and patting them on the back ; and he felt sure that they themselves equally disliked it. The Government had not been exempt from this cardinal fault. They had treated the working man something after the fashion of a converted African chief at a pious tea party. The proper course would have been to have introduced a measme to give the suffrage to the elite of the artisan body, instead of the present measure, which was a blundering, mechanical, hasty, and tinkering at- 6rapt at legislation. Mr. T. HUGHES rose to give his hearty support to the Government on the Franchise Bill, and, before proceeding to explain his reasons for giving them that support, he was sure ha should not say an unpleasant thing to the house when he stated that it was not his intention to quote the opinions of any hen. member and to show that they bad changed. (Hear, hear.) He thought that in the present times, when the faith of men, whether religious, political, or social, was being winnowed in a manner which was evi dence of a very remarkable crisis, it was often not a proof of strength, but of weakness, for a man to hold on to the same opinions, or, as they might be called, prejudices. It was desirable that a man in early life should have fixed principles and should adhere to them, but a strong man knew that he needed not to care about preserving one opi- nion, because he was aware that he had a principle in his mind to go to from which he could derive another opinion; but the weak man, if he lost one set of opinions, did not know, having no principle in his mind, where to go for another set. Ile gave his support to the bill exactly for the reason on account of which the noble lord thesmember for --- Haddingtonshire opposed it. The noble lord opposed the bill because it was merely a Franchise Bill, and the right hon. member for Warwickshire asked what was the mean- ing of the Government in bringing in that measure. He apprehended the meaning of it was precisely this—that the advanced or extreme Liberal party, as it was called, of whom he was a humble member, had at last found a Government who said, " The really important question, the one important question for tho country at the present time, is Reform—and the important part of that question, the part without which all the other parts have no mean ing for us at this moment, is the question of the suffrage." (Hear, hear.) That was exaetly the reason why he ten dered his humble support to the Government on that oc casion. The Liberals should be glad at having at length discovered a Government determined to look the ques tion of Reform in the face, and with the wisdom to see what was the vital portion of Reform at the presen time. He had been inclined to think that even a lower borough franchise than that now proposed would have been better, and that the Liberal members might perhaps be wise in still agitating for and endeavouring to obtain a yet lower borough franchise. An evening or two after the introduction of that measure he met an influen tial man among the trades' union men and the artisans of London—an inhabitant of his borough, but not a voter and on asking him what he thought of the Government bill, the man replied, " Well, sir, it will bring in a good bit _ _ of the best of us." Nothing stronger than that could be said in favour of the measure. It would bring in " a good bit of the best" of the artisans and mechanics of that city and the northern cities; and on that very ground it ought to be looked upon with favour by hon. gentlemen opposite if they really desired a moderate measure. Why, even in the estimates of hon. gentlemen opposite the utmost number whom it would enfranchise could net exceed some2oo,ooo of the best mechanics and artisans of the kingdom. It really seemed to him to be extremely insincere talk to say, as the hon. member for Stoke had done, that such a limited mea sure as that would open the floodgates to democracy, or indeed open them to anything except a great improvement in our representative system. (Hear.) When he heard, he would not say the howls, but the noise with which certain sentiments that he could not deem revolutionary were re ceived on the other side of the house, he confessed that he had asked himself whether he was one of those who desired to upset that British Constitution which had lasted 700 years according to some gentlemen, 600 years according to others, and only since 1832 according to one hon. member on the Ministerial side. (Hear, and a laugh.) Did he, because he warmly supported that bill, wish to marry two wives, or to partition the property of the noble mover and seconder of the amendment? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire was perpetually say ing that he conscientiously did this and conscientiously did that. Well, he could conscientiously say for himself that his-earnest desire was to preserve that common England of theirs, in which the rich man had no greater stake than the poor man, and to hand it down to their children as good a country as they had themselves found it. (Hear, hear.) That bill, if passed, would have a considerable effect in' bringing about that result. The resistance to the measure came fom gentlemen the uprightness of whoso intentions he had no reason to doubt ; but when they spoke of opposing that " political cataract," he could not help feeling that they were just the persons on whom that cataract would not fall. Those who would have to meet the first burst of its fury, when the floodgetca vi democracy v. rro opened, were men like the hon. baronet the member for the West Riding (Sir F. Crossley) and his hon. friend the member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), than whom no better friends of the artisans and mechanics of this country, and no men who knew them better or were more trusted by them, though they were both masters, existed in England. Surely, therefore, hon. gen tlemen opposite might think twice before they indulged such idle fears, when they saw i wo such men, who ought to dread these mischiefs if they had any reality in them, coming for ward, not only to support that bill, but to say they would hail with pleasure a considerably larger measure of .Reform in the same direction. (Rear, hear.) The hon. member for Northumberland had contended that the mechanic and arti san class were already well represented in that house, but the hon. gentleman would never have made that assertion if he had been as immediatelyacquainted with that class as he and many other members were. He entirely agreed with the statement of his hon. friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that neither his hon. friend, nor himself, nor any other member of that house could really and efficiently represent the working men of our great towns. No man could ever do so except one who had lived and was living with them, who was sharing their ideas and also their privations. If the house would allow so young a member as himself to cri ticise it in one point, he would say its fault, as far as re presenting any class of the community went, was its exces sive solvency. (A laugh.) The House of Commons was sometimes spoken of as a body whose members owned he knew not how many thousands a year each. Whether that was the fact or not he could not tell ; but it was impossible that those who lived in the affluence and luxury which the majority of that house enjoyed could really represent that great class in the country who had no accumulated property except a fund which belonged not only to them but to all their fellow subscribers in common, such as the funds of the trades-unions and the friendly societies, or some other joint funds, and who, unless they had some share in such a fund, had nothing beyond- the small quan tity of furniture in their humble dwellings which they could really call their own, and had to rely ex clusivelyupOn the labour of their hands from day to day for the support of themselves and their families. That, to anybody at all familiar with those classes, made a chasm which was utterly impassible to bridge over, however much they might wish to do it. The condition of their lives, the way-in which they endeavoured to meet those conditions, and also the principles of their lives, were all entirely different from of hon. gentleman in that house. Let him for a mo ment say the plain truth on these subjects. Those who took an interest in social and political subjects had im bibed what were called sound notions of political economy. They had read the regular text-books ; they -had a certain number of faiths which they held to almost religiously. They believed entirely and absolutely in the law of supply and demand as a law of nature which nothing could really and permanently interfere with. They believed that to buy cheap and sell dear was the rule by which all trade must be conduetea ; and they believed that the commodity 'of labour was just as much an object of barter as a bale of cotton or a bar of iron. They had also 'read "Darwin," and books of that kind. They knew that the big' fish must always eat the little one, and that small persons must dis appear before the larger. These beliefs were almost all ac cepted by the persons who sent representatives to that house, but the beliefs of those men whose admission to that house was now questioned were far less sound. They would, be called by the noble lord the member for Stamford senti mental rant, and he was afraid many of them would throw a shade of sadness on the !ace of the hon. member for Westminster, because those beliefs were, first and foremost, that such a thing was attainable as a fair price for labour. They did not believe in what was called the " higgling" of the market. They believed that labour—the work of living men—could not be subject tc the same laws as a mere bale of goods or a bar of iron. They believed, further, that it was the duty of the strong man in their trades to support the weak to a great extent, end that was the foundation of the unions of which he world speak presently. They be lieved, again, in the organisation of labour. These faiths might frighten some hon. members, but they were not visionary. He was not say,ng they were right or wrong, but they were held by far the largest portion of society. And were they to say they - mould not admit them there and let their ideas come into fair collision with their own ? Would it not much more colduco to the good of the coun try and make them wiser unn, if they could have their re presentatives—men who redly and heartily accepted those beliefs—to state them to Out house ? Twenty years ago these ideas would have been called chimeras; but what had these men done within the last few years ? First as to the organisation of labour : wiat was the state of the trades' unions ? Up to this very iihe these trades' unions woreac tually outside the law. They could not be fully registered as friendly societies, and therefore were not assisted as other combinations were by the law of the country. Yet, in the face of this fact, what litd they done ? He would men tion one with which he hadbeen familiar for many years— which had become one of tie most extraordinary organisa tions that had over been bought together by men in their position in the world. Tht Amalgamated Society of Engi neers consisted of 32,000 hembers— all skilled mechanics. It had a reserve fund of £/,5,000, £30,000 of which was in vested in Post-office savings banks. It paid £l,OOO a week in its different benefits, It had branches not only in every great town in England, but also in our colonies and in the United States. Now, when they considered that this orga nisation had been worked out by men not only unenfran- chisel, but many of them illiterate, under every difficulty _ _ with which man could have to contend, he asked could such an organisation have been carried out by men of any other class in the country more successfully or brought to a more brilliant conclusion? Again, the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, which had only been founded a few years, had already 150 branches, and during last year spent £ll,OOO or £12,000 in benefits to its members. That was the society which had frightened exceedingly the leading journal in this country. It was said they wanted nine hours' wages for eight hours' work, and they wanted many other nefarious projects of that kind. But, looking at the average of their earnings, who did not feel that it was not unnatural they should have made such efforts to obtain a small advance on their wages? The average weekly earnings of the men belonging to the building trades in London were from 275. to 28s. a week, and when it was considered that within a few years they had doubled and trebled the property of this great town—when it was considered they had doubled the property of the noble lord who moved the present amendment, he thought they need not grudge them their success in having been able to ob tain some little advance, perhaps Is. 6d. a week, in consi deration of what they bad done and the intelligence they had shown. The building trades were a highly paid class of workmen, yet their wages throughout the country did not reach 275. a week. They were told by those who op posed the Government bill that these men could, with ave rage prudence, gain for themselves the suffrage under the present £lO qualification. Supposing a workman had em ployment for 48 or 49 weeks in the year (for allowance must be made for sickness, travelling to find work, and other things), taking his average earnings at 275. a week, to come in under the present franchise he would be spend ing an amount on his house which, proportionately, they themselves would not be justified in spending on house rent. Unless, therefore, Parliament lowered the present suffrage, they were calling on the greater portion of the mechanics to spend more on their mere housing than they had a right, as honest men and with a due regard to the claims of their wives and families, to expend. (Hear.) The mechanics and artisans of England had endeavoured to work out their principles—wbether true or false—first by trades unions, and secondly, by their different co-operative societies. The amount of intelligence and self-sacrifice which they had brought to the solution of the problem of co-operative so cieties was sufficient to put to shame all other classes of society. These societies were constituted and carried out upon sounder principles than trade was now usually con ducted in this country. They absolutely prohibited credit; they restored the system of ready money, and they gave a healthy tone to trade, which it had too much lost of late years. These societieshadat all events proved theesincerity and the honest belief of those who promoted them. They had proved that the working men were ready to make sa crifices for their principles, and that the strong were ready to come to the help of the weak. The best men among them had said that they would not leave their class but lift it, and this was the remarkable feature of their organi sation. Many hon. members had read books like that writ ten by Mr. Smiles, entitled "Self-Help," in which self made men were held up to reverence and respect. Many of these were artisans who had risen to wealth and eminence from the humblest walks of life. They were deserving of all possible credit, but they were not representative men of their class. The really representative men of that class were animated by quite other ideas. Their principle was to refuse to come out of their class, and to stay and live in it with the view, so far asthey could, of lifting the whole bulk of their brethren. (Hear.) The more hon. members exa mined what was going on throughout the country, the more reason they would have to wonder at the extraordi nary suceess that had attended their efforts. And now, having touched upon the methods by which the working classes had sought to carry out their views and ideas, and the success that had attended their efforts,the house would, he hoped, permit him to inquire what it had done for the working men while they had been workingout their salva tion in the different ways he had described. (Hear, hear.) He had heard it said since he had been a member of that house that the working classes had.no grievances of which to complain. It seemed to him, on the contrary, that they had many grievances of which they had good right to com plain. (Hear, hear.) While they were labouring for them selves, and working out their great ideas, how had the Le gislature housed, fed, and educated thorn ? The house had done nothing to improve the houses of working men, and the artisans of this great town were at the present time worse housed than at any period within his memory. (Hear.) Great public bodies and companies came to thathouse with projects to pull down their houses, and no stress was put upon those bodies to restore them. Then came the question of food. (An Hon. Member—" Question.") It was the ques tion, and he would assert that the adulteration of the food of the labouring classes had been a great grievance with them. (Hear.) Then with regard to education, the people of this country were the worst educated of any free people on the face of the earth. As it was a test question upon this bill whether they would admit the working man to a share in the making of laws, did the house suppose that if they had had any direct action upon the making of those laws or any means of making their opinions felt, these questions would he,vo remained in their present condition? Then there was the question of arbitration courts, as connected with the labour question, which had been bandied backwards and forwards, sometimes in one house and sometimes in another. Nothing, however, had been done, and the ques tion remained just as it was 20 years ago, although the opinion of the mechanics and artisans had come round to de sire these courts and to believe in them. (Hear.) He very much feared that, notwithstanding the Bill of Lord St. Leonards, this question was likely to remain unsettled. Then, again, there was the question of the Master and Workmen's Acts. (Hear, hear.) If, in a case of contract between master and man, the workman was charged with breaking the agreement, the first step was personal, andthe workman was put in prison, while if the master broke his part of the contract the first process against the master was to make him pay a fine. The working men believed that this state of things was very unjust—(hear, hear)—and that if they were properly represented the employers and em ployed would be put upon a more equitable footing. (Hear, hear.) Then came the question of the workhouse in firmaries. Would the members of the house be content with them in their present state—a crying disgrace to the metropolis—if their own flesh and blood had any chance of going to them ? (Hear, hear.) Then came the question of dangerous and unwholesome trades. Twenty years ago a terrible disease called necrosis of the jaws was discovered in Vienna, which had since spread to this country, and was found chiefly among the makers of lucifer Matches, that has now grown to be a very large trade, and not less than 1,800 children were employed in the manufacture. Necrosis of the jaws was one of the most awful diseases that ever afflicted humanity, and there were not one or two but a dozen other trades in which the condition of the labourer was such as would not be suffered in any civilised country. Would any one who looked at the subject fairly and dispassionately say that if the class upon whom these evils pressed—who worked in these workshops and lived in these houses—had been fairly represented, their condi tion would not have been improved? (Hear.) As an instance of the want of sympathy on the part of the house with the working classes he would instance the existing laws regu lating the sale of alcoholic drinks, for though a very large majority of the working classes complained of them as throwing temptations to insobriety in their way, the only answer they got from Parliament was that they ought to have resolution enough to resist those tempthlions. The gallant member for Huntingdon had expressed distrust of the leaders of the working-classes, meaning, probably, the managers of the trades' unions,who were usually denounced by the newspapers as noisy demagogues; but he could testify from long acquaintance with them that no men were more anxious to prevent strikes and to further the best interests of their class and of the public generally. The amalga mated engineers, indeed, had not had a strike for 15 years, and for 12 or 14 had never claimed an advance in wages, the yOunger and more impulsive members being held back by their leaders. Again, it was feared that the working men would combine on political questions, and thus se cure an ascendancy ; but, to remove any such apprehen sion, he might inform the House that one section of the London trade unions were strongly opposed to strikes, that the other section were less averse to them, and that both regarded the co-operative societies with some jea. lousy. These highly-paid artisans, who could chiefly get the suffrage by this Bill, were thus divided into three parties as distinct as political parties in that house. (Hear.) He desired the extension of the franchise, however, more for the sake of the country generally than for working men theniselves, for we had allowed a new world, as it were, to grow up without any contact with the rest of so ciety, and he agreed with the hon. member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that there was great danger of our losing more skilled artisans by emigration than we could well spare, and that unless they were admitted into full citizen ship their attachment to their native land would be weak ened, and their readiness to leave it as labour became mere valuable elsewhere would increase, until we lost the best of our artisans, who contributed so largely to the wealth and prosperity of the country. (Hear.) He believed such a loss would be most disastrous,•and that the only way to stop it would be to treat the working classes fairly, and introduce -to the franchise such a portion of them as they fairly could. No one would say that a poor 200,000, scat tered over the whole country, would be too largo a number to admit, or would bo likely- to swamp the present con stituencies. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DOULTON said that if he were asked blindly to support the Government before they put on the table the bill for the redistribution of seats, he should like to know what they had done to inspire him with confi dence. Certainly, only within the last few weeks, their conduct on the Tests Abolition Bill and the question of church rates did not have that effect. He did not, how ever, enter the house as the slavish adherent of the pre sent Ministry, but as an independent member ; and he only valued that position so long as its duties be performed with a due regard to his own self-respect and honour. If the Government would lay on the table the Redistribution Bill, and it dealt with the question fairly, no one more than himself would more warmly support the Cabinet; but as he believed that few greater calamities could befal this country than the passing of a mere franchise bill, he could not bring his conscience to support a measure which would increase every existing anomaly and augment every existing evil. Mr. M. GIBSON stated that he was surprised that after having voted for the franchise bill of Mr. Baines, the hon. member for Lambeth,who had just addressed the house, should have ranged himself in the ranks of the opponents of this measure. If any measure were entitled to com mand the support of the great Liberal party, it was a mo derate extension of the franchise such as that contained in the, present bill, accompanied by the repeal of the ratepay ing clauses in the old Reform Act. All they were asked to do by the second reading was to sanction the principle of the measure. They would then be as free as ever they were in committee to amend it. Let them decide first who the electors were to be, and then what number of members particular places should return to Parliament. The question they were called on to vote was broadly, should there or should there not bo any reduction of the franchise ? If the House of Commons decided in the ne gative it would not be the fault of the Government, and the people out of doors would at once say that Parlia ment desired no reform at all. The country were tired of mere theoretical statements in favour of Reform, and would mark closely the men who made plenty of liberal professions to their constituents, and now that the timo came for action drow back and attempted to get rid of the question in this indirect and unsatisfactory manner. In conclusion, Mr. Gibson said that the present measure, which was founded on the spirit of the times, was des tined to become law, and that its provisions, in the words of the Royal Speech, would strengthen our free institu tions and conduce to the general welfare of the nation. Mr. G. HARDY remarked that Mr. Gibson must be a man of a very sanguine temperament to venture a confi dent prophecy that the measure would pass the second reading. He condemned the present proposition as one offering to the House the miserable fraction of a bill, and stated that he should give it his most strenuous opposi tion. He maintained that this topic should be dealt with, if at all, in a statesmanlike manner. The hon. gentle man then proceeded at great length to analyse the statis tics on wbich the case of the Government rested, and stated finally that he considered the resolution gave a tangible subject on which to vote. He objected to the measure because it would override the counties by an urban population ; because he did not know what was to come afterwards; and because he did not understand who those leaseholders were in the counties, except that they were to be brought into the boroughs to vote. In the boroughs, too, the tendency would be to re-establish the corrupt constituencies which were now going away. Be lieving, therefore, that they had not before them the means of settling this question, it was due to their own honour and that of Parliament not to accept this partial, this dangerous, and this most insidious bill. The further debate was then postponed till to-morrow (this day). The orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned. SPIRIT OF TILE PUBLIC JOURNALS. -- TIMES.—" it is not very easy to make a good speech on the Government side." This plaintive confession of a Liberal member probably explains the comparatively inferior quality which has hitherto marked the speeches on the side of the Administra tion. The debate, which enters on its fifth night this evening, has on the whole reflected the highest credit on the new Parliament. Yet it will, we be lieve, be confessed by all that there has heen through out a marked distinction in the spirit, the energy, and the . ability of the attack and the defence. The course of the discussion yesterday was faithful to the law observed on former nights. Mr. Graham distinguished himself so highly in seconding the Address at the commencement of the Session that his speech on the Reform question was looked for ward to with some interest ; but it can scarcely be considered equal to his first effort. Lord Elcho properly reminded the house that the true question before it was whether it should start on a career Of legislation without knowing the whole of the course to be taken and the goal to be reached, and by a felicitous quotation from some election statistics showed that the precipitation of the Government in issuing their scheme of Reform in parts was not required by any pledges of the Liberal party. Out of 367 members taking rank on the Liberal side, 160 had expressed themselves in favour of Reform on the hustings, while the rest were either silent, or contented themselves with declaring an intention to support Lord Palmerston. A vigorous onslaught at the close of his speech on those who had been coerced by their constituents into a promise to sup port the Government called up Sir William Hutt, but as Lord Elcho finished about the time of the dinner hour, the new Knight of the Bath had to de fend his constituency before a beggarly array of empty benches. Among the arguments in defence of the Franchise Bill hitherto advanced there has been none more extraordinary, and certainly none more un fortunate, even that of Mr. Hughes. It was thought _ _ that the advocacy of Mr. Layard had been some what damaging, but in tho harm he can do his friends the Under-Secretary must give way to the member for Lambeth. Mr. Hughes stated,on the authority of an influential artisan among his con stituents, that the Franchise Bill would place a large number of the best workmen in Lambeth on the register ; but he forgot that the reduction of the Franchise would not be confined to Lambeth and constituencies of a sinilar character. Mr. Doulton, who followel his colleague, and developed an ability hitherto unsuspected, reminded him that the Fran chise would be lowered in Totnes and Great Yar- mouth as well as in Lambeth, and challenged any Liberal to affirm that the reduction of the qualifica tion in such places would not work more harm than the good that would be gained elsewhere. It is but justice, however, to remember that Mr. Hughes had other reasons for defending the Franchise Bill be sides the effect it would have on his own constitu ency, though whether they would be likely to con ciliate opponents may well be doubted. The working men, he said, have a political economy of their own. They do not believe in the laws of demand and sup ply ; they do not believe that the rate of wages mus t vary according to the principles which regulate the variation in the prices of commodities ; they do believe that work of different worth should be p aid with different wages ; and, on the other i t a h n e d y tue do believe in an organisation of labour ; as shownhae great powers of organisation themselvdes, neers n ; by such societies as the Amalgama ted o r five to gi and they outnumber other classes by four t one, according to Mr. Hughes , to as hem we in the House of Commons. Admitting, frankly do, that it is desirable operatives should be stated u nd olet, we nt m a bill which, going and emaesrt demur so r f to accepting on that on the mere rule of nu . principle at all, w account as far as it has any c l a sses which so outnumberthlleyreesntdofinEogigvlainngd notthe w ould e h m ut us o t f , embodying them k that Mr. Hughes himself is an i l o ci f A e c x t P s r o e ;P n a g rlia su m e e h n v t. iew it s i merely the power moreover, expositor of the theories of the working men. weeks since he gallantly attempted latobtlie-esmrbenoxidYcoasrtfheewir notions on the duty of providing houses for labourers evicted by Railway Companies i n a new series of Standing Orders, and if the attempt failed it was from no fault of his. The Per missive Bill is, according to Mr. Hughes, another measure looked upon with great favour by working men, and we get some light as to his notions of re presentation when we find this classed among the beliefs of operatives which are unrepresented. We had thought it had been discussed more than once in Parliament, and a vote taken upon it ; so that we are driven to suppose that working men are, in Mr. Hughes's opinion, not represented at all unless their representatives are in a majority. We have no wish, however, to make capital out of Mr. Hughes's un guarded defence of the Franchise Bill. We do not believe that a £7 qualification in boroug hs would so change the nature of Parliament as to le a d to the 1 adoption of all or any of the heresies he described. The change would be great—greater, to have , as Lord Eleho pointed out, than Mr. Gladstone seems imagined—but we may hope that neither it nor the time, changes which would follow upon it would precipi tate us into Socialism. It is however, to have r done with this benevolent toying with the organi zationma of labour. Mr. Hughes y remember that in 1848 the theorie s of which he speaks did get the mastery in France , a nd that nothing but an iron will saved the amiable enthusiasts who patronised them from sharing the fate of their predecessors of the Gironde 60 years before. But the whole argument of Mr. Hughes was fairly open to the remark of his colleague that it was not easy to discover its con nexion with the question before the house. We allow to him—as we allowed to Mr. Mill—that it is de sirable to have working-class representatives in the House of Coinmons, but the Franchise Bill is not a means to such an end. What a Franchise Bill would effect, were it passed, is very simple. Large con stituencies would be enormously increased, and small constituencies would be increased in a less pro portion, but still in a sensible degree. The anomalies of the distribution of representative power would be aggravated, at the same time that the ratio of party strength would be scarcely altered. The experience of the boroughs where freemen exist shows us what the effect of lowering the franchise would be on the small boroughs.; and we should, therefore, have con stituencies which are unwieldy made more unwieldy, constituencies which arc corrupt Made more corrupt, party forces relatively the same, but party fights embittered, and a long struggle initiated, the end of which would depend upon chance, if not upon violence. Mr. Doulton did good service last night in directing•the attention of the house to the point really before it, and though Mr. Milner Gibson pointed out that his opinion on a mere reduction of the borough franchise must have undergone some change since the division on Mr. Baines's bill, we can only rejoice over a conversion to sounder views. Mr. Doulton gave unanswerable reasons for not ac- • t . , r ; cording to the Administration the trust demanded by them, and pointed out that those who believed most implicitly in the sincerity of the Ministry, and had the greatest confidence in their ability to earl out their designs, could not yet adopt the Franc hise Bill unless they believed that it would, taken b _ A Y itself, be beneficial. The issue for which I ,ol ' Grosvenor provides a substitute is whether the to talk, quite Franchise Bill—p idleur et sinz le—is worthy o f becom ing law. It is as Mr. Milner Gibson talked last night, of bills to be laid on the table expressing the i n te n tions of Minist ers, to be proceeded with " as soon as circumstances would allow," and the gravity with which he repeated Mr. Villiers' statement that it is natur al to fig upon electors before fixing upon constituencies was wonderful. It is, perhaps, natura l to buy carpets and furniture before knowing the rooms t° be furnished. What are we to think whe n language such as this is thus repeated after its absurdity hal been exposed? Mr. Milner Gibson probably hear Lord Stanley's speech ; he certainly must hav e heard of it, he can easily refer to the report, and w e venture to ask him what conclusion is to be drawn from the fact that one Cabinet Minister after another has since undertaken the defence of Franchise Bill, and that he, the last of them, ha s discreetly followed the example of his predecessors in eschewing the task of noticing, much less ° meeting, the arguments to be found in it ? HERALD.—The conduct of the two members for Lambeth in the course of last night's debate, Pr e " sented a not unexpected contrast. The antecedents for of the author of " Tom Brown" are warrantY his profound admiration of the working class ill general and the trades' unions in particular ; and i r a could not afford to peril Isis popularity by a ,v e ";; the too honest for the comprehension of those Wn° s '' spokesman he has made himself. Mr. Poulton wail independent enough to give that vote ; and We . enough acquainted with the real temper and practfv; cal disposition of the working class to wish to Itr ie t „. how much power is to be given them, and hoW property and capital are to be placed at the reel of class legislation and class taxation at the han" of those who have none, before indulging the plea b s ; ing sentiments of confidence and trust expressed, by his colleague. No one whO knows Mr. ll e— Gibson could be surprised to . find that his chief e n i deavour was to cover his confused apprehension 0_ the ideas he has borrowed from Mr. Brigh t by tool; rowing that gentleman's fervour of manneri f i a a that the result was a melancholy f a ilure. RiS 11 " - c s of a refutation was displayed by his eager we re acce a of the assertion that where the artisans ,e minority they would act like the Radicals house, by joining their strength to that of ever party would concede most to their demanoe. a —an assertion which he interpreted as a c o ws fession that they would not act togethe r meat was for class purposes. An equal bewilder re ated evinced in the clumsy manner in which he repl ees. one_ of Mr. Gladstone's least ingenious art' on .. The proportion of the working classes to the 0 0e , fourth, forgetting that this one stituency of England, he said, would be but ° „ 0 belonya wholly to the boroughs, and constitutes aim ref majority there. So, again, he affirmed that 0 01) 7 3 in a self-acting extension of the franchise 'war°. fallacy, because the electors were not a larger g o , portion of the population bow than 183 2 !, for , founding the whole constituency together, and for founding getting that, while the farmers have been, grads' Re ally and designedly extinguished by that authorfirst Re- Bill of which Lord Russell claims the the ship, the proportion of £lO householders teiace, population has so increased as to supply their had the and is still increasing in a far larger ratio thanoge population. Such a supporter could only Hardy both the bill and the Government, and Air• nt ac es had little trouble in demolishing in a few se—e rva" his confused and halting arguments. One °„,.b se as ed tion, very pithily made by the last speaker, ooPTotes at once of all the arguments drawn from P ast na the and so-called pledges, so far as they bear U P' t ft& present issue. There have been pledges ab ot i o by form ; Reform Bills have been brough t uses. Ministers Ministers and read a second time by previous. ; But this is no Reform Bill • it is a Franein se A has and every Franchise Bill hitherto introdue'-conv been peremptorily rejected by the House t hat the mons. Lord Eleho had shown, before, on such pledges of a previous Parliament cannot, that a topic, be held to bind the present ; o at of the present Parliament only 165 Liberator._ iw of 367 pledged themselves on the not l u f this form in any shape or kind—to say n othing ° li t on particular bill. Thus the one only argarnd_. th° which the Government has really rehe bo f only one alluded to in the introductory sPe ec il the Mr. Gladstone—has shared the fate of subsequent reasons or excuses which their u i lhe has invented, and been swept away like chaff . t the weight of argument is so terribly la defeat has Government and their bill—the 100 ie9 l clef t h a t been so complete, so hopeless, so humiliating „her even a victory in the lobbies would fail t changede elbv it or them. No doubt votes are seldomjlea'r reasoning or by eloquence; but men like t°, ro te tolerable and plausible reasons assigned for tue i i o f they are to give, especially if they are asa °c wa y it, and a total want of pretext for a wrong voteubt and does drive some to withhold it. No d ° o ,ke majority is worth many arguments, and vi" lee i$ up for much inferiority in debate, but its va not unlimited, and it will not countervail an alid mentative defeat so pa l p able and so overwhe.ltitii; that the defeated party incurs contempt and 11'241 for its absolute i nabilit y to j ustif y its vote ; 1,, de not redeem a Minister who stands convicted in bate of wilfully sacrificing the welfare of his eat l i try to the momentary purposes of his party, or 0 , which tampers with the Constitution of this COus tr J for no better end than to conciliate a mutinous W.- tion, and to prop the fortunes of a tottering Ad el , l : nistration. Even should Lord Grosvenor's arsen" went be rejected, which it is difficult DOW to beliey° poss ible, this bill is too much damaged to p ass ; its authors too deeply disgraced long to remain in power' CRYSTAL PALACE.—ONE SHILLING DAY.—Thurs' day, April 19.—Admission on payment, 1,807 ; ditto 1 )1 season tickets, 1,435; total visitors, 3,242. [ADVERTlsEmENT.] — Consumption, and all nervous, bilion9 stomach, and liver complaints, in every stage, are only a g; gravate 1 and accelerated by drugs of every description. p e rlecJy curable by Du Barry's health restoring Revslen' Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases 100 1 / $ O . been considered hopeless; such as indigestion (dysP eP cough, asthma, consumption, habitual constipation Oar lima, all gastric derangements, !Hemorrhoids, live 0113 : 6 plaints, flatulency, nervousness, biliousness' fevers , 9 ,1; - . throats, diphtheria, catarrhs, colds, influenza, noises in eru ption; head and ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities. hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, Reid"' P ts, crawir a pitation, heartburn, headache, debility, droPsY , spasms, nausea and sickness even in pregnancy or chest,nte sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of the rfh pains in the pit of the stomach and between the shoal°. c to, &c. We quote a few.—Cure, No. 46,270. Mr. James lObessred timber merchant, of Frio ley Surrey, of th i r t y years' di.isedeaf lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement , and partial _euie ness.—Cure, No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, a c% is indizest•on. e-stherinrs. tow spirits, and nerl'Lleg iancies.—Cure, o. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lor - - 832. tenant of Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—N°•4g'esg, Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervoUsn asthma, cough, const patios, flatulency, spasms, sickness, ot.r. vomiting—Maria Jolly.- Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. Jaine9ity Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, of indigestion and torPi, of the liver, which had resisted a l l medical treatme:ib. In tins, 11b, 2s Od ; 21b, 4s 6d ; 51 b , 118 ; 121 b, 229 ; 2don; ics.—Barry Du Barry and Co. , No. 77, Re g ent-street, Lo else also Phillips, tea dealers, 8, King William-street ; lik . "c. at 61, Gracechurch - street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, Bishopsg, s t ree t Within ; 63, 150 , and 298, Oxford-street.; 330, Striti7', 54, Upper Baker -street; 103, Tottenham-court-road ; 1 Upper-street, Islington , N. ; Harve y , Notting-hill; 0%.- Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen's-terrace , John's-wood. London; and all respectable grocers and e lle' mist .—Beware of emulous imitations. Births. 1.1 13.1 COWAN—On the 18th inst. at Woodslee Penieuick, —• the wife of Charles W. Cowan, Esq., of a daughter. de.. STOKES—On the 19th inst C . at 4, Glenra o hr-terrace , I T Y vale, Blackheath, Mrs. 6. W. Stokes. of a daught er ' f D. STEWART—On the 18th inst., at Lewisham, th e Wife Stewart, Esq., barrister-at-aw, of a son. f D' WARDEN—On the 17th iust ,at Tours, the wife ° • • Warden, Esq., of a daughter. Marriages. BAKER—MoRTIEAU—On the 18th ilia., at St. Step. 6 lat e Church, North Bow, Arthur Henry, third son of tb e S. J. R. Baker, Esq., of Bow, to Clara, third daughter o f F. Mortieau, Esq., of Coborn House, Bow-road. fas, YATES—ALIBERTIN — On the 19th inst., at Banstead, Sur• t - i: , William Yates, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn-, tu Ile nrie do l r youngest daughter of the late Rev. P. Aubertio, re of Chipstead, Surrey. Deaths. , ~ r uiLKE—On the 18th inst., Henr Billie, Es( . of St." - f° v-olia ,9s° ' street, Blackfriars-read, and of the Stio'cli: aged 70. .I.,,ittbt GLEN-sy - Oa the 16th inst., at The Wintong, Busher'''. Herts, Wm. Glenny, Esq aged - 4 ' TI (I. ~r . GORDON—On the 16th inst. at at Blackhouse, Ayr: 14.-.' A. Gordon, Esq., Netherm . uir, Aberdeenshire. , oe t GREENwELL—On the 17th inst., at 20, Fawcett-s'r Sunderland, Richard Greenwe, Esq., aged 74. 11° Pa rk ' IIURST--On the 18th inst., at her h o use, ill 1 Sarah, widow of N. Hurst, Esq., ag Arty ed 85. l ' . °- LEGARD—On the 12th inst., at Rome, Sir D' gird, Bart., of Ganton, Yorkshire, aged 22. icilier, MILLER—On the 12th inst., at Rome, Captain J. B. late of t tho 15th Hussars. *vas , STEwAßT—inst ., On the 16th at Paris, John P* 6te Esq., aged 56. Ch .rp s elj. ' SHARP—On the 18th inst:: at Brighton, Mr. J. t-, a ' aged t______,..-/---- ~,E ; O4, London : Printed and Published byWILIJAM AN;', i * ii2 t of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at Tar: .ittri Olin „ No. i 1 01 Strand, in the. Precinct of the Sooy .iu the tio'' - !` Bliddleem—Friday, April 20866.