The Sun. — London, England, 1865-05-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST VENING. The LORD Cuiscmott took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL. Earl POWIS presented a petition from Sing's College, Cambridge, complaining of some of the provisions of this bill. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Banbury Water, Chesterfield Water and Gas, Horsforth Water, Luton Water, St. Albans Water, Dundee Roads and Streets, East London Railway, Exeter Gas (No. 1), and Runcorn, Weston, and Halton Water. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Brean Down Harbour Railway Bill, Agra and Masterman's Bank Bill, Limerick Embankment and Reclamation Bill, 0 swestry Local Board Bill, Helsdon Roads Bill, and Shrews bury and North Wales Railway Bill (Amendments). THE EDMUNDS REPORT. LOrd REDESDALE drew the attention of the house to this subject. He said that the select committee to whom the matter had been referred had passed cen sure on the committee of the standing orders, in consequence of the part they had taken in reference to the inquiry. On their behalf, and also on his own, he could not allow the subject to pass without some observation, and he gave notice that to-morrow he would call their lordships' attention to that part of the report which related to the standing committee, and he would also move that the same should be read. Having read the minutes recording the presentation of the petition of Edmunds by the Lord Chancellor without comment, he said he would confine himself to relieving the committee from any blame, and he considered that the committee not having any special instructions were not bound to enter into any matter such as they were blamed for not having done, and which did not properly come within the sphere of the standing committee. STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS. Lord ST. LEONARDS drew the attention of their lordships to the recent strikes and lock-outs. He said the legislature could not wisely interfere in the question of the regulation of wages. He thought the proper course would be to endeavour to bring employers together, and by creating friendly feelings between them strike at strikes. Having given an outline of the different strikes from 1850, he said he would lay a report on the table on this subject. Ile next adverted to the mode of proceeding between masters and men which prevailed, which had the object of leading to an arrangement of their differences without leading to the mutual feelings of exasperation that occasionally existed between the two classes in this country. Those tribunals (as we understood the noble lord, who spoke very indistinctly) were called Courts of Concilia tion, and had worked efficiently for some years, while the adoption of a similar institution in this country was recommended by Lord Brougham and other per sons who had paid attention to the subject. The reason why the attempts made at arbitration in this coun try had failed was that the operatives had an objection to go before magistrate; who in many cases were manufac turers, and whose sympathies, it was supposed, would be adverse to their interests. A bill, having passed through the House of Commons, was brought before their lordship; and was referred to a select committee ; but it did not pass, although it was good. He did not intend to refer to that bill in its original form, but with certain enact ments that would render courts of arbitration more likely to meet the views of both classes interested. He concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. DISTRICT CHURCH TITHES. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said that although this bill had been read a second time, he merely proposed that it be referred to a committee, which was accordingly done. COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR this bill was read a third time. On the motion that the bill should be passed some dis cussion arose. L•rd REDESDALE proposed to omit from the clause empowering the construction of a communication between the Temple and the Courts by means of a bridge over or tunnel under the Strand, the words "a bridge over or." He did not think that it was desirable to have a bridge over the Strand. The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that it would be quite possible to construct such a bridge without caus ing the slightest obstruction to public traffic. Lord REDESDALE did not press the amendment. Lord REDESDALE then moved a clause, enacting that no portion of the property designated should be taken un til a definite plan and estimate had been provided, and had been sanctioned by Parliament. At present they were utterly ignorant of the probable cost of the new building. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if this clause was carried it would be impossible to proceed with the bill. Lord CHELMSFORD suggested a verbal alteration in the amendment, which was accepted by Lord Redesdalo, and the house then divided on the question that the clause proposed should stand part of the bill— Contents .... Non-contents . 47 Majority —3 The clause was therefore added. The bill, as amended, was then passed. THE JURIES (IRELAND) BILL. • This bill was withdrawn. The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Bill passed through committee. THE IRISH CONSTABULARY. The Earl of LEITRIM moved for certain returns con nected with the Irish constabulary. The returns were ordered. The Land Drainage Supplemental Bill, the Local Go vernment Supplemental Bill, and the Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) Bill, were read a third time and passed. THE EDMUNDS PENSION. Earl GRANVILLE gave notice that to-morrow (Tubs day) he should move that the resolution of the house grant ing a pension to Mr. Edmunds be rescinded.: The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Bishop's Castle Railway (Chirbury to Minsterley); Great Eastern and London and Blackwall Railways ; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (No. 2) ; Peterborough, Wis be.ach, and Sutton Railway; Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway; and Ramsbottom Gas. CONSTANCE KENT. Mr. WHALLEY gave notice that to-morrow he should call tho attention of the house to circumstances connected with the confession of Constance Kent, and to the part taken in the matter under the seal of confession by the Rev. Mr. Wagner, and the Lady Superioress of St. Mary's ; and he should ask whether it was the intention of the Go vernment to bring in a bill to prevent persons holding such opinions from becoming membeis of the Church of Eng land. MILITIA APPOINTMENTS. ' Mr. DENMAN asked whether the junior captain of the 8d Middlesex Militia had recently been appointed to the vacant majority of that regiment over the heads of the other nine captains, some of them of many years' stand ing. And whether such appointment had been made with the approval of the War-office, or in accordance with the usages of the service. The Marquis of HARTINGTON said it was quite true that Lord Chelsea had been appointed to a vacant majority over the heads of several captains, and the reason was that as it was of the greatest importance to have persons of local influence and position in the various militia regi ments, and as Lord Chelsea had been represented by the Lord Lieutenant to be one whose appointment would be of importance to the regiment, the Commander-in-Chief had recommended her Majesty to confirm the appoint ment. CONDITION OF MINES. Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he had taken, or proposed to take, to remedy the very serious evils which had been brought to light by the evidence taken by the royal com mission appointed to inquire into the condition of mines, and which reported last session ? Sir G. GREY said there were many of the recommends - Eons of the commissioners inserted for legislation, and others it might be beneficial to embody in a bill; but as the commissioners-were of opinion that hasty legislation should be avoided, means had been taken to make the people resident in Cornwall and the surrounding country acquainted with the recommendations, and he should not thatuntil had been done propose to introduce any measure on the subject. EXPORT DUTIES. Mr. CAIRD asked whether it was the intention of the Government in India to impose export duties on the more important staples of that country ; and whether the home Government approved of that course of policy ? Sir C. WOOD said he had received that day a private letter from India. He disagreed with the financial scheme laid down binet in India. Ministers He had, With the ass i s t ance of as many of the Ca as he could get together, come to the conclusion not to all ow th e imposition of the export duties. - THE. DERBY DAY. of Stat e f or o Sir H. BRUCE asked the Under Beer e t a War whether there w ould bo an y objection t alter th e regimental muster day this month to enable officers to see the Derby. The Marquis of lIARTINGTON said arrangements had been made by direction of the Commander-in-Chief to enable as many officers as could be spared to see the Derby. There would be no necessity for any alteration of tho arrangements. INDIAN LOAN. Mr. CRAWFORD asked the Secretary for India whether be was about to raise a large loan in this country for India. Sir O. WOOD said such was not his intention. DISTRIBUTION OF BOOTY. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Secretary of State for India as to the total amount and distribution of the booty taken at the Regent's Coote, Lucknow, in December, 1858 ? Sir C. WOOD said all the prize money had been distri buted, and none had been kept back He could not give the hon. member any further information than that he had communicated on a former occasion. LORD ELCHO AND MR. MASON JONES. Lord ELCHO took that opportunity of making certain explanations relative to the matter he had ref( rred to in his observations in the discussion on the Borough Franchise Bill on Wednesday last. With respect to the observation, "We don't want you," he (Lord Elcho) was substantially correct., but as there were other matters to which Mr. Mason Jones had given a flat denial, he was sorry he had misrepresented that gentleman, but it was done without the slightest intention; and although he thought some of Mr. Jones's views visionary, yet he was bound to say, in his place in Parliament, that he held them sincerely and earnestly. (Hear, hear.) DOCKYARD EXPENDITURE. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer whether his attention had been called to the cor respondence between the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Secretary to the Treasury relating to the proposed ex - tension of basin and dock accommodation in the Royal dockyards, from which it appeared that an expenditure of more than £2,500,000 at Chatham and Portsmouth is in contemplation, of which sum not more than £90,000 had been provided for in the estimates for the current year ; and whether is was the intention of the Government to propose any plan to this house for providing for the re mainder of the contemplated expenditure ; and if so, when such a proposal was likely to be made. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho was about to introduce a bill, and for which he should ask the sanction of Parliament, to enable certain contracts to be entered into, extending over one year. Ho felt that a great saving in some instances might be secured by such an arrangement. BOROUGH FRANCHISE BILL. The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed by Mr. GREGORY, who said he was of opinion that as far as the Government were concerned they had acted with regard to the Reform Bill with wisdom and sincerity. He defended Ministers, however, from the insinuations that had been thrown out against them in the previous debate, and argued that they had acted with both wisdom and sin cerity. He himself was no advocate of the ballot ; but if it were possible he should like to see it put in operation in the house on this subject, and he believed 'that if the ques tion were that the bill should be staved off for ten years, the revulsion of opinion in the Liberal ranks against reform would be astounding, and, moreover, that the verdict would be received with great complacency by the country. For himself, he was prepared to support an extension of the suffrage both in counties and boroughs, by the admission, after due inquiry, of the best, most trustworthy, and most respectable portion of the working classes ; but the bill before the house did nothing of the sort. Everybody dis liked it, and there was not a doubt that, if it were adopted, it must introduce organic changes that would conduct the country to democracy. The creation of a "fancy franchise" was infinitely preferable to such a consequence as this. Sir G. GREY—Before the close of the debate on Wed nesday last an appeal was made to the Government to state explicitly the course which they proposed to take in refe rence to the motion of my hon. friend the member for Leeds for the second reading of this bill, and also to state their general intentions and opinions with regard to the question of Parliamentary Reform. Sir, the Government are not prepared to dispute the reasonableness of that demand—(a laugh)—and they are prepared to give an explicit answer to the appeal which had thus been made to them. A great many hon. members on the oppositebenches who were here at the close of the debate hadnot been here from 12 o'clock. Had they been here before they would have known that the motion for the second reading and the amendment for the previous question had not been put till an advanced hour of the day. After they had been put only three speeches were made. It was clear to me through the whole debate that it was impossiblebut there must be an adjourn ment. By desire of my colleagues I had come down here, in the absence of my noble friend at the head of the Go vernment, to take part in the debate ; but I did not think it would be becoming in me to stand in the way of the two or three gentlemen who were anxious 'to state their opi nions. (Hear.) We are here now to answer the appeal which has been made to us, and also to answer the charges which have been brought against the Government for their conduct on the question of Reform. (Hear.) lam afraid that what I have to say will not meet with the entire ap proval either of the warm and sanguine supporters of the bill, on the one hand, or of its determined and strenuous opponents, on the other. And here let mo say as to those opponents, that the course which they have taken in refe rence to this bill has been not quite as fair, not quite as Parliamentary, not quite as straightforward as might have been expected. Well, what is the question which we have now to decide ? On the one hand a motion is made for the second reading of this bill. On the other hand, there is no motion for the rejection of the_ bill, but only an amendment for the previous question, although the spirit of the argument of the noble lord who moved that amendment and of my right hon. friend who supported him is this—that under no cir cumstances and at no time are they prepared to change the franchise by lowering it. (Hear, hear.) But what is the principle of this bill ? The principle of lowering the fran chise; and therefore I say that the noble lord and my right hon. friend have not taken the opinion of the house in the straightforward manner they might have done. My hon. friend who has just addressed the house goes further; for, forgetting that the amendment was "the previous question," at the close of his speech he said he was prepared to say " no" to the motion for the second reading. 1 must observe likewise that my hon. friend and those who preceded him in opposition to this bill have not stated the case fairly. They assume, without any proof whatever, that the neces sary, or at all events the probable, tendency of any bill to extend the suffrage by lowering the value of the house which gives a right to vote would be to endanger the con stitution, to impeiil the monarchy, and to substitute in the place of that mode and form of Government, for which every day we have more reason to be grateful, a system of pure democracy. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend who spoke last has assumed that the tendency of this bill would be to Americanise our institutions, and he referred to the Aus tralian colonies in support of his views. I can only say that if her Majesty's Government thought that was the neces sary or even the probable tendency of the principle contained in the bill of my hon. friend the member for Leeds they would at once have asked the house to reject it, and I am sure that in taking that course they would have had the hearty approbation and concurrence of the body of the people of this country. (Cheers.) Let me now say a few words in reply to the charges made against her Majesty's Government for their conduct in respect to the question of reform. Let me go back a little further than my hon. friend went, and let me call the attention of the house to what took place in March, 1859, when the Government of Lord Derby proposed a Reform Bill, and the second reading was moved in this house. On that occasion an amendment was moved by Lord Russell, who pointed to two alleged defects in the bill proposed by Lord Derby's Government. Lord Russell's resolution distinctly asked the opinion of the house on a particular proposition. The first part of his amendment pointed to the alleged unsatisfactory manner in which the bill dealt with the freehold franchise. With that question wo are not immediately concerned. But the latter part of his resolution pointed directly to the absence in the bill of any provision by which the working classes or any portion of them could be admitted to the franchise by a reduction of the valuation. (Hear, hear.) I don't now allude to the county franchise ; but the debate on the borough franchise was in substance this :—" Shall we at tempt to introduce some of these classes by means of fancy franchises—franchises now unknown to the Constitution ?" (I don't mean to say anything as to the merits of those fran chises now, as that may form the subject of debate at ano ther time.) "Shall we endeavour to get a portion of the working classes in this way, or shall we effect our object and admit a considerable number of them by lowering tho franchise ?" On that question the house came to a division, and pronounced a deliberate decision. (Hear, hear.) What course did the Government of Lord Derby take ? They advised her Majesty to take the opinion of the country upon the subject. Accordingly Parliament was dissolved, and a new one met in June, 1859. A speech was delivered from the Throne which held out the expectation of another Par liamentary Reform Bill being proposed by that Govern ment on a future occasion, but stated that such a bill could not be then introduced on account of the advanced period of the year. The address in answer to the speech was moved by the member for South Lancashire, and no per son more fitted for the purpose could have been chosen by the Government to represent them, regard being had to his position and to the fact that he represented a largo mixed constituency comprising large agricultural, commer cial, and manufacturing interests, and coming fresh, as he did, from his election, he may be taken to have fully represented those interests and to have spoken in their name. What did he say with regard to these questions which had been the subject of contention in Parlia ment before the dissolution—questions upon which this house had entertained and had distinctly expressed its opinion ? Why, the hon. gentleman, who we well know had received certain information from Government with respect to their intended measures, said— " I shall not discuss the character of that measure till it is brought forward ; but I have reason to believe that there certainly will be in it a diminution of the borough franchise. I do not know what it is intended to do with regard to the counties ; but as far as my opinion goes I should wish to have, to a certain extent, a diminution of the franchise both for counties and boroughs. I think the objects of such measures should bo as they have been proclaimed before the country, to give the working classes a share of the electoral franchise." The hon. gentleman made that statement in moving the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of a Government which had previously refused to accept the condition of lowering the franchise. But what did the right hon. member for Bucks say on that occasion ? The right hon. gentleman, inzpeaking on behalf of the Govern ment on the debate on the Address, said : " The question of the borough franchise must be dealt with ; and it must bo dealt with, too, with reference to the introduction of the working classes. We admit that that has been the opinion of Parliament, and that it has been the opinion of the country as shown by the hon. gentlemen who have been returned to this house. We cannot be blind to that result. We do not wish to be blind to it. We have no prejudice against the proposition. All that we want is to assure ourselves that any measure that we bring forward is one required by the public necessities and will be sanctioned by public approbation and support, and therefore we are perfectly prepared to deal with that question of the borough franchise and the introduction of the working classes, by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting in that direction with sincerity, because, as I ventured to observe in the debate on our measure—if you intend to admit the working classes to the franchise by lowering the suffrage in boroughs you must not keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope." (Loud cheers.) I ask could there be a more explicit admis sion that the opinion of the country had been against the then Government as to the question upon which the issue had been taken ? (Hear.) Could there have been a more frank or a more unqualified acceptance of that verdict ? (Hear.) Not only that Government but this house have absolutely pledged themselves to the principle of lowering the franchise. The right hon. gentleman was dealing with the question of want of confidence in the Government which wasmoved as an amendment to the Address. He distinctly admitted that the country had shown its wish that the suf frage should be lowered, and he said he would yield to the desire of the country and carry out its views if the house would give the Government its support. The house refused to give them its support ; it refused to pass a vote of confi dence in Lord Derby's Government. (Hear, hear.) A change of Government took place, and the present Government came in, and I here admit they did so on distinct terms. (Hear.) They were pledged, to the same extent that Lord Derby's Government would have been had it obtained a majority to lay a reform bill before the Legislature. Well, we did propose a reform bill, which was, I contend, a com plete redemption of the pledge we had given. (Hear, hear.) We proposed that bill, without loss of time, on the Ist of March, and the second reading was moved by Lord Russell on the 19th, thus giving plenty of time for consideration. What took place on that second reading ? The right hon. gentleman, objecting, no doubt, to many parts of the bill, criticised it very freely, but distinctly admitted his ap proval of its principle. He said he was not prepared to offer any opposition to the second reading of the bill, and after it had been in the right hon. gentleman's hands for three weeks ho was not prepared to move one single amendment. (Hear, hear.) We had reason, under these circumstances, to expect that the house, accepting the prin ciple of the bill, would have allowed us to carry it through: But at the next stage, adjournment after adjournment took place in opposition to the repeated protests and en treaties of the Government (hear, and laughter), showing that the Government at least were sincere in their endea vours to carry the bill through the house. (Hear, hear, and renewed laughter.) Such were the tactics by which. the passing of the bill was delayed, and they were adopted not only by the gentlemen opposite, but by those sitting on this side of the house. (Hear, hear.) But, directly the right hon. gentleman saw the application of which the words he made use of in the debate on the Address were capable, he found means to prevent the third reading. On the 4th of June the bill went before the committee for its details to be considered, when those who allowed the second reading to take place without opposition met us with motion after motion of a dilatory character, no man venturing posi tively to oppose it in ignorance of what might be the feelings of the country upon the question. It then being the middle of June, the Government, finding they had not the slightest chance of carrying the bill, were reluctantly compelled to withdraw it. The hon. member for Leeds, with an inno cence for which I should not have given him credit, hoped that the Government would not allow this opportunity to pass without explaining their reasons for dropping that bill. My answer is that the Government used its utmost endeavours to carry that bill, but they felt that they should be merely wasting the time of the house in endeavouring to maintain a supposed consistency by carrying on the bill in the face of those protracted debates. (Hear.) Now, I ask whether Government was not fully justified in the course they took in withdrawing the bill when they did ? (Hear.) I ask whether the country expressed any disapprobation of the conduct of the Government on that account? (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, the Government was supported by the house in the course they had adopted, and the house by the public opinion of the country. Ihope myhon. friend the member for Leeds will be fully satisfied with my reply to his question. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hud dersfield singled out the President of the Board of Trade for his severest censure, not only for taking the course he did as a member of the Government, but also for the reasons he gave for his conduct at a public meeting of his constituents. I think those reasons aro amply sufficient to justify our acts, and I believe they have recommendedthem selves to the country. (Hear.) Believing that the feeling of the country and of this house is not that which my hon. friend the member for Halifax considers essential to the passing of an efficient Reform Bill, there not being that per sistent and overwhelming expression of the opinion of the country by which alone such a measure could be sustained, we did not, merely for the purpose of maintaining an ap pearance of consistency, go on session after session sub mitting a bill of this kind to Parliament with the certainty before us that the only practical result would be that public business would be obstructed, and that the Government would be prevented from discharging the duties they owe to this house and to the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe that the Government would not have been justified in pur suring that course, and therefore I am prepared to defend their conduct, believing, as I do, that it has met with the approbation of the country. (Hear, hear.) Has the country expressed any want of confidence in the Government ? Has the house withdrawn its confidence from them? They amply redeemed the pledge which they gave by proposing a bill framed in accordance with the opinions which they had expressed, and they only withdrew that bill when they saw that neither the house nor the country wished that it should be pressed. (Hear.) The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), whose sincerity as a Reformer no mau can doubt, has taken office in the Government. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition benches.) He is a high-minded and honourable man, and no one will venture to say that he would have identified himself with the Government if he had believed that they had upon this question broken their pledges and abandoned their principles. But since that period other measures'for the extension of both borough and county franchise have been proposed by independent members. My hon. friend the member for East Surrey has proposed the extension of the county and my hon. friend the member for Leeds has several times proposed the ex tension of the borough franchise. Government have offered no opposition to the introduction of those bills. They have thought that, thought they did not feel justified in them selves submitting measures to Parliament for those pur poses, they had no right to stand in the way of hon. gentle men who differed from them in opinion as to the feeling of the country. Nor have we offered any opposition to the second reading of those bills. We have at all times been ready to affirm the prinCiple that there should be an ex tension of the suffrage by lowering the franchise to a cer tain extent both in counties and boroughs; but the house has not accepted those measures, and I think their fate has afforded sufficient justification for the course which the Government has taken in not asking Parliament to consider a general measure. (Hear, hear.) We are again asked by my hon. friend to agree to the second reading of this bill, and how is it met ? I put aside altogether the previous question because that is not the real question that we have to decide. Wo are asked by the recent arguments of those who oppose this bill to reject the principle involved in it. We are asked, in fact, to say that at no time and under no circum stances shall the borough franchise be lowered andlthe working classes introduced. (" No, no," and "Hear, hear.") Does my right hon. friend the member for Caine say no. The "noes" proceed from gentlemen who most vociferously cheered the able and forcible arguments of my right hon. friend; but I think that no man who cheered those argu ments can say that he is now or, without a great change of opinion, can become an advocate of any reduction of tho borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) I agree with my right hon. friend in much that ho said in that very able speech. (Hear.) I agree with all that he said about abstract rights to the franchise, and universal suffrage ; but those questions are not in debate now. (Hear, hear.) I agree with him that it is desirable that the working men should look upon the at tainment of the suffrage as an object of some ambition, 'and should be induced to deny themselves some sensual indul gences in order to acquire it; but I cannot agree with him in thinking that the amount of £lO which was fixed more than 30 years ago at the timo of the Reform Act is an immutable figure. (Hear.) I cannot agree with him that any departure from a £lO franchise in boroughs must necessarily lead to democracy, to the subversion of our institutions, and to all those evils which he so forcibly depicted. His speech was very familiar to some of those which we heard in opposition to the Reform Act of 1832. (Cheers.) There are now very few members of this house who had seats in it at that time, but some of us are unfortunately old enough to remember the debates which took place then,and which if we did not hear them we all read with the deepest interest. The very same arguments were then used against Reform as are now urged against the lowering of the franchise. It was then said, " If you place power in the hands of the £lO shareholders, you have begun a downward course which must land you in pure democracy." No doubt those who expressed such opinions sincerely entertained the belief that the only safety of the country lay in the rejection of that bill, and that it was a dangerous and revolutionary measure, which would entirely subvert our institutions. But what has been the result ? (Hear, hear.) The part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine which I liked best was that in which ho enlarged upon the immense advantages which have been conferred upon the country by the Reform Act of 1862, being a falsification of every pre diction which was hazarded by those who opposed it. (Hear, hear.) What proof has my right hon. friend given us, not that universal suffrage would lead to democracy, but that the change proposed by this measure would? We are not dealing with universal suffrage, and when my hon. friend who last addressed the house spoke of Mr. Holyoake ho should have said that he was an advocate of universal suffrage, and that the bill prepared by some Manchester Association, and which, he said, would endanger other classes and deprive them of their share of power, was not the measure now under discussion, but a bill for the establishment of universal suffrage. What we think, and what we thought when we introduced the bill of 1860, is that, looking at tho intelligence of the upper class of the working classes, and looking at the improvement which has taken place in their habits and character from the edu cation which has been so widely diffused among them during the last 30 years, the time has come when it is right to consider whether a portion of those classes should not be admitted to the suffrage by means of lowering the quali fication which now very much confines it to the middle classes. (Hear.) In ono breath we are told that a large THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1865. number of the' working classes are admitted under the ex isting franchise, and in the next that it is unsafe to admit any portion of them. I ask whether in those cases to which the noble lord has referred, in which a large number of the working classes are included in the constituencies, the re suit of the elections has been such as to justify the appre hensions which he entertains as to the consequences which would follow if the same proportion were admitted in others. I believe that the idea of a liberal extension of the franchise in boroughs leading to democracy and endanger ing our institutions is perfectly fallacious. I believe that it will be safer and wiser to widen the basis of repre sentation as far as we possibly can within reasonable limits by admitting those who have proved themselves qualified to exercise the franchise. We therefore cannot agree with those who propose to reject the bill because they object to the principle contained in it, and it is a principle which we have always accepted. We have seen no reason to doubt that the course which we took in 1860 was in itself a right course. We have seen no reason to suppose that the num ber of electors which we calculated would under that bill be added to the constituencies was an unreasonable or a dangerous number. We believe that that number might have been admitted, scattered as the electors would have been over all the boroughs in the kingdom, with perfect safety to the constitution, with satisfac tion to large numbers of the working-classes, and, therefore, with additional security to our institu tions. In that view the Government will, as they hav e before done, with a view to affirm the principle that there may safely be and that there ought to be a reduction of the borough franchise, vote for the second reading of the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. (Hear,) I wish that that should not go for more than it is worth. (Ironical cheers.) If it is intended that the bill of my hon. friend, that the £6 franchise in boroughs, should be applied as a political test at the elections which are now not far distant, that is a test which her Majesty's Government will not accept. We feel that we are not bound, without further consi deration, to the adoption of a £6 franchise, although in connection with other alterations in our electoral system we proposed it in 1860. We now only affirm the principle that there may be beneficially and usefully made a re duction of the borough franchise ; but to what extent that reduction should go (laughter) and with what other altera tions in the electoral system it should be combined are questions which any Government dealing with the subject are bound to take into consideration. (Hear, hear.) I do not reject the £6 franchise. I only say that I, for one, and that her Majesty's Government, will not go to the hustings at the general election pledged to support a £6 franchise. (Renewed laughter and ironical cheers.) They are of opinion, with the right hon. gentlemen opposite, that there ought to be such a reduction of the borough franchise as will in all sincerity admit a considerable por tion of the working classes ; but they reserve to them selves the discretion, which they would be un worthy of their position as a Government if they did not reserve of considering when the question comes prac tically before the house after the second reading of the bill what the reduction should be, and with what guards it. should be accompanied. With regard to the question of Parliamentary Reform generally, I need hardly state after what I have said that we do not go to the country with anyparticular measure. (A laugh.) We must upon this subject reserve to ourselves the fullest liberty to act upon our principles according to the circumstances of the time and the opinion of the country. We are not pledged to, and we do not intend to ask the support of the country as the advocates of, a great measure of Parliamentary Reform. (Ironical cheers.) I wish to be explicit. (Renewed cheer ing.) It would be idle to get up and say that we would in troduce a certain measure when we do not know what may be the opinion of the next House of Commons upon the subject—(laughter and cheers) —or to commit ourselves irrespective of the opinion of the House and of the opinion of the country to propose a large measure of Par liamentary Reform, which the House may be as disinclined to pass as it was before, and which the country may not desire. We should gladly avail ourselves of any such persistent and overwhelming expression of opinion upon the subject as the hon. member for Halifax says is essential to the passing of a Bill, but we hold the principles which I have endeavoured to express (laughter), and we are not prepared to go to tho country as the advocates of a measure of Parliamentary Reform without reserving to our selves a discretion to act upon that matter, as upon all others, as the interests of the country may require. (More laughter.) That appeal is not far distant. We shall appeal with confi dence to the general opinion of the country. The country will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to how the Government has been conducted by the present Admi nistration. We shall not shrink from that appeal, and by its result we shall willingly abide. (Hear, hear.) . _ Mr. W. E. FORSTER complained that, notwithstanding the promise of the Home Secretary, the house was still in the dark as to the policy of Ministers at the next election. What ho wanted to know was, whether the gentlemen seated on the Treasury Bench were a Reform Ministry or not. Better let the Liberal party be ruined and disbanded, better let it be re-formed of fewer members, than that it should vote against its own principles, and be thus pawned, mismanaged, and misled. Again, he asked, before embark ing in the Liberal ship at the next election, to what port it was to be steered—whether to the reform harbour or not. The real question now at issue was whether the upper por tion of the working classes were inferior to the lower por tion of the middle class. In his opinion they were not, and he had no fear whatever of the tendency of a measure to admit them to the franchise; on the contrary, he considered that it would be in strict accordance with the principles of the constitution. He held that as education extended so ought the suffrage to be extended, and that as the working classes, with their organisation and vast numbers, acquired the advantages of education, it would be impossible suc cessfully to resist their claim. Mr. LIDDELL opposed the bill on a variety of grounds, amongst which was the objection that it would place the suffrage on a valuation ascertained for the purposes of local taxation, and therefore an ill-defined and varying basis. He entertained no apprehension of the individual working man, but he could not approve of his being indiscriminately admitted as a class to the possession of the franchise. Sir F. Goiinsmin supported, and Mr. BUXTON opposed the bill. Mr. STANSFELD admitted that there was no enthu siasm out of doors on the question of reform, but that was no justification for withholding from the working classes some share of political influence. Ile denied that the present measure would introduce so large a proportion of those classes as would swamp the existing constituencies, or that there was any desire or intention on the part of its pro moters to effect a transfer of power. Tho " down-hill argu ment" of Mr. Lowe—the idea that if any step were taken towards lowering the qualification it must lead to the evil of a supremacy of mere numbers—was a cowardly argu ment, and he believed the time was not far distant when a measure of reform would be passed with the simple object of admitting within the pale of the constitution a class which nobody asked should be supreme, but which by its progress was entitled to some share of consideration. Mr. HORSMAN, adverting to the arguments used in support of the bill, observed that ostensibly the mea sure was to introduce a £6 franchise into boroughs, but logically and practically it was to abolish the £lO franchise and substitute another under which a vast number of the operatives would be admitted to vote ; but the bill was not in harmony with the speeches by which it had been sup ported. It would not really diminish the injustice com plained of, or remove the cause of agitation, for in fact it would leave the great bulk of the working classes entirely untouched. The supporters of the bill arrogated to them selves that they were the mouthpiece of the non-electors. He wanted to know where they got their commission, be cause there had not been a reform meeting which had ven tured to publish its proceedings but had condemned this proposal as an antiquated and exploded Whig delusion. In his view it was the first of a series of downward movements which would only cease when they had reached the bottom of the abyss, and would lead to universal suffrage. It was not true that the franchise was, or ever had been in any sense whatever, the right of any man or class of men. It was conferred by law not as a matter of right or individual advantage, but as a public trust ; and for that reason the Legislature had guarded its exercise with stringent pains and penalties. To the principle of admitting the working classes to a sharo of political power he had no objection, but the problem to be solved was how to do that without creating a monopoly. To the present measure, however, reason, justice, and policy were equally opposed. Above all, the nation was against it, and even the unenfranchised stood aloof from it, for they knew that they as a class had more to lose than to gain by the change. Let the house, then, proclaim the truth. Let them frankly declare that the mind of Parliament and the nation had changed ; that suc cessive Queen's Speeches, promising reform in a downward direction, had been a mistake ; that the Ministers who pre pared those speeches had been discredited ; that the Liberal party had been damaged by its blindness and inconside rateness on the question ; and that the inaction of the house had not been the evasion of a duty, but a deliberate policy resulting from experience, and enforced by respect for the unmistakable feeling of the country. Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I could have wished, and I once believed, that it would not be necessary for me to have taken part in this debate, I look upon this discussion as the natural epilogue to the Parliament of 1859. We remember the prologue ; and this is a controversy between tho edu cated section of the Liberal party—(hear, hear)—and that section of the Liberal party who, according to their com panions and colleagues, aro not entitled to an epithet so euphuistic or so complimentary. (Cheers and laughter.) But after the speech of the minister, it would hardly be come me—representing the opinions of gentlemen with whom I act on this side of the house entirely to remain silent. Sir, the measure before us to-night is ono to increase the fran chise in boroughs. Without reference to any other circum stances, I object to that measure. I object to that measure because an increase of the franchise in boroughs is a propo sal to redistribute the political power in the country—(hear, hear.) I do not think the question of theredistribution•of power in this country should be treated partially. I think it impossible, in the very nature of things, if there is to be a redistribution of political power, that you can consider the suffrage of only one section of the constituent body. Whatever may be the proposition of the hon. gentleman— whether it may be abstractedly expedient or not---this is quite clear—that the question must be considered not only in relation to ',particular persons with whom you propose to deal, but also in relation to others with whom you do not propose to deal, but whom the measure would affect. Therefore, if you deal with the subject of Parliamentary reform you must deal with it comprehensively (Hear.) You may make many arrangements as to one part of the constituency which may not be objectionable in them selves, but extremely objectionable considered in relation to other parts ; and the more we consider the subject the more true appears to be the conclusion that if you deal with the matter you must deal with it compre hensively. (Hear, hear.) You must consider, not only the borough constituencies, but the county constituencies ; and when persons urge their claims to be introduced into the constituent body you must, on the grounds of policy and justice, consider whether there may not be others not in possession of the franchise, but who may have an equal right to it. It is so clear that when you come to the re-distribution of power you must consider the question in all its bearings that even hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate have not been able to avoid the question of the re-distribution of seats—a question which cannot be considered without reference to the other portions of the subject to which I have referred. (Hear, hear.) It is easy for the honourable member for Liskeard to say that in considering this measure for the increase of the borough franchise it is impossible to conceal the ano malies of our system with respect to the distribution of seats, and that it is monstrous that Caine, with 173 votes, should return one member, and Glasgow only one. It may also be monstrous that Liskeard should return one member and Birkenkead only one. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, the distribution of seats is bne of the most pro-- found and most difficult questions which it is possible to bring before the house. (Hear, hear.) It is all very well to treat the question in that manner ; but how are you to reconcile the case of North Cheshire, North Durham, West Kent, and many other counties ? (Hear.) You find four or six towns, containing 100,000 persons, returning six members to this house, and the rest of the population of these districts returning only two. The West Riding and South Lancashire present greater anomalies with re spect to boroughs than Caine. Then there is the case of Scotland, with a population hardly equal to the metropolis, and with two-thirds of its wealth, returning 48 members, while the metropolis returns only 20. Do you reformers mean to say that you are prepared to disfranchise Scotland in proportion to the population ? The question is one of the most difficult that can engage the attention of the country. (Hear, hear.) If representation is not to be based on population or property, you have to represent something else ; but take care that the country itself is represented. I oppose the second reading of this bill, be cause it deals partially with the subject, and not com pletely or comprehensively. (Hear, hear.) I have another object. Ido not think this a measure which ought to be undertaken by any independent member. If there is one question which more than another deserves to be considered on the responsibility of a government it is that of the recon struction of our parliamentary system—(hear, hear) —and it is a Government or candidates for power who are alone entitled and qualified to deal with a question of this im portance. (Hear, hear.) But it is said that both the great parties in the state cannot be trusted with this question—that they have both trifled with it. Certainly a graver charge could not be made in this house. But lam not prepared to admit even that our opponents have trifled with this question. We have had a very animated history of the Reform Bill from the right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the house. It was animated, but not accurate. My version will be accurate although not animated. (Hear, and a laugh.) I am not prepared to state, with the right hon. gentleman, that English statesmen, although opposed to me in politics, have trifled with this question. I cannot agree in the lively narrative of the right hon. gentleman with respect to one with whom I have had no political con nection, and with whom I was placed in constant opposi tion in this house whilst he was an honoured member of it —I mean Earl Russell. According to the right hon. gen tleman, parliamentary reform was a creature of Lord John Russell's, the statesman who influenced and controlled his Cabinet beyond even a Richelieu or the minister of the present day. The right hon. gentleman says that Lord John Russell, merely to amuse himself, or in moments of difficulty, or to excite popular sympathy, had always re form in his pocket. How different, says the right hon. gentleman, from the sagacious statesman at the head of the Government, and whomwe had hoped to see to-day in his place, and who, I am sure, would have thrown a good humoured character over the house. How different from that sagacious statesman, whom it would have given us much pleasure to have seen present, and whom I had ex peated to see present. That sagacious statesman would have had nothing to do with the subject, and, according to the animated narrative of the right hon. gentleman, all that Lord Derby had to do was to sanction and humour the caprices of Lord Russell. Now, I must re mind the right hon. gentleman that he has unfortunately forgotten the history of the subject, recent though it be. It is true that Lord J. Russell, when Prime Minister, re commended her Majesty, in a speech from the throne, to call the attention of Parliament to the expediency of re considering our representative system. That there is no doubt about. But Lord John Russell, after a time, un fortunately retired from his eminent position ; and he was succeeded by one of the most eminent statesmen of our days, who was not connected with the political school of Lord John Russell, but who was called to power, not only with the assistance of Lord John Russell and a few mem ' hers of the Whig party, but was supported by tho whole staff of eminent statesmen who had been educated in the same school and been led by the same distinguished master. That eminent statesman is entirely for gotten, although he took office under the most favourable circumstances; and that is Lord Aberdeen. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman entirely forgot that Lord Aberdeen, when master of the situation, when he was Prime Minister, when all the places in the Cabinet were filled by disciples of Sir Robert Peel, deemed it his duty to recommend the same counsel. (Hear.) This is an important, and not the only important item of the Reform Bill, which has been entirely omitted by the right hon. gentleman. But is this all ? The time came when Lord Aberdeen disappeared, passed kway from the scene, and another statesman succeeded whe; hafl been complimented to-night for his sagacity in evading the subject. Let me vindicate the policy of Lord Palmerston in his absence. (A laugh.) He did not evade the question. Lord Palmerston followed the example of Lord John Russell. Lord Pal merston followed the example of Lord Aberdeen. And Lord Palmerston recommended her Majesty to introduce into the speech from the Throne a similar recommenda tion to Parliament to consider the question of the recon struction of the representative system. Then, what be comes of the lively, the animated description of the right hon. gentleman ? It is not founded on fact ; and, as I shall show, the conclusions of the right hon. gentleman are not only inaccurate, but they are injurious to sound policy and to the honour of Englishmen. Now, then, there were three Prime Ministers—not one from merely caprice, and from personal littleness, bringing forward the ques tion of Parliamentary reform in the House of Commons, but you have three. You have Lord John Russell, you have Lord Aberdeen, you have even that statesman, so eminent for sagacity as to take care not to notice it. Then what was the situation of Lord Derby when called into power ? It was one which you cannot understand if you accept the facts as stated by the right hon. gentleman, but which, after you have heard the facts as I shall state them, will be received with some interest, and certainly not without, significancy. Lord Derby was sent for by her Majesty, an unwilling candidate for office, and at that moment, allow me to remind the house, there was in the House of Commons a majority of 140 against Lord Derby ; and, therefore, I think that Lord Derby is open to no imputation if he hesitated to accept political responsibility. (Hear, hear.) Lord Derby stated to her Majesty—l speak, of course, with re serve, but I say nothing more than I have often repeated to the house—when the Government came forward on reform for six years without passing their measures these things were forgotten—Lord Derby advised her Majesty not to form a Government under his influence, and for this reason—there was a vast majority against him in the house, and the question of Parliamentary Reform was placed in such a position that it was impossible to deal with it, and he did not wish to deal with it. Lord Derby was a member of that famous Cabinet who carried the Reform Bill in 1832 ; Lord Derby, as Lord Stanley, was a most efficient sup porter of that bill ; Lord Derby thought that that bill had effected all that in his wisdom he considered necessary. Lord Derby never for a moment doubted that there were numerous persons worthy of the franchise, who under that bill would not possess it ; but, at the same time, he knew that in a country like England, we must not always be tam pering with the franchise, and that, therefore, it was inex pedient to deal with the question ; and it was on this ground that Lord Derby declined the acceptance of office when her Majesty graciously placed it at his disposal. Her Majesty was then left without advisers, and the appeal to Lord Derby was repeated. Under those circumstances no English statesman could for a moment hesitate what to do. But I am bound to say this—that I do not pretend to say that there was any contract, any understanding further than that which prevails among men, however different their politics, who love their country and wish to defend its greatness. (Hear, hear.) lam bound to say that there was an understanding among men on both sides that the position in which the reform question was placed was embarrassing to the Crown and not creditable to the Par liament, and if any Minister tried to deal with it he would receive not a pledge to support his measure—that would be impossible and preposterous—but that he would receive a candid consideration, and that, perhaps, there might be an attempt on both sides to bring about a solution advantageous to the country. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances Lord Derby gave his mind to the question. The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed you says it was not till 1860 that the portentous truth flashed upon the minds of the country ; that the question of Parlia mentary reform was this—that if ever it was possible to ad mit a portion of the working classes to the enjoyment of the franchise, and yet not injure the constitution, it should be done—that it was only in 1860 that the real state of affairs flashed upon the conscience of the country. All I can say is this—that was the question, and the only question, which engaged the labours of Lord Derby and his Cabinet. It was whether they should secure the franchise for a certain por tion of the working classes, who, by their industry, their in telligence, and their integrity, showed that they were worthy of such possession, and that, at the same time, they should not allow the rest of the constituency to be over whelmed by the numbers. Whether we succeeded or not that was the question, and the only question, that occupied the attention of the Government of Lord Derby, accord ing to the right hon. gentleman; yet it was only in 1860 that the portentous cry was raised by the English nation, although it had for ten years before occupied the public mind on a much larger scale than indicated by the bill now before the house. I need net remind the house of the recep tion which the bill of Lord Derby met. It is not my dispo sition, nor I am sure the wish of any of my colleagues, to complain of votes of this house, or indulge in reproaches against its members. Political life must be taken as we find it ; and not a word escaped me on the subject till charges had been made, speeches delivered, especially that of the right hon. gentleman. lam now here to defend a policy and vindicate a party. (Hear.) I say we were perfectly well aware of the great questions which it was our business to solve ; and I say this now, which I would not have said under any other circumstances, that the measure which we brought forward is the only measure which has at tempted to meet the difficulties of the case. (Hear, hear.) Totally irrespective of other modes, there were two franchises proposed on that occasion, and which we thought would have met the demands before us. The first was a franchise founded on personal property; the second that founded on partial occupation. (Hear.) Now these two franchises, irrespective of other modes with which we at tempted to meet the difficulties which existed, if we had gone into committee of this house, would, in my opinion, have been so shaped and adapted that they would have mainly effected the purposes of the majority of the house. •In that bill we endeavoured to make provisions which were consonant with the genius of the English constitution as a mere phrase. We do not consider it as a mere phrase. We know it is a monarchy tempered by the co-ordinate estates of the realm. We know the estate of of the Commons is an estate of the realm. We know an estate of the realm is a body invested with political power for the government of the country, and for the public good. It, therefore, is a body founded upon privileges, and not upon right. It is, therefore, in the noblest and properest sense of the word an aristocratic body, and from the first it has had that charac ter. The Reform Bill of 1832 did not depart from that cha racter, and if at this moment we could contrive to add a considerable number, as we proposed to do in 1859, to the constituent body, we should not change that character, but it would still be founded upon an aristocratic principle. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State has addressed us to-night in a very remarkable speech. He has taken up the history of reform; but before I touch upon some of the remarkable features of his speech, it is my duty to refer to the statement which he made with regard to the policy which the Government of Lord Derby was prepared to pursue after the general election. By a total misrepresentation of the character of the amend ment proposed by Lord Russell which threw the Go vernment of 1858 into a minority, and by quoting a pas sage from a long speech made by a member of the Govern ment of 1859, he most dexterously laid down these two propositions to the house—first of all, that Lord Russell had proposed, as an amendment to our Reform Bill, an amendment by which this house declared that no bill could be satisfactory by which the working classes were not admitted to the franchise, one of the main objects of our bill being that the working classes should be admitted to the franchise ; and secondly, that after the election I was prepared, as the organ of the Government, to give up the whole scheme by which these franchises founded on personal property, founded on partial occupation, and on other grounds, and that I was ready to substitute for them a lowering of the borough qualification. Now, sir, this indicates a result perfectly inaccurate. In the amendment of , Lord Russell there was not a single word about the working classes. There was not a single phrase by which that issue was raised, nor could it be raised, because the bill of the Government was a bill which, whether it would have effected the object or not, was a bill which proposed directly to enfranchise the working classes. The statement which I made was simply this. The election was over. We were still ministers of the Crown. We still, according to our sense of duty, recommended in the speech from the throne that the question of Parliamentary reform should be dealt with. (Hear.) I must be allowed to remind the house that, whatever were our errors, we never paltered with the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) We proposed a bill which we intended to carry, and having once taken up the ques tion as a matter of duty, and knowing the unhappy mis takes of ourpredecessors and the difficult position in which they placed Parliament and the country, we determined not to leave the question until it was settled. (Cheers.) But we were still Ministers of the Crown. We, as Minis ters of the Crown, felt bound to recommend her Majesty to introduce the question in the speech from the throne which opened the Parliament of 1859; and how were we, except in the spirit of compromise which is the prin cipal characteristic of our system how were we to introduce a reform bill after that election without in some degree considering the possibility of lowering the borough franchise ? But it was not a lowering of the fran chise to £6. It was an arrangement to be taken with the rest of the bill. But (says the nght hon baronet, pur suing the history of the reform bill) " the government of Lord Derby having retired from office, we came in, and were perfectly sincere in our desire to carry that reform bill to which we had pledged ourselves, and by which we had driven the government from office ; but look at the oppo sition we received—there never was such an opposition— that right hen. gentleman (referring to me) absolutely allowed the bill to be read a second time. (Laughter.) This tremendous, this reckless, opposition of the right hon. gen tleman, who allowed the bill to be read a second time, seemed to have completely laid the government prostrate. (Laughter.) If we had succeeded, and thrown out the bill, they might have been very greatly relieved from-their em barrassment, but the bill having been read a second time the government were quite overcome, and it appears they never recovered from the paralysis of this incident. (Laugh ter.) The right hon. gentleman was kind enough to say that the proposition was cordially received on his side of the house, and nobody spoke against it. Nobody on this side of the house spoke against it. I remember some re markable speeches of the right hon. gentleman's own friends. There was the great city of Edinburgh, represented by an acute eloquence which never wearied, and which on the present occasion was as freely given. (Laughter.) There was the great city of Bristol ready on the occasion, and many others. But the most important speech, and the speech supposed to have killed Cock Robin, was delivered by one who was described as a member of the govern ment. He was chairman of the committee of ways and means, and stood at the back of the Prime Minister whilst he made his speech. Did the government express any disapprobation ? They immediately promoted him to a great post, and sent him to India with an income Of fabu lous amount. (Laughter) And now, sir, they are astonished at that they cannot carry a reform bill. Why, sir, if they reward all those who oppose them by im mediately preferring them to posts of great confidence and lucre how can they expect they will ever pass a Reform Bill ? (Cheers and laughter.) If that is the policy of the Government I am not astounded at the speech which the right hon. gentleman has made this evening. It has cer tainly been a startling announcement. It was remarkable for two things. There are two salient conclusions at which he has arrived. First of all, the repudiation of the rights of man (laughter); and, secondly, the repudiation of the £6 franchise. The first is a very groat relief. I remember the feeling of the house a year ago, when listening to the fasci nating eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we really believed that the days of Tom Paine had arrived again (cheers and laughter), and that Rousseau was to be rivalled in his Social Contract. I think it would be a great relief to every respectable gentleman to find not only that we are not to have the rights of man, but that we are not even to have a£6 franchise. This is a matter of great con gratulation, and I am ready to give the right hon. secretary credit for the honesty with which he has expressed himself. I only wish we had had the same frankness and the same honesty of expression at the beginning of the Parliament instead of at the end. Now I will follow the example of the right hon. secretary and be frank. I have not changed my opinion on the subject of what is called Parliamentary re form. All that has occurred, all that I have observed, all the results of my reflections lead me to this more and mere —that the principle upon which the constituencies of the country should be increased is not one of radical, but I may say of lateral reform—extension of the franchise, not its de gradation. (Loud cheers.) Although—and Ido not wish in any way to deny it—in the most difficult position, when the Parliament of 1859 met, anxious to assist the Crown and the Parliament both in proposing some moderate measure which men on both sides might support, I did to a certain extent agree to some modification of the £lO franchise—in what degree no one knows (laughter)—but I say this, that it would have been one which would not at all have affected the character of the franchise, such as I and my colleagues wished to maintain it ; notwithstanding that, I must confess that my opinion is opposed, as it was origi nally, to any course of that kind ; I think it would fail iu its object ; I think it would not secure the introduction of that particular class that we desired to introduce, and it would introduce many others who are totally unworthy of the suffrage. But, sir, I retain those opinions. I think it pos sible greatly to increase—if the opportunity were favour able and the necessity wore urgent—the electoral body of this country by the introduction of voters on principles per fectly in unison with the principles of the constitution; so that the suffrage should remain a privilege, and not . become a right ; a privilege gained by virtues, by intelligence, by industry, by integrity, and exercised for the common good of the country. (Cheers.) And I think if you quit that ground and once admit that every man has a right to vote who you cannot prove is disqualified for it, you would change the character of the constitution of this country, and you would change it in a manner which would tend to the lowering of the importance of that franchise. (Cheers.) Between the scheme we brought forward and the measure brought forward by the hon. member for Leeds, the inevit able conclusion that we must be led to is that it is a ques tion between an aristocratic settlement in the proper sense of the word—that is to say a Government by the best men of all classes—and pure democracy. I doubt very much whether a democracy is a form of government that would suit this country. It is just as well that the house, in going to a vote on this question, should consider, if that be the issue, and it is the issue, between retaining the pre sent constitution—not the present constituent body ; that is quite another question—between retaining the prese nt constitution and a democracy. It is well that the house should remember that the stake is not mean, an d that the issue is one of some price. It must remember we are dealing with a peculiar people. There is no country at the present moment that exists under the same circum stances and conditions as the people of {his realni• You have, for example, an ancient and powerful endowed church and perfect religious liberty. You have unbroken order, and complete freedom. (Hear, hear.) You hay! estates as large as the Romans ; you have a comm ercial system of enterprise that Carthage and Venice united never equalled. You must remember this, that this peculiar country with its strange contrasts is governed not by fora', not governed by standing armies, but by the most singular series of traditionary influences which generation after generation cherish and observe, because they know that they embalm customs and represent their laws. With these what have you done ? You have created the greatest eln",d pire that ever existed in modern times ; you have am asse a capital of a fabulous amount ; you have devised and sus tained a system of credit still more marvellous ; and , above, all, you have established an d ma i n t a ined a scheme so Vs; and complicated for labour and industry that the history ° o f the world offers no parallel. If you destroy this stat h ° ere society, remember that En g land ca n not begin again. There are countries that have b een i n grea t peril, and have g e-- through great suffering, like the United States, whose for tunes are now so perilous, and who in our immediate dathY° have had great trials, and p er h a p s even now we have in s United States of America a protracted and inter ned° civil war. It has lasted for four years, but if it lasted le! four more years, and vast as would be the destruction and devastation when it ended the United States might bee! again, because the United States would only be in the sane° position as England was in the end of the war of the Easel when it had only a population of about three millions, 1 , 85 4 tracts of uncultivated soil, and mineral resources n et undeveloped, but then even undreamed of. Take 'ho case of France. There has been in France a great revolir tion in this our day and in the days of our predeces sors " ' not only political but social revolutions. You have th e ' institutions of the country uprooted, the orders of se eieti o abolished; you have even the landmarks and the local lig ue e moved and erased ; but France could begin again. Franey had the greatest spread of anywheat soil in Europe , the climate was genial,' and always had, with referen ce `' d it, a limited population living in a simple manner , a°, France could begin again ; but England—the Englan d ths : we know and we love, the one of which we are p roud ' could not begin again. I do not mean to say that an''' great trouble England would become a howling wildernel nor doubt the good sense of the people would remain 1// : fragments of the national character form a society, 1) , 11 " would not be Old England—England the home of a T-7; tion, of credit, of prosperity, of capital. It is not in "i nature of things. And, sir, under these circurestaul o f hope the house, when the question before us is o ne changing the constitution, will hesitate—that they .„ sanction no step that has a tendency towards demoL .3 T but that they will maintain the ordered state of fre e land that still exist s . I h ave spo k en f ran kly my '.- v ireo I do not think in this country generally there if; a d es ; this moment for any furth er c h ange i n this nott e. ;,ri think the general opinion o f thi s coun t ry on p a rliarne ° ,.. o reform is that our views are no t su ffi c i en tly /nature', ma either side, and I cannot r e f use th e conc l us i o n that hear,) the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Hear! We all know the papers circulat e d among us before k bee liament meets, on which the speech of the hon. re e , i rl t he was a comment ; amongst them I reco ll ec t one cal le : he tio "Liberal dilemma," and I confess w ith that sylnPrii i ie feeling' that belongs to me, I could not help aPPr ec T ' 9 o .o' the agony of the the Government on this question. to sider that paper one of the most val ua ble contribut le° "o panegyric literature. (Laughter). Sir, in this hous e , et , find theSe indications of want of maturity on this saVetiv, Our tables are filled at this moment by proposition s % j ot most eminent members . of the Liberal party--e 1 %-- for their rank, eminent for th e i r t a l en t s , a nd for I) ° 4 " et o and these are all trying to coun t er act the a d' of the Liberal reform o° which they have been t " ; - f i o as vocates. It is clear, when we read their propo,ati and speculations, that the mind and i n t e ll e ct of Ow P ; e rel has arrived at no opinion on the subject. There is /i f t 1/ 0 for describing such a system as th e i r s. It was 11° ' i o boe found in Aristotle ; and I ask any gentleman whether c,O of propositions are not proof that the active intellige-n et. the Liberal party is itself entirely at issue on this s i ll ;jal' I may say there has b een more mora l cons i s t en cy ness of consideration on the subject, on the part a men on this side of the house, than those who regard selves as having a monopoly in treating these subjects ilia can at least, in answer to those who charge us with to n did with the suffrage, appeal to the recollection of every 40' 0 mind that we not only treated it with sincerity b ut s teel lost everything; we lost valuable colleagues, and we tivii . n i o o to the consideration of the house to support our ° P i- otia on the propositions. lam bound to say that on the t ba principle on which the bill was founded- 1100°1 , 5 ;0 extension of the franchise and not its degraclation - "'„,FW it will be found to be the only solution that ultimately ou be accepted by the country. (Cheers.) I feel I cannot s ' a - , i ee' behalf of myself and my colleagues that we feel th is A 'jou° tion to be attended with any embarrassment. We 1138 ';b 1 4 our duty, and it is not without some gratification ger have listened to the candid admissions of many li s c n tl lO tlemen who voted against that measure that theY.rs- - be - wire the defeat of that measure was a great mistake- c or that opinion is echoed out of doors, so far as W e 51 : 0 , corned. Ido not think that of these two part ic . s they to whom' this is the most embarrassing subJee"' f the is no reason why I should vote for the measur e - his hon. member for Leeds. I think the carrY i r , i ' g owD ioil s ' Motion would reflect no credit on the House of : matiott o, ,. It is a mean device, not on the part of the Ilen 5- bilt for I believe he acts from conscientious motives, t i o t its proposition, in the mimicry of its langnag1;0110 it takes from the failUre of the Government, and o f 01 0 whole of the circumstances that attend it, it - n e t ' character that I think the house will do its duty to-,141, and will secure the good understanding of their : b y tuencies throughout the country if it reject the tow decided majority. (Loud cheers.) TheFhoorusethethvernevdiiovus question 28 8 Against it Majority d u — estio7 The bill of Mr. Baines was accordingly lost. Th e was received with loud cheers. QUER Boo s l .ilig beTen W h ebArroYeupSgohrtNt of the c E o A m N m S i t te .— e E o X f C- Zs and means Ij3 1 , 0 0 ,1 Sir S. NORTHCO TE asked whether the Boch'-the Bonds were to be a ssessed under the power g icel3 comm ittee. id Th e CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIE(OII 63 t. 11 : cou ld give no positive assurance upon that U. n id fiv would deal with the power in the manner he si"b ° did ° ;" 1 , nmost contemplatet advantageouswasittsh exercise theo nx r eargeri s ee e p dt u ot b ot l h. i ce fullest exchequerextent' 12 ; t. wsiii ).ll)) TORIES, ROBBERS, AND RAPPAREES (1-14— BILL. This and passed. This bill was read third time CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION. 004 Sir G. GREY, in committee of the whole ho n e leet e that the chairman be directed to move th e hous I°l. ,13$ to bring in a bill to amend the law as to subscril'At'%iircP' declarations made by the clergy of the Establishe' „ f the The motion was agreed to. Sir G. GREY then rose to • t dile l4°- A more the ro bill, when An HON. MEMBER moved that the house be ""- tea , 913' there being only 36 members present, Tho house adjourned at five minutes past cue t b ,, s [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills are d°e ',l" - Do ci ay° ' ' best remedy for all disorders of the stomach „ offe c , tl t a he d liver and kidneys. They act with so decided 3--costi" tu n perfect 11 the r tin y n e a t in so ay ge ta n k tl e y, tb th en a i t people of the most delicate we°. r o They do not contain a single grain of inercerY r noxious substance, but are composed exclusivell cocioSt balsams. They are therefore equally sa t fe in a . : l .o d ot e o T and as a family medicine nothing covered can be compared with them yet a ineo tellt ilria t° o 4 these inestimable pills at hand, together with thedrvico t directions offered to each box, no other rodicAl °1010305* assistance can be needed in any ordinary' cf211....5-- { 4 1 __—_ Births. -i-r n 1 /iCiAr3 BETHELL.—On the 4th inst., the wife o f the - 1- ` ° " . • hell, of a son. Ca P lilil E B N. —On the 7th inst., at Woolwich , the Wif ° of J. E. Egan, R.A., of a son. the Wif e (4 FIELD.—On the 7th inst., at Twickenharti, Field, Esq., of a son. . 0 r t hir e, HAY.—On the sth inst., at Seggiedell, .' l3 " l° Drummond Hay, of a daughter. 4 ...i0' Marriages. Avirtio - JP' CAMPBELL—HOGG.—On the Bth inst., at son 'f shire'° 'to the Fields, George Wm. Campbell, Esq., ~°OlO ~ Colin Campbell, Esq., of Colgrain, Dua''"Dart . io n, ___.b lorence, daughter of Sir James Weir ilegg!,„ a c tivg e 3 MOIR—LANG.—On the Gth inst., at St. Joldo ' t 3 ^1 J v ''' ' ' „ r v William Moir, Esq. to Emma, eldest daugbw Lang, Esq., Eliot Esq., Blackheath . C oen Deaths. Co' ELLIOT.—On the b 7th inst.,at M Winer-street, o 1 tO'''' square, Robert Elliot, Esq., aged 58. ,„ 0 -5t1 i. ,1(3, FITZ-GERALD.—On the 6th inst., at 101, i,ti,'ltz..Ge'" Maria Tryphena, wife of W. R. SeYDl°ur "'gad 44 ' cly M.P., of Holbrook-park, Horsham, Sussex, ° 0 ic , Ii: 50 , GERARD.—On the 4th inst , at Brighton, 3f i trt., a Gerard, relict of the Into ' Sir John Gerard, '-' _ij lg"' wood, Lancashire, aged 60. ,ta cjif MAeranEN.—On the 7th inst., at 122, I ,oll°ries' felli re ' Maclaren, aged 80. wn c ote— Mru,s.—On the 6th inst. a t Broadway! " -1. yid , Mills, ls, j the un., Esq., aged 31. .tor it° PORTER.— sth inst., - Captain There ° l'°lstratf° ra' Navy ±.......____________________...........,/, WARDE.—On the 6th inst., at Morton lioue, , on-Avon, Charles T. Warde, Esq., ag ed 52. 0 0' 0 01) 11 , 0 il l ; London : Printed and Published by WILLIA 0 e I, of , _ o f c , of No. 112, Strand, Ptiuter, at THE bUri be cot. Strand, in the Precinct of the Satrolr , in t Middlesex.—Tuesday, May 9, 1865-