The Sun. — London, England, 1866-06-01 00:00:00

nTUE--------R lAL PARLIAMENT ROUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENDTG. The LORD CHA.NCILLOR took his seat on the vroolsuk at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time :—Bristol and Exeter Railway (Additional Powers), Kingsbridge and Dartmouth Road, Rochdale and Edenfield Road, Abercorn Road, Belfast Burial Ground, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin colnshire Railway (Additional Powers), Manchester, Shef field, and Lincolnshire Railway (New Lines), Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Outer Works Alteration), Combmartin and Ilfracombe Roads, Leeds Borough, Hull Docks, Hull, Southbridge, Kingsbridge Railway ; Bradford, Eccleshall, and Idle Railway ; Aberdeen County and Municipal, London and South-Western Railway (Poole and Bourne mouth Junctions) ; Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln shire Railway (Liverpool Extension) ; Bristol Harbour Junction Railway and Wharf Depot, Great Northern Rail way (Additional Powers), and Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway (Works), and King's Lynn. The Birmingham Waterworks Bill Was read a third time and passed. PETITIONS. Several petitions wore presented against the abolition of church rates, and from the officers of the Indian Army, praying for a redress of their alleged grievances. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, The house went into committee on this bill, Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreed to. On clause 4, Earl GREY moved that it be omitted. The clause re lated to the distinction made between murder of the &s -and second degree, a distinction which he considered would lead to confusion, and would never be generally under stood. Such being the case, he thought it was only com mon sense that there should be no such clause in the bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the classification proposed by this clause had been found to work efficiently in Massachusetts and other parts of the United States. When the bill was drawn up in conformity with the re commendations of the commission it was submitted to the judges, the majority of whom were in its favour. He could not consent to the withdrawal of the clause, the retention of which he considered necessary to the efficiency of the bill. Earl RUSSELL agreed with his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) and supported the clause. After some further discussion, the house divided, when the numbers were— Contents Non-Contents The amendment, according to the practice of the house, was then carried. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the definition of mur der and manslaughter was a most important point after their lordships' decision ; he should therefore move the adjournment of the committee. The motion was agreed so, and the further considera tiost of the bill in committee was adjourned. The Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man) Bill, and the Hop Trade Bill passed through committee. The Companies Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed, and their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMIWNS--LAsT EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The fullowing bills were read a third time and passed: —Bodmin Roads, Caledonian Railway (Greenock and tiourock Extensions), East Barnet Gas and Water, Glas gow and South.-Western Railway (Ayrshire Lines), Grange and Cartmel District Gas and Water, Great Western Rail way, Greenwich and Woolwich Lower Road, London and North Western and Cockermouth and Workington Rail way Companies, London and North Western and White haven Junction Railway Companies, Manchester Division l'etty Sessions Court, South Essex Estuary and Reclama tion, and Teme Valley Railway. THE BOROUGH OF LAMBETH. Mr. DOUL TON gave notice that in committee on the Representation of the Peoplo Bill he should move that the borough of Lambeth be divided into two divisions, each division to return two members. THE VICEROYALTY OF EGYPT. Mr. GREGORY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a change had taken place in the succession to the Viceroyalty of Egypt, from the eldest agnate of Mohammed Ali to the descendants of the present Viceroy : if so, how the change of succession had been effected, and whether there was any information on the subject which might be laid before the house ? Mr. LAYARD such a change had taken place on an un derstanding between the Viceroy of Egypt and the Sultan, with which he believed no foreign Power had anything to do. A similar change, it would be recollected, took place some time ago in Persia. A firmau had boon issued an nouncing the change, and he believed a statement was to be forwarded to this country, which, when he received it, he would lay on the table of the house. AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA. Mr. GREGORY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Austria, by an impel ial decree dated May 13th, and Prussia by a decree dated May 19th, Lad agreed, in case of war, to confer on the enemy's mer chant ships at sea the same immunities as had been granted to neutral vessels by the Decla ration of Paris (1856); whether this principle was set forth in the Italian :Maritime Code, and that therefore no new declaration to this effect was required from Italy ; and whether her Majesty's Government had received any recent communication from foreign Powers upon this subject ? Mr. LAYARD said there was some ambiguity in the first part of the question of the hon. gentleman. The declaration of Paris related to foreign goods, and not to foreign ships. With respect to the second portion of the question he would make inquiry. No communication had been received on the subject from foreign Powers. COUNTY STATISTICS. Mr. B. STANHOPE asked the President of the Poor law Board when the returns relating to county statistics I moved by Lord Burghley and by himself in February were to be presented to the house ? Viscount ENFIELD said about 600 returns had been received, but 49 were still wanting. He had written to each of those 49 places desiring that returns might be for warded with the least delay. Mr. HUNT asked whether thoy could not have the 600 returns without waiting for the wanting 49. Viscount ENFIELD said he would make inquiry on the subject. CHILL Mr. LIDDELL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was true that the Chilian Mi nister had demanded his passports; and, if so, what were the grounds for this rupture of friendly relations with that Government ? Mr. LAYARD said the Chilian Minister had not de manded his passports ; but ho had presented a letter of re call. His Excellency did not assign any reason for such a proceeding. From communications that had been received by her Majesty's G o vernment, he did not anticipate any Interruptio n in the friendly relations that at present existed between Chili and England. VISITORS FROM CHINA. Colonel SYKES asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreignar andxten Affairsw ir l k rt i h rideu e e r u P n and his son Yo-ho, and their Tart accom panied Mr. Hart, th e Ira from P e ki n , w h o had r tted to the British ial Inspector of Customs, and were nowinEngland, we Govern nient in any official capacity, from or were merely recommended to its courtesies as travellers Mr. LAYARD had to state that these e gentle men were not accredited to this country any official ca of th e i pacity, but they had come on the reco mmendation Chinese Government to see the countr y and the jute resting features in it. Her Majesty's Govern ment suc h c ircumstances would do all they could to inshound7 visit pleasant. (Hear , hoar. ) He believed short Tx. there would be a more fo rmal visit, which he hoped wow e d lead to a state of things which would be of great be ne fi t to both countries. CHURCH RATES. Mr. F. SURTEES asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer if the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Bill became law whether it would deprive, or not deprive, the vicar of Stockton-on-Tees for the time being of the sum of £2O a-year, which was settled on him "for ever here after" byan Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Queen Arm, ? clauses s T e r of the EXCHEQUER said the matter w ... , 8 entirely beside the influence of the Co m p ulsor y Church se d l R ate Abolition Bill. If the hon. gent l ema n should feel dispo to move matter, su e t, the insertion of clauses to meet th e would receive the best consideration. 'PRE REFORM BILL. Mr. GOLDSMID, mittee on RepresentatLn the motion for going into Com of Seats Bill, moved, ° L , (), the People and Redistribution proposal of at this house is of opinion the Government to that, if the th g an to B the census of 1861, boroughs having, accorcu l n 000, ailchen bad a popular a population of less whiCh return two is expedient that all borough s Wh ir ° be adopted, it tion above 8,000, but under 10, t i l tnd that all members, should henceforth return only;oponepiliatio groups of boroughs, the combined accor ding to the said c ensus, was abov e 10,000 °I which, future return t wo members to this house." , should i n Mr. GOSCHEN said the amendment of the holt° able gentleman - v. - ho had just sat down Was ' I : - marl:ably distinguished from that of the honourable nde- gallant member for Wolk, bectrale in the one there were a number of -vague generalities, whilst in- the other the honourable gentleman who had just sat down thought he had discovered a blot in the bill and he had gone directly to it. He thought, however, that the boa member who had brought forfrard the amendment was rather in a pecu liar position of hardship, because he himself represented one of the boroughs which came just within the line of the Government measure. JD ni ton, B ridport, and Lyme Regis possessed as large a populaton it was true, but no great measure could pass through Parliament with out indicting hardship on some parties. (hear, hear) however, there was one consolation to the 511;1411 boroughs it was pr.oposed to group, and it was this, viz., thatin Place of disfranchisement, which they must have expect ed, they mere to be banded together, and thus, to a certain ex text% retain their voice in the Legislature ~1 the country. He. denied that the Government had arranged the dis tribution of seats upon any bu t the fairest principles, and instead of attacking the principle of the bill the great party opposite confined their powers to matters of procedure and obstruction. The amendment of the hon. and gallant member for Wells was neither more nor less than a mo tion for delay—(hear , hear ) —and one of its great charac teristics was the circumstance he had stated. The Go vernment the bill, had been actuated but by onopeinci in framingple,tat was impartiality—(hear) —and he defied hon. gentlemen opposite to show him one portion of the bill where that great and- just proposal was not the dis tinguishing characteristic of the Government measure. He thought one of the grounds for considering the bill was the distance from each other of the boroughs grouped, but hon. members seemed to for ge t th a t t h e b oroug h s in Scotland were situated at a much greater distance from each other than those dealt with in the bill of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He contended that the c oun ti es h ad been fairly dealt with in the bill of the Government (Cries of " No, no" from the Opposition.) If that was not the fact, what was the amendment complaining of the injustice done to the counties ? (Cheers from Ministerialists.) The amend ment of the hon. and gallant member for Wells did not go to the principle of the bill, and the Government would there fore not accept a defeat on such a proposition, because it dealt with matters which could be disposed of in com mittee. He defended the Government scheme from every attack made against it, and contended that it was based on fairness and honesty, and concluded by rebuking those Liberal members who had forsaken their colours to carry their owa peculiar crotchets. Sir J. PABINGTON defended the Opposition from un fair hostility. He thought, however, now that the whole bill was before them, they should come to a settlement as early as po ss ibl e . H e bl ame d th e G o vernment for their tardiness, and now that the debate was assuming a more extensive character, he would assert that, in his estima tion, the whole bill was a fallacy. Although the Govern ment had gone to all the expense of collecting statistics, they brought forward their Reform Bill before they actu ally obtained them, the result of IN hich was, that they had brought forward an incomplete and ineffective measure. After reviewing the various modes of sending members to Parliament, he said he was willi n g to extend the franchise far beyond that proposed by the Government; but his idea was that contentment was the great thing to be thought of ; and the redistribution of seats, which formed part of the new Reform Bill, was liable to create discontent throughout many parts of the country. If this bill passed envy and excitement would be general, and very few per sons would be satisfied. One great objection he had to this bill was the taking away seven seats from England and handing them over to Scotland. Referring to reform in general, he said the Conservatives had been accused of false pretences; but he thought that charge could more fairly be flung at the Government, who for six long years had promised them reform, which they delayed from time to time, and eventually brought forward in a crippled and stinted form. He then personally alluded to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he attacked in no very measured terms, and terminated a very long speech by stating that, th e bill i n it s present form, could never pass, and he asked the house to support the amendment, and thus show the Government that they were not to be trifled with. Mr. MlLL—Since hon. gentlemen opposite, one after another, in considerable numbers, have shown so strong a desire to consider not so much the question before us as what I have said on the subject, and since they have bees anxious to know what course I am going to take, I should be sorry to refuse any hon. gentleman so simple a request. I must rectify a mistake that has been made by the right hon. baronet, as to the reason why I had not been per suaded to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Northamptonshire. I had various reasons, and the one I have the least hesitation in stating to the house is a decided disinclination to be made a catspaw cf. (Loud cheers.) What other reasons I had may appear in the few observations I have to make, and which will be directed to hon. gentlemen who have given so much attention to my works. No doubt it is veryflattering to hear one's writings continually quoted, but that feeling is much lessened on finding that hon. gen tlemen's knowledge of those writings is strictly limited to the passages they quote. (Laughter.) No doubt they made the attempt, but found it too dull to read further. Hon. gentlemen are aware that amongst other things I have suggested plurality of votes as a proper part of cer tain systems of government. But I would like to know where any gentleman found I had ever required such checks against the £7 franchise. (Hear, hear.) The pro position that I made had reference to a state of universal suffrage, when it appeared to me that certain things would be necessary iu order to prevent the mere ascendancy of a class. Is there any danger that the working classes will have this ascendancy on the 17 franchise ? The only effect this can have is, that instead of creating an ascendancy it will in some degree weaken the ascendancy of a class. (Hear, hear.) Therefore there is no reason to apply the checks which I ventured to suggest. The representation of minorities is not intended as a check on democracy alone. It is good in itself. It is a check against whatever is the stronger power in the constitution. It is a check on the power of whatever is uppermost. It is absolutely neces sary in democracy. Without the representation of the mi norities there is a part of the community, it may be half, which is absolutely disfranchised, and which for all prac tical purposes might as well have no votes. Suppose that a House of Commons is elected by a bare majority of the people, and that this house passes laws by a bare majority of itself. The minority out of doors and the minority in doors, wo must all agree, would leave little more than a quarter of the community to outvote the others. On the principle of democracy, therefore, the representation of mi norities is necessary in order to work thoroughly well. I wish to give a brief explanation of a passage which the right hon. baronet has quoted from one of my writings, which has some appearance of being less polite in its language thanl should wish always to be in speaking of a great party. The passage he quoted is one where I stated that the Con servative party was by the law of its constitution neces sarily the stupidest party. (Laughter.) I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid persons are generally Conservative. (Re newed laughter.) I believe that is so obviously and univer sally admitted a principle that I hardly think any hon.. gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the com munity, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party —(laughter)—and I don't see why hon. gentlemen should see that position at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party. (Laughter.) I know I am liable to a retort, and an obvious one enough, and as I do not wish to allow any hon. gentleman the credit of making it 1 make it myself. It may be said that if stu pidity has a tendency to Conservatism, sciolisms or half knowledge has a tendency to Liberalism. Something might be said for that, but it is not at all so clear as the other. There is an uncertainty about sciolists ; we cannot count upon them ; and therefore they are a less dangerous class. But there is so much dense, solid force in sheer stu pidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle ; and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power. I only rose for the purpose of this personal explanation, and I do not propose to enter into the merits of the amendment, especially as I concur in all that has been said in the admirable speech of the right hon. gentle man the member for London. (Cheers.) The debate was carried on before empty benches dur- i li ng r. t la he ew d h in ra n y e , r . t h h o e u l rs att b e y r ef Mr. w h S e c m ou a r t te t l e d d , t M ha i;. it ß w ax as te h r, ig a h n ly d erratic to take the census of 1861 to base new constitu encies upon. He instanced Darlington and Stockton, where the population increased year by year, and said that both those towns had within the last five years added 30 per cent. to the census of 1861. He objected to'the bill now before the house, but begged to assure the house that neither ho nor his party was averse to a chang e in the representative system ; they were desirous of a reform, but wanted such a reform as would be per manent. Lord F. CAVENDISH defended the Government mea sure, supported the right of the working man to be repre sented, and trusted that, now a useful measure of reform was before th e house, her Maj es t y ' s advisers would not put it off to a more convenient season. Mr. DU CANE was dissatisfied with the proposed re distribution of seats, and introduced Maldon, Harwich, and North Essex as instances of injustice. He taunted the Government with their lessened power, and predicted the over throw of the contemplated R e f orm B ill. sition of ing democra tic and revolutionary, lv had being ithe CANDLISH pointed to th e moderate measures broug ht forward n t the t6ppe Instead did sufficient justice to th e workingg man. Alth o ugh th e by the Gov e a rn s B ested, it scarce borough constituencies h a d i ncreased since 1832 6 7 per cent., d the county constituen c i es only 31 per cent., yet they were going to add to the numb ers of the county membe rs, but not to the borough members. re called upon to go into an Mr. LOWE said they we com mittee on a bill which had never been read a second time. The two halves of it had been read a second time, each of them; but the whole mea sure they had only then before them. The first half the hou se was induced—or should h e say coerce d—i n t o passing w ithout any know ledge of th e secon d par t. Th e seco nd half had been hur ried on t o a secon d rea di ng so fast—only an interval of a week b e i ng g i ven to master most plicate that h e f or one had been unable to take any part in the s econd readin g o f t h e S eats Bill for want o f time to make up his m i nd. He hoped the house, therefore, would allow com d details that him tonuestion, even at that stage, the principle of the mea tt sure on whi c h they were called upon to go into com miee. (Hear, hear.) He must apologise to the house for the monotonous nature of his complaints, which were jus tified by the uniform nature of the provocation which he received. (Laughter.) That provocation was that the Government kept continually bringing in measures to modify the institutions of the country without telling the house the principle on which those measures were based. Ho had made the same complaint to the Chancellor of the THE SCN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 1, 1866. Fachequer on the Franchise Bill, and he made it now. The right hon. gentleman, in introducing the bill, said that the Government was not desirous of innovation. That was to say, that they went on no principle, their principle was the same as the principle of other distribution bills. Now Redistribution bills might be divided into two classes— one the great Reform Bill, the only successful Redistribu tion Bill ; the other the four bills which had failed. The principle of the Reform Bill of 1832 was that of disfran- chisement. The feeling of the country at that time was that the immense number of small boroughs overruled the representatives of the people, and that the nominees of noblemen and great men had become a public nuisance. As a consequence 141 members were taken from small boroughs. The principle of all subsequent bills had been just the con trary, being that of enfranchisement, with only just so much of disfranchisement as was necessary to fill up the proposed new seats. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them which of these principles was the prin ciple of the bill, and therefore he (Mr. Lowe) must puzzle it out for himself. It seemed to him that they might say with regard to a redistribution bill, that it clearly ought ought not to be founded on the principle of abstract rights, equality of representation, and electoral districts, because such a principle would be to make them the slaves of numbers—(hear, hear)—who were very good servants, but very bad masters. But if that, or some approximation to it, was not the object of the Government, it was very diffi cult to say what their object was. The house had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, but had either of those right hon. gentlemen pointed out any prac tical good which they expected from this bill ? He set himself, therefore, according to his old method, to try to puzzle out what should be the principle of a bill for the .redistribution of seats, for he had not heard any explana tion of the kind from the Government. He should like, in the first place, to be shown that some practical evil existed which the bill was intended to remedy ; but he gave that up in despair. It seemed to him, however, that a reason able view of a Redistribution Bill would be that it should be a bill which would make that House more fully than it was at present a reflection of the opinions of the country. He thought that was a fair ground to start from. They had suffered in many respects by the arbitrary division of those two measures, and in nothing more than this, that the arguments which should be addressed to the Redistribution Bill were transferred to the bill for the extension of the franchise ; for, while it was true that a redistribution bill should aim at making Parliament a mirror of the opinion of the country, nothing was more true than that the extension of the franchise to the working classes would not produce a reflection of the opinion of the country, but rather the reverse of that opinion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, then, let them examine what was the tendency of things in this country, and see whether that house failed in any consi derable degree to reflect the opinion of the country. He confessed that he found it extremely difficult to find how it had so failed. He thought there was a tendency to ex tremes, and to too great monotony and uniformity of repre sentation, which a Redistribution Bill should aim at cor recting, and the danger that, without equality being at tained, they would become mere multiples of one by 658. He thought another object of a Redistribution Bill should be enfranchisement, and by that he meant the enfranchis ing of fresh constituencies, giving more variety and life to the representation of the country, and making the house more near the country, which was a collection of an infi nite variety of persons, pursuits, and habits. (Hear, hear.) Another advantage of fresh enfranchisement would be that it would do the most efficient thing towards moderating the frightful, enormous, and increasing expense of elections, one of the greatest evils of the country. He was not speak ing of illegitimate, but the legitimate expenses. He took up a return which was laid on the table that morning re lating to election gspenses at last election. He would refer to a few of its items. Ho found that the Stafford election cost £5,400; Stoke-upon-Trent, £6,200; Sunderland, £5,000; Westminster, £12,000. He took the places as they came from the letter S downwards. He wished to call atten tion particularly to the Westminster election, not for the purpose of saying anything disagreeable to his hon. friend (Mr. Mill), who was elected by a well-directed burst of public enthusiasm, which was honourable to him and to the electors. The cost of the election of his hon. friend was £2,302, of which sum he had not contributed one six pence, but to the honour of the electors they brought him in gratuitously. But what must be the state of things when such an outburst of enthusiasm could not be given effect to without that enormous expense ? (Hear, hear.) He would now take a few of the counties. The southern division of Derbyshire election cost £11,000; the northern division, £14,650 ; the southern division of Essex, £10,000; and the northern ctivision £16,000 ; West Kent cost £12,000 ; South Lancashire, £ l 7,ooo—(Opposition cheers and laughter)—South Shropshire £12,000 ; North Stafford shire, • £14,000 ; North Warwickshire, £lO,OOO ; South Warwickshire, £13,000 ; North Wiltshire, £15,000 ; South Wiltshire, £13,000 ; and the North Riding of Yorkshire, £27,000. (Laughter and cheers.) He asked the House how the institutions of the country could continue to work if such a system as that were allowed to go on ? Let it not be supposed that it was favourable to anything aristocratic. It was favourable to plutocracy, working on a basis of de mocracy. Let them think of the persons that were ex cluded by such a system. They wanted, of course, wealth, rank, good connection, and gentlemanlike de meanour and bearing in that house ; but they also wanted sterling talent and ability to carry on the business of the country. The right hon. gentleman then read some pas sages from Lord Russell's work on the Constitution, an edition of which was published last autumn, to show that the principle of disfranchisement in the bill went too far, and that the bill of 1860 went as far in that direction as it was wise and prudent to go. He then proceeded to criticise the system of grouping proposed by the Govern ment, and showed the disadvantage under which mem bers would suffer by having to consult the wants and wishes of several constituencies. It was like asking a man to marry four wives. Indeed it was something worse than polygamy, for it was asking a man to marry four widows. (Great laughter.) Tho best thing that could be said for the Ministerial Bill was that it aimed at remov ing anomalies. But mankind would tolerate many moms, lies when they were old and grew up with them—when they would resist new anomalies. Upon what principle would they justify the taking integers from certain boroughs and giving them fractions? The Government professed to correct monopolies, but they only created greater anomalies than those existing. The Chancellor of the Duchy was very much shocked that so much had been made of geographical considerations; but had they not been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole scheme was based upon geographical considerations ? He supposed the only inter pretation that could be put upon that phrase was that per sons would be given the opportunity of learning as much geography as possible in travelling from point to point. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman examined the Go vernment scheme, and cited instances to show that towns in the same counties with populations in excess of the grouped boroughs were left unrepresented. In Wiltshire, for example, there were Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Caine, making up a population of 9,000; while close to them was the town of Trowbridge, with 9,026 inhabitants. Such things might be tolerable when they had grown up with you, but they became utterly intolerable when Go vernment came forward with a scheme that was to remedy all anomalies, setting numbers as their basis. But here was a gross injustice, something worse than an anomaly. The proposal was that all boroughs with less than 8,000 inhabitants were to be dealt with in some way or other. Well, why were Bewdley and Droitwich to be excepted from the rule ? It could only be from the extraordinary haste with which the scheme had been prepared. In as sessing the different degrees of punishment to be dealt out to boroughs some principle ought to have been observed. Nevertheless, Newport, in the Isle of Wight, with ,8,000 inhabitants, lost only one member, while Bridport, with 7,819 inhabitants, had both its members taken from it. I Now , was that on account of some geographical considera ion ? This was not an anomaly. It was a gross injustice. He was far from attributing any improper design to the Government—their mistakes arose from mere wantonness, and from the carelessness of persons who brought in a bill which they originally did not intend to bring in. (Hear, hear.) He maintained that the grouping of the boroughs could not be satisfactory to any class of per sons—and of course it was not satisfactory to the small boroughs. Nor could it be satisfactory to those gentle men who were calling for measures to remove the inequa lities of our representative system. The principle of the bill was so bad, so thoroughly unconsidered, that it was utterly impossible to deal with it in committee. As for the allocation of the 49 seats placed at the disposal of Govern ment, it was a mere delusion to say that a boon would be conferred upon the counties by giving them the extra members proposed by the bill. The two measures must be taken together, and county members must remember that a total change was being proposed in the character of their constituencies. When the franchise was lowered the power of the counties would in reality be thrown into the hands I t was, e were, but therefore, to re of the sm a ll t owns. Th ere f ore, w h en th ey spo k e o f g i v i ng e 7 th u e counties extra N e members to counties, it was not to counties as they u veriest delusion d a e s l t u h s e i oynwteo s re going ay t ha t t o a create. deal was going to be done for counties. And putting that aside, lot him ask what principle were they to give three memb ers to curunnt les ? According to the old principle of the constitution two th members were allotted to counties. Well, they were enti tledknow upon what principle that practice was to be departed from ? He could suggest no other principle th an that of numbers;: but th a t pr i nc i p l e seemed to be dir ec tl y contrary the principl e on w hi c h members were return e d to that ho c' u ad vance upon the road to equa l electo; 3 •a e l . di l s t tr' 7 c as a rapid not for a. moment bring him se lf to agree to the'He could plan giv ing three members to the larger county constituea of thought it would be far better for the m t o do without He h twen ty-nine new members that wor e p rom i sed by the bill.te It was the duty of any man who called himself a states man to study the signs of the times in which he lived, and to make himself master of the tendencies and direc tions of modern society. What were these ? He sup posed none of them doubted that we were at present tending more or less in the direction of uniformity and of democracy. (Opposition cheers.) hat was the duty of a wise statesman under such circumstances ? Was it to stimulate tendencies which were already in full force and activity, or was it not rather, if be lutist legislate and could not let matters alone, to try and find some pallia tive for the evils that were threatened ? Surely it was the latter. But the bill before the house did not pro- ceed in the way of moderating, but of stimulating the tendencies he referred to. "Now, a new Jehu spurs the fiery horse, Instructs him well to feel his native force ; To take his bit between his teeth and fly To the next headlong gulf of anarchy." (Cheers and laughter.) The Chancellor of the Ex chequer had frightened them all the other day by telling them to pay their debts because they would have no coals in a hundred years. Addressing gentlemen opposite he said that commerce might die, navigationmight die, but the land would remain, and they, the landowners, would remain. Therefore, said he, let us pay our debts, or you, the land owners, will in future be saddled with them. And yet what was the right hon. gentleman seeking to do ? Why, with his bill he sought to take away as much as possible the power from the land—(Opposition cheers)—from that which was to remain when all those fine things were passed away. He begged to ask his right hon. friend whether that was sound prospective legislation ? (Renewed cheers from the Opposition.) He had a word now to say upon the franchise. The £7 franchise was defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the ground that we were all flesh and blood. (Laughter.) It was defended by the hon. member for Birmingham on another ground, and they all knew what his ground was—it was, standing upon the ancient lines of the British constitution. (Re newed laughter.) When the hon. member for Birming ham came to speak again, he would suggest to him one line of the British constitution, and would like to know whether he meant to stand upon it. The hon. member, in a speech delivered during the campaign of 1858, said that the spiritual peers of this country formed a crea ture of monstrous—nay, of adulterous—birth. (Laugh ter.) He should like to know whether his honour able friend ineended to take his stand upon that line of the British constitution. (Renewed laughter.) The right hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney- General, on the other hand, defended the £7 franchise because he was in favour of household suffrage. These were the three reasons given to the house for asking them to adopt the £7 franchise, and he would ask was there any encouragement in these? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said flesh and blood. Well, the £7 franchise was a very small instalment of flesh and blood. (Laughter.) Nobody could doubt that he who argued it upon this point only took it as a means of getting more flesh and blood. The hon. member for Birmingham took his stand upon the constitution. The hon. member put him in mind of some lines from an American squib : " We stand upon the constitution by thunder ; As to proof of it—we have bushels of proof ; For how could we trample upon it, I wonder, If it was not continually under our hoof ?" The Attorney-General stood out for household suffrage. He said to the Government, of which he was a member, " You have taken your stand upon this £7 franchise, bnt the ground you take is so slippery, so unsafe, and so un sound, that I would rather go down at once to household suffrage than take my stand with you, because I know it is so utterly untenable. That ground is infallible, and we may possibly do worse than that." Now, he asked again what encouragement did these three gentlemen give them to pass the bill ? Let the house look at their admissions. The arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went for universal suffrage, and those of the other two hon. members for household suffrage. Now he wished to ask whether they believed they could stop at household suf frage if they got there? They touched ground there cer tainly; but of what kind was it, solid ground or quicksand ? That was a matter requiring their - gravest consideration. Once admit the principle of household suffrage, and they would soon find the working classes saying they were as good as other men, and demanding further concessions until universal suffrage was arrived at. And yet this was the principle of the bill. That being the state of the case, what were they to do ? Was it wise under the cir cumstances he had attempted to depict for the house to go into committee on this bill ? What should they gain ? The principles he had alluded to could not be settled in committee. They were the largest principles that could possibly be imagined, and should not be settled in com mittee, but on the responsibility of the Government. He would not dwell on the defective nature of their informa tion, or on the statements made by the hon. member for North Staffordshire and the member for Buckinghamshire with respect to leaseholders, and with regard to their ignorance of the £l4 householders in counties. It was quite evident this bill was prepared without information, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he had given them the only copy he had of the statistics. (The Chancellor of the Exchequer here made a gesture of dis sent, and there were loud cheers from the Opposition and counter cries of "No, no.") He would state it right. At all events he could not be wrong until he had stated it somehow. (Laughter and cheers.) He had said ho had laid on the table of the house the only copy he had. Let the hon. gentleman contradict him. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WiII the right hon. gentleman allow me to add to my repeated state ments that I spoke of the last absolutely finished copy. (Ironical cheers.) The substance of these statistics, so tar as regarded the bases of the measure, had been in our hands for weeks before—(hear, hear) -but were not in a state to be placed in the hands of members. Mr. LOWE—That was what I meant. (Laughter and cheers.) The substance of the consideration was whether they should have 6t0120r 7 to 14. That was a matter of no consequence. They merely wished they might not be overbalanced. Then, as to the element of time, he sup posed he must not say anything about that either, because the right hon. gentleman would be angry. The twelve nights the right hon. gentleman gave them for the Fran chise Bill were pretty-well gone, and they had got the Redistribution of Seats Bill. He would ask how they would get through under these circumstances. He would not dwell upon the educated opinion of the country, or the fact that the host of the newspapers which lay claim to intelligence, and wrote for edu cated persons, having begun with rather vague notions of liberality in this matter, had written themselves fairly out of them. (Hear, hear.) What they had before them was an ill-considered and defective measure, which could not be taken as it was, and which, even if they and the Go vernment wished to, they could not accept, such, for in stance, as the grouping he had alluded to. Then let them see what objection there could be to put off the matter for gone another year. One obj ec ti on t o th at was that hon. settlementgen gratuitously i n the How Government could they e settleuleber os an intlemen were anxious for a se ttl emen t . B ut were there the materials for a three d ru t gr oha u l'- p e adoption therew of a t s hep noo wrong. ip t le in of the giving gof hr g? dis tricts? Then, as regarded the franchise, no doubt they could get through it, because it was simply a figure. But could they make a compromise on that question ? for if they took the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or that of the hon. member for Birmingham, they might as well take eight as seven, because what ever figure they took, they must and would have to go down to household suffrage. Therefore, he said, they 'had no material for a compromise. His hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had told them the honour of the Government would not permit them to take any other course. Ho thought they had heard too much of the honour of the Government. (Hear, hear.) It had been sleeping since 1860. It had not even winked. So long as Lord Palmerston lived honour slept soundly. But when Lord Palmerston died, and Lord Russell succeeded by seniority to his place--(laughter)— the sleeping beauty woke up. So long as the Government kept together by having no reform bill the Government asked for no reform bill. As soon as they became bound to the peculiar views of Lord Russell honour required a reform bill. It put me in mind of Hotspur's notion of honour:— "By heaven! methinks it would be an easy task To pluck down honour from the pale-faced moon, Or dive into the deep ; So that he that doth redeem her thence, might wear, 1. ithout co-rival, all her dignities." The right honourable gentleman himself had told them ho had called upon Lord Russell to redeem a pledge. (Laughter.) He called upon the Government to redeem their pledge. How often it arose that when people were in insolvent circumstances, and wanted an excuse for becoming bankrupt, they got a friendly credi tor to sue them. (Laughter.) There had been another little matter of honour. The Government raised a point of honour wi h the House, and said they would carry the second reading of the Reform Bill before they produced the Seats Bill. They carried it, bat they carried it by that sort of majority which gave them a vic tory without any honour at all. Then it could hardly be said they had gained honour last Monday, when the matter was taken out of the hands of the committee, by his able and excellent collaborateur, the hon. member for Northamptonshire. That did not matter so much to ordi nary mortals, but to persons who were of a Castilian turn of mind — (laughter)-it ought to have been a matter of some consideration. To quote the words of Hudibras If he that's in battle slain Be on the bed of honour lain, Then he that's beaten may be said To lie on honour's truckle bed." He would ask for an instant the serious attention of the house. He was seriously convinced it was not the wish of this country to do that which this bill attempted to do. If they could annihilate the party of hen. gentlemen oppo site, the only reward of their success would be the anni hilation of themselves. (Hear, hear.) The history of this country—the glorious history of this country—has been a conflict between two aristocratical parties, but when oue of these parties is destroyed, the one left oppo site will not be aristocratic, but purely democratic ; and they had the opinion of the hon. member for Birmingham that when aristocracy came to compote with democracy, the victory would be on the side of democracy. Such an effort would be like that of a bird which, feeling the little resistance offered by the air to its flight, imagined how well it would fly if there were no air at all. Parties supported and invigorated each other, and he would never be a party to any mea sure which sought to destroy the b alance of par ties which h a d existed for so many years in th i s country, and which h a d t h e effect of creating to each w h en in office a vigorous and vigilant opposition, conducted by men of the same stamp, education. and position in the country. He did not think that was one of the views of the bill which the people of this country would adopt. He did not think the people wished to diminish the influence of land in that house, and therefore ho believed they would have looked with more satisfaction to a system of grouping which did not confine itself to the representation of represented boroughs, but which relieved the county constituencies from the portions of largo towns which were continually encroaching upon them. A really efficient boundary bill, he believed, would have been looked upon with favour ; but the provisions with regard to that subject were the most illusory parts of the bill. He did not think that the country wished to see the door of the house shut to talent more closely than it was, or to see the house become an assembly of millionaires. The country, he believed, would look without satisfaction on the inevitable changes in the constitution which must occur if these measures were car ried, in breaking the close connection between the execu tive Government and the House of Commons. He believed they were anxious to put down corruption ; but it was not the way to do so to put the franchise into poorer hands. There was but one way to stop corruption, and that was to take care that the franchise was only trusted to persons whose position in life gave some sort of secu rity that they were above corruption. If they preferred to lower the constituency they must look the matter fairly in the face, and understand that they were willing voluntarily to pepetuate corruption in order to enlarge the basis of the representation. Those were not opinions which he believed the people of the country wished to have, and therefore the house would be acting in accord ance with sound wisdom by deferring the measure for another year. He pressed that consideration most earn estly on the House, for the matter was of inexpressible importance. Any error was absoluely irretrievable. It was the last thing to be dealt with rashly or in haste. They were dealing not merely with a Ministry, not merely with a !'party, not even with a constitution. In their hands was entrusted the noble, the sacred future of free self-government all over the world. They were about to exclAnge certain good for more than doubtful change. They were about to barter maxims which -had never failed for theories and doctrines which had never been proved. Democracy they might have at any time. Night or day the gate was open which led to that bare and level plain where every ant's nest was a mountain, and every thistle a forest tree. A Government such as that of England, which had been the growth of centuries, was a thing which we enjoyed, but which we could not impart to others, and which, if lost, we could not recover for ourselves. Because they had advanced de liberately heretofore, it was no reason for pressing forward rashly and improvidently now. Thoy were not agreed on details ; they had not even come to any common prin ciple. To precipitate a decision under such circumstances, even in the case of a single human life, would be cruel. It was more than cruel, it was parricidal, in the case of a con stitution which was the life and soul of this great nation. If it was to perish, as all human things must, give it at any rate time to gather its robes about it, and fall with decency. " To-morrow. " Oh, 'tis sudden. " Spare it ; spare it ! "It ought not so to die !" (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and long-continued cheering, accompanied by the unusual manifestation of clapping of hands in various parts of the house.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in replying to Mr. Lowe's speech, said that if they deferred this bill for one year they would next be asked to defer it to the millennium. The fact was that those who opposed the measures now introduced wanted no reform at all, and if the Government took his (Mr. Lowe's) advice they would stand still and do nothing. The right hon. gentleman went through all the features of the new bill, and defended every one of them on the principle of honesty and good faith to the public. On the motion of Sir H. CAIRNS, the debate was ad journed. It was arranged, with the consent of both sides of the house, that the debate should close on Monday night. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock. Conservative Dinner at Harwich. HARWICH, Thursday. The dinner last evening in honour of Major Jervis, M.P., and Mr. John Kelk, M.P., was the occasion of speeches of some little interest from both hon. members. Mr. J. C. Cobbold, M.P. for Ipswich, presided, and proposed the toast of the evening in very complimentary tertns. Major JERVIS, M.P., in responding, said Har wich had reached rather a critical period in its his tory. Bad as the Referm Bill of 1832 might have been, it still considered that the position which Har wich occupied in this part of England entitled it to a share in the representation of the country. Dur ing the years which had since elapsed, Harwich had wonderfully improved in respect to population and business, and yet it was removed from amongst the constituencies of the country. Improved as Har wich had been by the industry of its inhabitants and by its commerce, he (Major Jervis) thought it was the very last town the Government of the country ought to attempt to obliterate. As time rolled on, and as population, trade, and commerce varied, it might be necessary that there should be an alteration in the representation, in order that the constituencies of the kingdom should represent the feelings of the people to the fullest extent ; but in the face of the fact that the county of Essex had increased by over 100,000 inhabitants since the Reform Bill of 1832, while its wealth and trade had nearly doubled, he would ask whether the present was a proper time in which to deprive Essex of one of the ten members who represent the county ? It was idle to talk of any great difference between county members and town members ; the members for Essex constituen cies had always been the ten members for the county of Essex. If it were really for the interests of the county that Harwich should be disfranchised, he did not believe there was any borough the inhabi tants of which would more readily come forward and ask their representatives to vote for the Re form Bill, although it might disfranchise them. But there was no such necessity. He remembered that when Mr. Campbell first appeared as a candidate for Harwich he was good enough to say that if a Conservative were returned Harwich would lose one member, while if he (Mr. Campbell) were returned it would keep its two members. He (Major Jervis) thought this was rather curious language coming from a Radical, but the result proved that Mr. Campbell was right, and that he (Major Jervis) was wrong. Mr. Campbell was perfectly in the secrets of his party ; Reform with them was merely a little bye play to enable them to get into power. (Laugh ter.) It was his (Major Jervis's) firm belief that the Reform Bill of 1866 was also only a little bye play ; it kept the newspapers and the two political parties going, but there was not the slightest inten tion that the bill should be carried. One of the first to get up in 1859 to oppose Lord Derby's Re form Bill was Mr. Campbell, who strongly objected to Harwich being disfranchised any more than Mr. Campbell would. He did not know how long this little game was going on, but he thought the time was come when Parliament ought to look seriously at the state of affairs. In the present financial con dition of England, and when there were rumours of war throughout the length and breadth of Europe, he thought Parliament might talk about something better than whether some small place in Yorkshire, the name of which he forgot, should have two members instead of Harwich. For his own part he considered that at a time like the present the leading men on the Conservative side of the house, and the leading men who sat on the other side of the house under the name of Whigs, should drop their little quarrels and pull together for the common good. (Cheers.) There was such a thing as falling to the ground between two stools, and if the Conservatives and the Whigs got quarrelling such men as Mr. Bright might get a great deal more than they deserved to get. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KELK, M.P., also replied, and said the House of Commons consisted of a small portion of mem bers who talked, a small portion of members who worked, and a lar ge p or ti on of members who neither talked nor worked. (Laughter.) He hoped he might claim for himself a humble position in the second category. (Cheers.) He stood there that evening in a proud position. Many of his constituents had no doubt watched with interest the election petitions, and had noticed that great havoc had been made among some of the purest members. (Laughter.) The petition against his gallant colleague and him self was the first which the House of Commons had stigmatised as frivolous and vexatious, and dismissed with costs. He felt proud of this result, as it was no less a vindication of himself than of his suppor ters. We were in the middle of a political crisis as dangerous to the Crown and constitution as the anarchy in the financial world had been to those en gaged in commerce. He and his colleague had voted against the fragmentary measure offered in the shape of a deform Bill ; they declined, as Mr. Lowe ably put it, to allow the constitution to be knocked down to the lowest bidder, although believing that some fair moderate measure of reform might be advisable. They declined to support sweeping measures, whether brought forward by the Treasury, or Messrs. Bright and Company. He for one could see no logic in the Government Bill. They proposed to give excessive power to the working classes, while at the same time they disfraia chi sed the very elite of that body, those who worked in the Government dockyards. It was al most unnecessary for him to say that the proposal of Mr. Gladstone to marry the borough of Harwich to that of Maldon, and to take three members from the two boroughs, should have his most determined opposition. When Lord Russell introduced his Re form Bill in 1832 he said every working man might get the franchise if it were reduced to £lO. Since then the wages of mechanics had been increased over 30 per cent., while the price of tea, sugar, coffee, &c., had all been reduced, so that if it was •the opinion of Lord Russell iu 1832 that a man might raise himself to a £lO franchise, it ought to be the noble lord's opinion now. (Cheers.) Other toasts followed. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—If, as Mr. Goschen declared last night, the great principle of action adopted by the Govern ment in framing their scheme of Reform was to make one which should pass, they have been very unfor tunate in realizing their intentions. The bills they have introduced, and which are now, or ought to be, on the eve of being rolled into one, may have every other virtue, but they make no progress. They stick at the threshold of the committee, and the prospect'of getting them over the line is by no means encouraging. Mr. Baxter recognizes the fact, and consoles himself with the thought that something better must be the result of this delay. The country is apathetic now, the " spurt" of feel ing manifested in the Easter recess has died away, reactionary influences gather strength, it becomes plainly impossible to pass to any Reform Bill with out the assistance of the Conservative party, and the Conservatives show their customary want of foresight in refusing to help forward the moderate measure brought in by the Government. They will, however, be punished for their folly ; Ministers may be reduced to consider the question whether they would prefer being roast or boiled, but the final re sult can only be a more sweeping change the longer the delay. We agree with Mr. Baxter in lamenting the too probable fate of the Government bills, though we do not share the sweet thought of revenge, which is his consolation. It will, indeed, be a misfortune if the chance of settling a great and complicated question be thrown away, and it is certain that those who are to blame for it will receive their proper punishment. It is, however, by no means clear that the Opposition should be the only section of the House visited for the offence. They have, perhaps, acted unwisely in preferring the chance of an immediate triumph to the fairer prospect of assured victory a little later ; but they could not have had the opportunity of so acting if the mis management of the Government had not given the victory into their hands. The misfortunes of Re form have sprung from that extreme desire to frame schemes that should pass, which is the especial ob ject of Mr. Goschen's self-satisfaction. The Fran chise Bill was introduced by itself, because it was thought it might divide the possible opponents of Reform, and it only served to combine them. A great battle was fought upon a wrong issue, and the influence from without which is desirable, if not necessary, to force any Reform Bill through the House of Commons, was spent in obtaining a victory which came to nothing. There is now no motive power left. The spring is broken, and the Govern ment has to struggle alone against the natural disin clination of the members for the docmed boroughs to commit an act of suicide. The Redistribution Bill is sufficiently moderate in its scope, but it has the faults necessarily found in so hastily conceived a project. Haste, indeed, inadequately expresses the way in which it was concocted, for it really exhibits what Mr. Lowe last night called the mere wantonness of precipitancy. It was framed to pass, but it has created enemies, and failed to create a single friend. The counties and towns already represented do not seem to care about having third members, the places to be enfranchised for the first time are too few to be influential, and the support to be got from Scotland, though valuable, is limited. On the other hand, the bill has given the enemies of Reform a good case. Mr. Goschen said very fairly last night that no possible scheme of redistribution could prove acceptable to the members for small boroughs, and, whatever might be done, anomalies must still con tinue to exist, but he failed altogether to show the necessity of creating—not preserving—the particu lar anomalies attacked by Mr. Goldsmid. In the course of his able speech he mentioned once or twice the blot of the Redistribution Bill in omitting to group towns now unrepresented with those which are represented, but he did not say one word to justify this singular omission, or even to explain how it had come to pass. The only deduction from his silence is that it was a pure oversight, due to the haste with which the Redistribution Bill was concocted. It is more remarkable because, as Sir John Pakington reminded the house, the Reform Bill introduced by the present Premier in 1852 was constructed on a totally different principle. The principle of grouping was found in that bill, but Lord John Russell then proposed to associate popu lous towns now unrepresented with towns which are represented, and in no case did he group together existing Parliamentary boroughs. The plan was obviously defective, because it failed to redress the balance between different parts of the country. The Government of Lord Russell now proposes an equally defective plan of grouping none but represented boroughs, so that it seems to be the unhappy fate of the Premier to exemplify what Mr. Tennyson calls " the falsehood of extremes." The faults of the Re distribution Bill are serious enough in themselves, but, coming, as they do, after other errors of i Go vernment management, the fate of Reform s no longer strange, though it remains deplorable. The attempt to seduce the Houseof Commons into accept ing an incomplete scheme failed, as ought to have been expected,in its first object,but served to arouse resent ment ; the hasty compilation of the Redistribution Bill excited distrust which maturer consideration has confirmed ; and the threats and appeals which have been alternately addressed to the fears and the sentiment of members have produced a temper which may fairly be described as sullen reaction. The Go vernment scheme, taken as a whole, embodies no principle but the idolatry of numbers, and, what is of greater consequence, the arguments of its chief sup porters, as Mr. Lowe showed with unequa ll e d f orce , tend in the same direction. If the failure which the members of the Government th emse l ves a ppear to considerimminent befall their scheme, it can only be regarded as an effect of retributive justice. The dis cussion of last night would furnish additional evi dence, were it necessary, that had the Government brought in at the commencement of the session a complete and well-considered scheme, it would have had an excellent chance of being adopted. No one will suspect the sincerity of the declara tion made by Sir John Pakington of his de sire to see the Reform question settled, and he went, indeed, out of his way to support the suggestion of Lord Elcho in favo ur o f a R o y a l Commission, which should consider not only the reduction of the fran chise and the redistribution of seats, but also the means of checking bribery, and the various modes of voting proposed for better securing a perfect repre sentation of all classes of electors. There can be no doubt that such a Conamission couldinvestigate many brches of Reform with greater candour and impar tiality than is possible in the House of Commons; its recommendations would command respect; and what ever may be the probability of the suggestion being adopted, the fact that it was thrown out is significant. It may even be found that it supplies the only hop e of escape for the Ministry out of their difficulties. We are now in the month of June, and the dozen nights which the Chancellor of the Exchequer de clared were all that the Government had at th e i r dis posal when he firstintroduced the Franchise Bill must have been long since expend e d. Oth er b us i ness i s delayed which requiresattention ; and since all parties are agreed on the propriety of settling Reform, and no one party seems able to settle it by its unaided strength, it may be as well to have recourse to an expedient which would at least have the advantage of deferring all attempts at legislation on the sub ject for another year. PosT.—lt is surprising how many results the Re form bill is expected to realise. There is not a pro fessor or graduate in social science but expects to make it subservient to the carriage of some dogma or the development of some theory. It is to create in the masses a healthy ambition ; it is to find for them a staff to uphold them in their stumbling through the valley of life ; it is to be a lantern to their feet; it is to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic ; it is to make them pure-minded and despisers of money ; it is, in short, to take part in the fulfilment of every function save that which is properly and ought to be peculiarly its own —the creation of a good and useful house of Commons. For our own part we would require no more of it ; and theorists who expect the offer or possession of the franchise to exercise the multifarious influences which they talk of must know very littl e o f t h e na ture, natural or artificial, of the p eo pl e w h om they represent in Parliament. Bribery in its grossest form, its base money form, is assumed to be the great blot in our electoral system in actual practical work ; and at that blot naturally most of our talk- yr Ir. ing legislators take aim, and each thinks he has dis! covered an infallible devicefor knocking this crime, as those who have to find the money for it naturally call it, out of the ring. One thinks that electoral corruption will vanish before the advancing foot of education, as the savage falls back and dies out be fore the onward movement of the white man ; think ing, with the usual inaccuracy of English thinkers, that education and instruction are convertible terms. Another believes that we must look to highly penal enactments for prevention. Sir George Grey sees no remedy save in wholesale and indiscriminati n g disfranchisement ; and Mr. Bright, having no faith in the honesty and virtue of the people whom he assumes especially to comprehend and represent, can think of no other mode of protecting candidates than that of making constituencies so large and the needy element in them so extensive, that corruption will become impossible in practice from the error' mous number seeking to be bribed, and the conse quent infinitesimal amount of each bribe. All these retailers of ideas are mistaken ; all misapprehe nd the nature of the difficulty with which they atten3Pv to deal, and each entertains one error common to all. In common they imagine that all persons have political convictions, and are anxious to give to then? movement and weight, and think that, as a natural consequence, their political action would be hole pendent if they were left to be determined by t hose convictions. There is the fundamental error. Th° se who have governing opinions or ideas to which they desire, by voting, to give value and activity, con stitute a very small proportion of a constituency They constitute, naturally, the element that offers the bribes, which they offer because they ar e anxious and earnest. The major proportion eon: sists of men who vote from considerations alraosv purely personal, and among these is to be found aS, naturally the element which receives, and in g rea ' degree seeks for, the bribes. The well-to-do in different, as regards abstract politics, vote accordance with feeling ; the needy indifferent vote simply for money. They vote for whoever gives them most, or if nobody gives in anything, they do not vote at all. Will in.‘ struction in reading and writing change this class for the better, or will their indefinite multi plication make them impossible of manipata tion ? We believe not. We have less faith than Sir John Pakington in the influence of the n ationa l schoolmaster, and a higher opinion than Mr. Bright of the ingenuity of electioneering agents. Neither do we believe in the efficacy of penal enactments' They will never have efficacy so long as the rear, tion of payment for a vote is not pronounced cri min a l by public opinion as well as by Act of Parliam enTs, It is not so at present. No member of the Howso n .: Commons is less received by society, or less s hake ti bands with by his acquaintances, because he has 1 e his seat for bribery. He is thought lucky if •1;„ escapes from the difficulty of fixing him with ageneJ ' unlucky if his friends have unwarily committed h i f l , l ' and laughed at as clumsy if be has managed so baoti); as to be convicted personally of buying a corm? as offered to himnotoriously, and pressed upon hin'. o perseveringly as cigar lights in the streets. S° the bribed voter. The constituency regard an tion committee not in the light of a court of jost„11 but as a tilting ground, and each witness looksur, e d himself, and others look upon him too, as p ri d e , against the counsel and solicitors on the other sl local and metropolitan, and if he gets the best._ua them he has a triumph, or, if defeated, is conde d , c or with, or laughed at or blamed ; if the latter, not I, t . having been bribed, but for having made a badflgft, Bribery, in fact, is looked upon by the masses p re ' much as poaching is. The law declares it a erin!,,i but public opinion does not real or in its he'ri denounce it, and so long as it is considered a ven l , offence the statute-book will not do much to destr ao it. The best proof of this state of feeling_ is, rarity with which the law is put in force. In i t s as far as the greater offenders—members of l'ar`j,; ment—are concerned it never has been. There is. „ been a show on two or three occasions of proceeding to extremities with offenders, but those who reireT., ber the circumstances which attended the prosee_iii tion of Mr. Charlesworth and Mr. Leatham w or find some difficulty in persuading themse lves e ry others than the vindicators of the law we re v Acts much in earnest. The influence of the Election A'o is, we take it, merely indirect, but they ha ve ou g doubt operation to this extent, that the enorreo expense which their action creates always I to candidates shy of resorting to bribery, and ° eec l, may deter them altogether. Sometimes , candidates have been known to agree not to v,1,0, on either side, but more frequently perhaps ''.lo evade the risks by a mutual understanding neither party shall petition. Of the other reineu, is suggested that of wholesale disfranehisemenbibio absolutely impracticable. It would not be Po r s s ke .. to disfranchise such constituencies as those of 11 ' 3 o r field, Kingston-on-Hull, Great Yarmout h ,' to Nottingham ; and it would not be permissib' e ah employ a mode of treatment to small boroughs"" e s, we are afraid to adopt in the instance of large ° P ,, s . The only additional mode that occurs to us as P: sibly efficacious is to deprive of the franchise { O us e term or for life, every voter reported to the of Commons, or convicted in a court of law, of .g i o ing or accepting a money bribe. Such a provlsoll might properly be introduced into the Reform. in accordance with the vote of the House on Si r oi l Knightley's motion, but it could only be cl° lle d the ground that the franchise is a privilege alts trust, and not, as Mr. B r i g ht and others hold As.. natural and inherent right. What amount of : p i e torrent effect such a penalty would have on ill Dot who will not re g i s t er th e i r vo t es , a nd who Is Lo tlif walk from their own doors to the polling -I :00 may be a matt er o f d ou bt ; but its enfor e 'i.s o clft would in some de g ree purge the constituent best and it might be worth trying. After all, th e , ot o touchstone of electoral purity and earnestne ss "or be to return to ancient custom, and make t he c ost stituency, instead of the representative, paY of the return. COUNTRY MARKETS. MANCHESTER—THURSDAY. aerie The trade since our last report has rera a ined,fu: Ot' e languid state, Ns ithout any material change in price'd flow market this morning was fairly attended. 'Whea t a l% De e l were in exceedingly limited request, and bad 5 8 .7 0 . 1: 0 , pressed lower prices must have been submitted otit ,ellers proferred waiting the turn of events. Oats 9n,. In meal were fully as dear. Beans and peas ruled fij Indian corn no change was observable. BIRMINGHAM—THURSDAY. 0 11 1 During the present week, with little wheat offerle 0310 ruled very dull. Barley wanted. Oats dull. 1 3e3 the re 1 / 1 4 peas only taken in retail. At this day's market ba e d a short supply of wheat, but previous rates wer: s maintained. Barley of all kinds scarce, and full):rah Oats only taken in limited quantities. Beans a g ate higher. Peas less in request. BRISTOL—THURSDAY. PP ll l u i ; On our market to-day there was a moderate 5 1 v es t . English wheat, which sold slowly at barely I _!' S es values. For foreign scarcely inquiry, and PT', nominal. Barley freely offered, and 6d. to is. Per one most buyers holding off in expectation of a further gies tion. Oats slow, at about last week's quotations. pos' in fair retail demand, at a decline of 6d. per c l l. ' quite as dear. EDINBURGH—WEDNESDAY. , a aos; Wheat on the top, Os 6d down average, Os ;',. ci de, o , Barley on the top, Os 9d up average, Os t o 'a dot o . Oats on the top, Os 3d down average, Os Id a o, Beans on the top, is Od down average, 0 8 Total supply and sales. Wheat sold 3 B eans 74 qrs sold '" so 0 2289 9 4 ci q r r i s s ........................ s s 0 o 1 1 a d , L Barley el O a t s 1254 qrs Average prices. Wheat, 47:311d I Oats, 29s ° d 1 ifi' e$ Barley, 3Bs Od 1 Beans 48 9 01 Town-made flour sells as follows :—White, 40s superfine, 37s 6d ; superfine, 36s Od ; fine, 358 Od. GLASGOW—WEDNEsDAv. A P I P We have a continuance of seasonable weather's „ref o il rate business occurred during the week, at abolVileat 0 ., prices. This day's market was well attended• rs flour were in slow demand and the turn in buYer barley was unchanged. sfl; London • Printed and PubLiehed of No. 112, Strand, Ptnter, at b 'Fitz SUN 0101013" Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy` Bllddlescsof-Friday, Juno 1, 1666• WILL101_!--n 9$0.„10, -- - Births. , VII ; BULKLEY— On the 30th ult. at at 2, Th e Terra—o' o p ton-gardens-square, the * wife of George Dia" - t o , barrister-at-law, of a son. ea COVENTRY—On the 29th ult., ° at The Knoll, 13 soli' borne, Dorset, the wife of Mr. J. Coventry O f ,e 1 Marriages. , 0 C had'' O'KEEFFE—CATENDISH-011 the 25th ult., at ~,* e f Marbceuf, Paris, Lieut. Yelverton O'Neeffelf,' P''' to Fanny, eldest daughter of E. V. Casepul'"' 1) , Melton Abbey, Gloucester. pt . Obli° SKIPWITH—PECKELL—On the 30th ult., at '''' l f tb, e icr Henley-on-Thames, Col. Henry_Skipwith, s°llWorlitf' Sir Gray Skipwith, Bart., of Newbold all, f t he shire, to Horatia Charlote, eldest daughte r ° Horace and Lady Caroline Pechell. Deaths. Pe n° e ° AYLING —On the 29th ult Dennett, eldest se ll 0f 0 0 21 0 1 . 33 ./ Ayling, Esq., of Sand-hill, Rogato, aged ,ht, / MAINGAY-011 the 28th ult., at Door", near Utrev ,0 Job ° B. llaingay, Esq., of Rotterdam carol PERCIVALL—On the 28th ult., at Hastings, t 691 a Percivall, Royal Horse Artillery, age d 33 ' Vigil SNEWIN—On the 29th ult., Charles Snevrilr' ll ' aee' Thornhill-square, Islingt .on, aged 76 . p h i t ri e• toll TERRY -On the 29th ult at Hampton parks .4 7 11 - ° ti 6t' Terry, Esq., aged 74. t 110 ,5 e of VickEßY—On the 28th inst., at 101, Gre a t' fo vea W.C., the Rev. F. W. J. Vickery, 3 1 - a '' Paul's, Covent-garden, aged 78. A O , ....6 9 ' At, eig nit( Wit riali 11 l Fa r •,... 8' thrz b 8