The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

in possession of an i mmense expanse of culturable men n d of almost unlimited area, and where there might rise up a race of men of almost sovereign power, the question might assume a very different aspect. But the fault of the American political system is not essen tial, but accidental . It is the turbulent and demoralised multitudes that disturb the peace of their cities which lie upon the coast that con stitute so great a reproach to American institutions, and, If you were to attempt to introduce these into England I believe the effect would be decidedly disastrous. If a domi nant and turbulent multitude were to succeed in the object of obtaining the land of England, it would not be done with out a long and painful struggle, and then, after all, the land so obtained would occupy only a small area. And what would be the consequence of this? Why, that you would reduce a first-rate kingdom to the level of a third-rate power. I am, therefore, opposed to the prevalence of these American principles which must pull down the prosperity of an old country into which they might be introduced. The hon. member for Montrose deprecated any allusion to the hon. member for Birmingham. Well, sir, that is very con venient. (Laughter.) It is a convenient a rrangement ; it is very convenient to make speeches in two places, and not to be answered in either. (Cheers.) lam not one of those who depreciate the talents or the character of the hon. member for Birmingham. I admire his great abilities. I listen to his eloquence, often with delight, and while I re cognise his unexampled energy, I regret that such gifts as he possesses should be exercised—l am sure conscien tiously—in favour of principles which, if successful, I be lieve, would be fatal to this country. (Cheers.) It is very disagreeable to me, as it must be to any honourable gentle man in our debates, to comment upon the conduct or the words of any individual member of this house. I feel the embarrassment and the pain of it all, but it is not my fault. If the hon. member for Birmingham were in his right place this would not occur. I have to make remarks upon gentle men opposite, and they have to make remarks upon us on this side of the house, but it is the policy of Government which we oppose, and it is the manoeuvring of the Opposition which they expose— (laughter)—and there is nothing painful about it. Dealing with a corporation softens the necessary asperity in the midst of our political conflicts. If the hon. member were seated on that (the Treasury) bench, as he ought to be seated—(cheers) --we should not hear of the member for Birmingham any more ; but we should hear of her Majesty's ministers, and therefore I am bound to say something, disagreeable as it is to me. If the hon. member for Birmingham, who really, though not avowedly, dictates the policy of this country, is not in the position in which he ought to be placed, I nevertheless must comment upon the sayings and doings of so eminent an individual. (Laugh ter.) Some of my friends have spoken with indignation of the manifesto which the member for Birmingham thought fit to publish when this house was not sitting. My feeling w h e n I read the letter was not a feeli n g o f i n di gnat i on, nor did it contain any expression of contempt—nothing of the kind ; it was a feeling of pain, of mortification, of disap pointment. I felt that I had totally misunderstood the cha racter of the individual with whom we had so long been placed in a connection which I thought was at least digni fied. I thought, for example, that the member for Birming ham was proud of being a member of the House of Com mons, and I confess myself that I saw sometimes, not with out satisfaction, that the house seemed not disinclined to be proud of him. (Cheers.) But that he should leave us only to hold us up to public obloquy, and in such mode Was, to me, not the cause of indignation, but of deep re gret and mortification that he should speak of us in a manner which I think was very different in candour and judgment, and wanting alike in truth and taste. (Cheers.) It was painful—l say unaffectedly—it was very painful to me. Ho was the last man, knowing what I know of him, and of this house, that I should have supposed would have held up the House of Commons, with almost the truculence of a Denton, to public obloquy. (Cheers.) It is not to vindicate the House of Commons that I say this. That is not my place, it is the privilege of another. (Cheers.) I must say that it was a source of astonishment to me that the leader of the House of Commons who must have been in that part of the country at the time—l do not know whether he was at the same meeting, but hemust have been in thst part of the country, as we all know—who wasattend ing dinners and making speeches in theatres and amphi theatres—(cheers)--I say it was a subject of astonishment to me that the leader of the House of Commons should not have come forward, and noticed that address, that he should not have come forward and vindicated the honour and the character of that assembly of which it ought to be his greatest pride to be the leader— (cheers)—he, who is the champion of our honour and privileges. (Cheers.) These were not hurried words, and he had not the excuse of ex cited oratory, but they were penned with malice prepense. (Cheers.) The:right hon. gentleman could find time at one of those dinners given him by the Financial Reformers of Liverpool—(no, no)—well, attended by one of the most distinguished of those provincial fanatics—(loud cheers) — he could find time to criticise the comparatively insignifi cant letter of the right hon. the member for Caine. That was the staple of one of his speeches ; but he could not find time to comment on the letter of the hon. member for Birmingham, although it was an attack upon the honour and the character of those of whom he is the leader, and of the house of which he ought to be proud to be the:chief and champion. (Loud cheers and counter cheers.) But, sir, although I have not the honour to be the leader of the House of Commons, although that proud position is not mine, I am, at least, by the favoured indulgence of any friends, the leader of the Torty party—(cheers)—and I therefore take this, the earliest opportunity, of telling the Iron, member for Birmingham that the attack that he has made upon the Tory party is one that he cannot substan tiate in fact, and which would convey to the country an impression that it is impossible for him to demonstrate by any reference to anything that occurred. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman has said that the Tory party were only anxious to plunge this country into war to divert it from that domestic progress and public concord to which he has devoted all his energies. (Laughter.) I want to know from the hon. member what grounds he has for making that assertion ? (Cheers.) We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer enough of the last 30 years during the recess. I have been in this house for nearly those 30 years, and I believe that the hon. member for Birmingham has been more than two-thirds of that time in this house, and therefore he has had some experience of public affairs, or, at the least, in our public deliberations has taken an eminent part. What war have we plunged the country into in that time ? (Cheers.) There was the Crimean war. Were the Tories the authors of the Cri mean war? (Cheers.) They might have carried it on in a different way, but they were not the authors of it. When he charges us with this grave offence against the pros perity and the fortunes of the realm, has he forgotten that a man, who I suppose ho still reveres, rose in that very place where the hon. member now sits, and declared before God that he believed that if Lord Derby's Government had not been turned out, in 1852, the Crimean war would not have occurred? (Loud cheers.) Those words were uttered in the house by Mr. Cobden. (Cheers.) There was another war. Did we take advantage of the Italian war, to plunge this country into it ? Is it not upon record—those records were not published until the delusive amendment which turned us out of office was passed—is it not upon record that every fair means was used by this country to prevent that war, and nothing but the headstrong conduct of Austria caused it ? Then, I say, what reason has the hon. gentleman to say that the Tories were always anxious to plunge this country into war, to divert attention from progress and re form ? Therehasbeen anotherDenwar in Europe daring the last 30 years, a war between into kar on that and Germany. je D ct id ? we want to plung e th e country wa Is it not notorious? C an it proved by documents on this table that both th e late Prime Minister and th e presen t Prime Minister of England did much to pl us into that war ? (Loud cheers.) Are the despatches geun in i nv iting France to join England i n going to war—(cheers —and, indeed, nothing but that policy cou ld justifyd w the h p r omises they held out to betray Denmark? An p re vented that war? They resolved to wait until thee meeting of Parliament to decide on their policy and to control their rebellious colleagues. But the co n _ duct of the Opposition, and the declaration I made, with the full consent and by the advise of those with whom I act, prevented that war. (Oh, and cheers.) Why, it is notorious, and I believe that the hon. gentleman himself has said, that we prevented that war about Denmark. How n he justify those statements made by a man of his great lea ding in the country, calumniating, I will say, a great political party ? (Ch eers .) But the hon. gentle man in the same manifesto did not confine his statements to Europe alone , h e stated that we wanted to involve the oountry in war with America • I want to know what gr ound he has for makin g t h at that painful stru gc t e asser n t l i° d u id • that during It is upon record leagues, and esia; all I could, assisted by my col- King's Lynn, t o siod L a b Y my noble friend the member for contributed e ta the councils of this house and to avert war between thi s believe we deeply and the United S tates ; and I many gentlemen, not eonnseddto that result. I admit that either side of the house, wished the recognition of gthiaen Sat4otuhthern States. Well, are we come to thispassinE n Government are not to express their own opinions on pell t i affairs ? Now, I con fess that there were members on this sidemen of consider 7, and believed that England that the South able ability, who took avery decided it was for the honourand intsrest of Era should be recognised. 'Well, had they g who belief ? It is a fact thatno one can deny otheaatuse for this wished to recognise the Southern States had encourage_ ment from the Government. It is notorious thatntchouerage oro•an of the Government in this house made one of those pilgrimages of passion (loud laughter, and cheers) of which we have had lately several specimens. Not content with speaking in this house, he made one of the most inflam_ matory harangues ever made in England, which, if it meant anything, meant the recognition of the Southern States. And did not his speech disturb every market in Europe, did it not affect the price of public securities and produce confu sion throughout the world ? (cheers). Yet this is the friend of the hon. gentleman who goes down to the coun try and says that we want to plunge the country into war (cheers). But the hon. gentleman is not content with im puting to us an anxiety to involve the country in these in ternational calamities, but he says that the Tory party is the cause of all the abject misery and wretchedness of the people of England. Well, I will take the last 30 years that has been dinned into our ears at these Liverpool banquets, and I will ask every man to consider whether what has been said can be proved ? During the last 30 years 28 bills had been introduced into this house, the only object of which was to ameliorate the condition of the people, to reduce the hours of labour, and to secure for them the pay ments of their wages in the current coi n of the realm ; to save them from torture and oppress ion in the mine and the colliery ; to extend to all engag ed in the ingenious arts, in lace-work and in the bleaching g round the successful ame lioration introduced into factories. Sir, those measures were passed with much difficulty ; never was an opposi tion exercised against:a measure stronger, more resolute, or more pitiless than that which was organised against those to which I have referred. (Hear, hear). Who pro posed them ? There was not one of those measures that was not proposed by the gentlemen who usually sit upon these benches. (Cheers). Not one of those mea sures but was passed by the united energies of the Tory party. (Cheers). And who opposed them ? (Hear). The Liberal Government of the day invariably. (Cheers.) But they were opposed mainly and chiefly by the influence of one individual especially, who offered, as he does on all oc casions when he opposes anything, an opposition that is formidable because it is able-who throws all his energy and eloquence into the opposition to those claims, and who for a time retarded their advancement ; but notwithstand ing his power of organisation- notwithstanding his energy and eloquence-he was ultimately defeated, and that was the hon. member for Birmingham. (Loud cheers.) Shall I be told that these are merely the schemes of dreamy philanthropists- that they are part of the reaming huma nitarianism that has been referred to in this house. I ap peal to the last 30 years. The hon. member for Westmin ster says we know nothing of the working classes, and the hon. a member formonopoly Lambeth, of in his freakish sp eec h-( a l aug h) claimed that knowledge-(cheers)-but all I know is that years ago wh en thi s strugg l e too k p l ace ed a my home was full day after day, and year after year of these men. (Hear.) They raised a large fund in the manu facturing districts in order to pay for deputations to be constantly in the metropolis, and constantly to be commu nicating with members of Parliament ; they communicated with me, and they were always in my house. I made their acquaintance to this degree, that when a great calamity occurred a few years ago they wrote to me to recall their names to my recollection. I think, then, I know them-1 think my noble friend near me, to whom they are more deeply indebted than myself, knows something of the work ing classes. (Cheers.) I remember when we passed through the lobby of the old house, which many of you will remem ber, there they were sometimes with their wives and chil dren, and they would cling to you as you entered the House 1 of Commons. (Cheers.) I say they were not measures of a pseudo-philanthropy-these men were persons in earnest; they felt their interests, their future happiness, and their prosperity depended on the success of those measures, they felt an interest in them with a feeling which, perhaps, w e cannot experience on any subject. They felt their all was at stake in these measures, and that we were their only friends, but they feared the opposition of those who are now the friends of the working classes. (Loud cheers.) Well, sir, I hope I was justified in vindicating the great party on this side of the house from those elaborateattacks made to the people of England by one who is the representative of the new opinions, who influences the policy of the Go vernment, whose opinions I confess in themselves I do not believe the people of England would rally round. liis elo quence is unrivalled, he possesses great energy and rare ability, and he places before the people of this country in commanding language his own views, but they are to my mind opposed to the interests and character of the English people. (Loud cheers.) I believe that English and not Ame rican principles will predominate in this country (cheers), but I confess there may be some danger. (Hear, hear.) There is at least an excellence in the hon.gentleman which all must acknowledge, and that is his candour. He never conceals his opinions. He speaks with a frankness which we do not find in the measures of Government. (Cheers.) We know what he wants and what he intends to do, and though we might think it most dangerous, we at least have the opportunity of guarding against its evil. (Cheers.) But where I think there is peril is here. The principles of the hon. member for Birmingham are avowed-they are dangerous, and consequently they may be evil, but we may guard against them ; but the great and extreme danger is this, that the hon. member for Birmingham has, to use a phrase borrowed from one of our noblest pasttimes, a confederate, and that confederate sits upon the Treasury bench. (Loud cries of "No, no.") Now, sir, I venture to put before the house to-night the principles upon which Parliamentary Before), if it is to proceed, ought to pro ceed, viz., on English and not on American principles. (Loud cheers.) It ought to proceed on this ground, that we aro the House of Commons and not the house of the people-(cheers) - that we represent a great political order in the State and not an indiscriminate multitude-(hear, hear)-and that in settling what share the working classes are to have in the State-which I do not begrudge them -we ought to act in the spirit of the Constitution, and form that estimate in its spirit. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Birmingham candidly takes the opposite view, but the right hon. gentleman tho Chancellor of the Exchequer goes down to Liverpool-the leader of this house-the councillor of the Government-and what does he do ? (Hear, hear.) Why, he professes American prin ciples in the widest sense. (Cheers, And cries of " No.") No ! I would make no statement in this house that 1 am not prepared to substantiate. (Cheers.) I have expressed pretty clearly my views of the English constitution, and I confidently assert that they are correct. (Cheers.) I say the right hon. gentleman, following the example, as ho always does, of the member for Birmingham-(cheers, and cries of "No, no")-went on a tour of agitation, and, I say, he expounded his policy founded on American and not on English principles, and I am here prepared to prove it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman went to a well organised meeting, and of course he well considered what he had to say. He made some observations on the general policy of the Government, and he then referred to the real business of the session. He said the Government had brought forward a Reform Bill which was a very moderate measure, as it would only introduce 400,000 additional voters to the constituencies. (Hear.) Well there might be very good reasons for it, only we have not argued the point-(hear)--but we shall do it in committee, if the bill getsthere. (Laughter and cheers.) If, however, your views of the English constitution are the same as inine, that num ber is a great addition to the Estate of the Commons, and the right hon. gentleman said, "We brought in a very moderate measure of reform-(Ministerial cheers and coun ter cheers)-and we propose only by this bill to add4oo,ooo to the franchise ; and be treats with great obloquy and contempt all who oppose the bill and support the amend ment. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding, says the right honourable gentleman, the moderation of our measure, there were still, he reminded his audience, four and a half millions who are still excluded-" living, breathing men, citizens like ourselves, who pay taxes, and who, like ourselves, are bound by every civil duty, and interested in the peace and prosperity of the country." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) That is all very well. But the object of discussion is to elicit truth. I do not object to his entertaining American principles, but let us clearly under stand-(oh, oh, laughter, and cheers)-what is the inter pretation that is to be put upon his speech. I say that every man of candour must say there is but one interpre tation that can be put upon it, viz., that the 4,500,000 have a right to become constituents and exercise the franchise, although it is prudent and practical in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a man in office, to propose drat 400,000 only shall now be brought within the pale of the con stitution. (Hear, and cheers.) By that line of policy you show that you are not in favour of the English constitu tion, but that you are introducing American principles. There can be no other interpretation put upon the lan guage of the hon. gentleman. If there was any doubt it can remain no longer when we rememt er the speech which he made a year and a half ago, when he startled all parties and agitated the whole country by placing the foundation of the suffrage on the rights of man. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman published that speech, with an explana tory preface, which nobody understood. (Laughter.) But there was no mistake on the part of the right hon. gentle man when h e ma d e that speech. He published his preface to please his colleagues, but he never • • • changed his opinions. And in Liverpool, on a recent occasion -not speaking i n heat, but w e ll considering what h e Said--in order to catch votes, he exp resse d an opinion that the suffrage moral right, and oug ht to b e so considered - and he was a he said, speaking of th e i mproved condition of the minds of the community, "It is that changed and that improved, constantly increasin g capac i ty, which constit j r oved, and fitness, but, in a mo ra l :ense, constitutes a right e ' s not only ' In what sense can it exist but as a moral right ? That mpl etely vindicates the statement th a t I h ave made. (Lo c u u dche cheers.) I have here the words'of one of th e w i sestmen that ever in this house. Though not politically connected with him I remember spontaneously offering my tribute to hi s cha racter and services. These are the words of Sir George Lewis-" You may talk of the rudeness of monarchical' go vernment, but I defy you to point out anything in mo narchy so anomalous as counting votes, instead of weighi ng them, as the making decisions depend not upon knowledg e , ability, experience, or fitness of the judge, but upon num bers." (Hear, hear.) I think Sir G. Lewis was a great loss to the country-(hear, hear) - a g reat loss to th e House of Commons-(hear, hear) -but the greatest loss to gentle men opposite. (Cheers.) Sir G. Lewisf man. would Ho would nothav e built up the constituency on the rights of not have entrusted the destinies of the country to the judgment of a numerical majority --(cheers)-he would not have counselled the Whig party to reconstruct our insti tutions on an American model, or to profit in time from the wisdom of the children of their loins. (Cheers.) It is becaus e I wish to avert from this country such calamities and disasters that I shall vote for the amendment. (The right Iton, gentleman lasted for s The and was °me minutes,) C HANCELLOR party. lie said M r . S amid loud cheers, which sat down of the EXCHEQUER then rose, received with enthusiastic cheers by the Liberal a clear declaration .fr Speaker, at last, sir, we have obtained hear) -and we know n ow an authoritative source-(hear, 5;000,000 adult males. wunthtat, by a bill in a country with benches and cheers from the eeruption from the Opposition Imitted to proceed ? Liberals.)(Ministeriach now that the bill, which, in a count males, proposes to add to a limited of the middle clue and 200,00.0 of th e Workang, class ' • is, In . T# 'E SUN, LON! the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a bill to reconstruct the Constitution upon American principles. (Cheers.) Rising, sir, after one o'clock in the morning, to review, as well as I can, a debate of eight nights' dura tion, I would gladly have passed by the defence, as he calls it, which the right hon. gentleman has made for himself and his friends. (Hear, hear.) I will not attempt to follow him through his details. I have too much respect for the time of the house to weary it at this hour with matters which it is in my power to avoid. I have too much respect for the judgment of the house, and for those who will become acquainted with our proceedings, to have the slightest apprehension that any one of the misstatements, that any one of the misrepresentations con sequent upon the misstatements, which have proceeded from the right hon. gentleman—(interruption from the Opposition)—will have any influence on the house or the country. Sir, I will begin by endeavouring to clear away some misapprehensions which the right hon. gentleman has assisted to propagate. In the first place, I must presume to say one word on the subject which has reference to a great name, a great name in this house and in the country, I mean the name of Lord Palmerston, It has been assumed by the gentlemen who are supporters of the amendment that they honour the memory of Lord Palmerston by de scribing him as the enemy of Parliamentary Reform— (" No, no," and " Yes, yes")—by describing him, especially as the enemy—(interruption from the Opposition, and cheers from the Liberal benches)—of that which consti tutes the very essence of the very change proposed by this bill—the reduction of the franchise. 1 will read, there fore, a few words which Lord Palmerston used when he spoke upon the Reform Bill of 1860. He said, " That there were fundamental principles in that bill which they could not consent to have infringed, or they would destroy the bill altogether, and one main principle of the bill was the reduction of the borough franchise." (Cheers.) It has been supposed that the life of Lord Palmerston was a security against the introduction of a measure of Reform. I think it not less due to Lord Palmerston than to his colleagues to say that, as far as I am aware—and I pre sume that the right hon. gentleman will admit that if mischief had been brewing in .the Cabinet on the sub ject I probably should have known it—(a laugh) —as far as I am aware there never was a difference of opinion between Lord Palmerston and his colleagues upon the question of Reform. (Cheers.) In my opinion we underwent a great responsibility with regard to the measure of 1860. The introduction of the measure was an important step in redemption of a very solemn pledge. The right hon. gentleman grossly misquoted a speech of mine. (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) I will not say misquoted, but misstated the effect. The right hon. gentleman referred to my speech, and said that I declared it would be wrong for the Government to introduce or take up the question of parliamentary reform until they arrived at a state of public opinion which would seem to offer a prospect of success. That, sir, was the unanimous opinion in the Cabinet. The right hon. gentleman said that the Secretary for the Home Department had declared that we did not go to the country last year as the patrons of a great measure of reform. Certainly not. We made no such pro fessions. We left the country to produce its own impartial judgment. But my right hon. friend has said when the elections took place he formed the opinion —which I be lieve was the opinion formed by the members of the Cabi net—that the manifesto which had been given by the coun try and by the candidates in respect to parliamentary reform had rendered it necessary for us to become responsible for such a measure. (Cheers.) Nor have we the smallest ques tion that Lord Palmerston would have differed from that opinion at the moment of his lamented death. No single Cabinet had been held for the purpose of considering this measure which we now adopt; but I do know this—and it is posthumous record of some interest—that in a con versation which he had with one of his colleagues, Lord Palmerston not long before his death, looking forward to the dissolution, stated his opinion "that, within a limited time it would be right for the Government again to intro duce the subject of reform." (Cheers.) So much for the honour of Lord Palmerston, which I must confess has not, I think, been judiciously referred to during this debate. (Hear, hear.) I hope that opinion may be expressed with out offence or transgressing parliamentary rules. And now I come to another subject. My hon. friend the member for Birmingham has been made a charge against the Govern ment—(laughter and cheers)—that they are identified with my hon. friend, and that we are the nominal Ministers of the Crown, and that ho is its irresponsible and real ad viser. To that charge I shall make no reply whatever. (Hear, hear.) Such persons as are disposed to admit it must have minds in a condition entirely inaccessible, I will not say to reason or justice, but at any rate to any obser vations I can utter. But more specific charges have been made, and it is right that I should notice them. It has been stated that her Majesty's Government have taken ad vice from the hon. member for Birmingham upon that sub ject, which is one that admits of being dealt with by me. Let us consider what is the case. I must preface my state ment by saying that in my opinion it would be no discredit to the Government, as was said by the hon. and learned member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), if as policy recom mended that they should consult with the great organs of opinion in the different sections of their party (cheers) — and if so, it would, I consider, be culpable in us if we over looked the advice of my hon. friend. Her Majesty's Go vernment, however, felt no such necessity. They did not pursue that course of consultation. They felt that they were responsible for the introduction of this measure; and not being altogether inexperienced theyhad sufficient con fidence in themselves and in their knowledge of the state of the public mind of the country to form their own judg ment with regard to the leading provisions of a bill. We were aware of the opinions of my hon. friend the member for Birmingham just as much as hon. members opposite were aware of them, and through the same channels of in formation—the public press of the country. What we under stood his opinions to be were these : In a speech which he made in the course of last autumn he stated that he was in favour of a certain franchise for counties, the maximum being £lO, and that he thought the highest suffrage for bo roughs ought to be £6. The third point in the hon. member's speech was that the consideration of the franchise ought to be separated from the re-distribution of seats. (Op position cheers.) And the fourth point was that he thought the separation ought to take place in order to give time for the ripening and maturing of the public, so that a full and satisfactory settlement of the question might take place. What have we done ? We agreed with my hon. friend upon the policy and duty of separating the two mea sures, and would we not have been the most contemptible poltroons if, holding that concurrence of opinion with him, we shrank from acting upom it because the leader of the Tory party forsooth founded on that concurrence a charge of subserviency against us—(loud cheers)--a charge which he knows to be unfounded as well as we do. (Renewed cheers.) If this subserviency exists, why does it not ex hibit itself in other matters ? (Hear, hear.) Why does it not appear in the adoption of the £lO county franchise which was adopted by ourselves and the right hon. gen tleman himself ? Why does it not appear in the adoption of a £6 borough franchise, which was included in the bill of 1860, and which had the express sanction of the mem ber for Caine—(cheers and which the hon. member for Birmingham declared to be the highest figure at which it ought to be allowed to stand? How is it that these opinions of my hon. friend have not been followed ? My hon. friend, nevertheless, with great moderation supports the bill as it stands. We have now arrived at this state ' of things. We propose a measure for lowering the fran chise -a step which had the approval of Lord Palmerston and Sir George Lewis—but because it is supported by my hon. friend that support is supposed to taint and poison the measure. Is it to be believed that such extremes of political and personal animosity exist in this house— (cheers)—that the very essence of the facts and objects of the case is to change its nature because of the support of an individual? That is the state of facts with regard to my hon. friend. But I must say one word more. lam sure he is a great deal more obliged to hon gentlemen oppo site than he is to us. It is my firm opinion that it is the gentlemen who adopt the line of argument that we are Americanising the institutions of the country that are doing their utmost Against their will and against their know lege—indeed, much of what they boast of having done for the last thirty years has been against their will—it is those gentlemen who are doing everything they can to increase the influence of my hon. friend. And if my hon. friend be the dangerous man he is supposed to be, and has in his breast such wicked schemes against the institutions of the country, it is not through her Majesty's Ministers, nor through the agency of those who are voting with them on this occasion, he would obtain means of giving effect to those schemes, but through the line of arguments and statements adopted by his and our opponents. (Cheers.) I will now occupy the house for two minutes touching some expressions of my own, and my best apology for doing so will be that they are expressions which have furnished arguments to several members who have taken part in this debate. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, in his clear, forcible, very argumentative, and, under the cir cumstances, by no means uncandid speech, complained of me for using one of those expressinos which may be shortly summed up in what I may call the flesh and blood expres sion. (Laughter and cheers.) I wish the noble lord and the member for Caine bad more considered what really took place with regard to this expression. The member for Caine occupied half an hour in commenting upon it, and the right hon. member for llertfordshire for another half hour detained the house with arguments and denun ciations, and I know not what, upon the assumption that I had used that expression as an argument in favour of ad mitting the working classes to the franchise. Tho right hon. baronet said that as an argument it was a gross ab surdity, and so it was. But I never used it here or else where in that sense. I used it as a reply, and, if I may pre sume to go further, as a reproof—(hear)—of the language of some of the opponents of the bill. There are, in my opinion times in debate when extraordinary errors are best met by the expression of elementary truth. When I heard it stated by a gentleman of ability that to touch the question of the u ti representationon, thoughtof t i h t e ti e m v o e r t k o i n r g e m c l i a n s d s e h s i m would that t t e h n e d p t e o r f r o e r v m o _- a l uce of citizenship gave some presumption of the capacity for civil rights, and that the burden of proof to the con trary lay upon those who e xclude them. (Hear, hear) That ;ht t h io o n n a . ry ge d n o ti c e t m ri a n n e. d l e n . £lO as he has done, scribinstho wo:kinz classes frona£7 to t ee h n e t sa im m e e nt w w ay as , wmhagennilfiehdeaTdtothaerervi SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1866. not as an invading army, but as something more—as an invading ambush, which was to bring ruin and conflag ration into the devoted city—when I saw he had not re ceded from or recanted any of those unfortunate opinions of his, but rather cast upon them the light of fresh illus tration— then, I say, when these extraordinary opinions enter into minds of such power, it is time to fall back upon elementary truths. The noble lord the member for Stamford also cast censure upon my expressions, and he is at liberty to do so, if he can show that I used them either there or elsewhere. What I have said in the nature of pla titudes, of truisms, or revolutionary maxims—for they pass under the whole of these designations as may suit the taste of different persons—(laughter)—what has been so said has been said in reference to declarations made by persons of the greatest weight in this house and to the tumult and tempestuous cheers which those declarations have been re ceived. (Cheers.) But I art thankful to admit that those cheers, tumultuous and overpowering as they were, did not represent the universal sentiment on the other side of the house. My hon. and learned friend the member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) who has taken no part in this de bate, spoke the other night—on the occasion of his motion with respect to the malt duties—spoke of the merits and the virtues of the working classes in a manner that con vinced me he entertained none of those ungenerous senti ments. I think I may appeal to my noble friend Lord Stanley, that it was not I who introduced into these de bates expressions of that colour and character. It was not from my opening speech that they arose, and as suredly as long as your debates are conducted after the form and manner of the noble lord, I may venture to promise he will hear from me none of those expressions (Hear, hear.) Coming now to the retrospect of this debate : Notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. member for Bucks, it is inevitable that my attention should chiefly rest upon the remarkable speech we heard yesterday from the right hon. member for Caine. I will not attempt to deal with that speech in detail, and that for many reasons, one of them perhaps is a disinclination to measure swords with such a champion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, that complimentary cheer at any rate follows my own admis sion. One other reason I have in my recollection, and a third in his votes. I cannot forget, however he may for get his connection with men who sit here—l cannot forget the services which my right hon. friend has rendered as a public man. (Hear, hear.) But with regard to his votes, while I know of no language strong enough to express the grief and astonishment with which I heard his present opinions on the question of reform, it is evident from the frame and working of his mind I think he is entitled to the admission that he is pursuing the dictates of his con science, and that upon general subjects his judgments are sound and liberal. With regard to his speech, when I think of the power it displayed, I own I am lost in admi ration, although I myself was the subject of a . fair share of its thrusts and cuts. But when I come to think what was the end and upshot of that speech—when I saw the right hon. gentleman exaggerating more and more his fears and apprehensions for the future, and colouring more and more highly the phantom visions which he raised—then, 1 say my admiration was lost in grief and astonishment. I am reminded of the story which was written for the Princess Palatine. The story was of a young prince to whose christening all the fairies came. Each bestowed some talent upon the child, but the fairy which had not been in vited came soon afterwards, and said, "Yes I rind the baby has been presented with all tie talents but one, and that is the talent of knowing how to use them." (Great laughter.) The argument of my right hon. friend, powerful as it was, rested upon what I must cad a series of unfounded and erroneous assumptions. We are told that Government has insulted the House of Comoas—ave hear of degradation tyranny, despotism—these aresome of the powers of speech applied in the course of this debate by moderate Liberals forsooth to the Government. (Laughter and cheers.) Is that a true charge? The right hon. gentleman is not accus tomed to deal with generalities, but, taking hold of an ex pression which I used when speaking of the question of Reform—" he knew with whew ho had to deal"—he said it was intended for the House of Commons, and consequently that the House of Commons vas insulted. Now, I did not apply the expression to the House of Commons, but I will Henley), boroughley for tell you to whom I did apply ,t. I certainly d id n ot apply it to either the right hon. gettl e man the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr -Walpole) or to the right hon. they gentleman are gentlementhe franchise ; and if I h a d d one s o I should have been guilty of the grossest injustice. But loos my right hon. friend re collect the works of Aristoplanes ? friendly for Oxfordshire to reduction the In one of his plays, conveying a rebuke to one of his characters, the great comedian turns round and addresses h i s audience thus " But, now my good Athenians, pray recollect I am n o t speaking of a set, nor of the public, I am only speaking of a certain depraved and crooked little man." (Laughter.) Well, I was not speaking of the House of Commons, I was speak of certain depraved and crooked little men. (Great laughter and cheers.) And I frankly own I was speaking first and foremost of my right hon. friend. We knew we had to deal with my right hon.. friend, especially upon this question. We knew ho was opposed to the exten sion of the borough franchise—that ho was opposed to reform in every shape. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, though so opposed we cannot get my right hon. friend to say so by his vote. (Cheers.) He will not consent to vote di rectly against the second vidieg of this bill ; but con tending that the bill is a bad bill ho desires to vote for the amendment on the ground that thouel he thinks it is a bad bill, wo ought, in his opinion, to have added to it another bad bill. (Loud cheers and laughter.) There fore, I think I was justified in saying that we know with whom we have to deal. The second head of the indict ment was that, after producing a certain amount of sta tistics, we said that no more information should be pro duced. But what took place was this : That when the de- mand for more statistics was directed to the anatomy of classes, and particularly of the working classes, in a man ner which seemed to reach the point of conviction, I said, on the part of the Gnvernment, that we would be no party to the further production of such statistics. The third proof that we are consulting the House of Commons is, that the measure for the redistribution of seats is kept back from mere wantonness. But that is not the case. The great apprehension that we lad was, that not only the representatives of small boroughs, but the enemies of the reduction of the franchise, world make use of the wilder ness of details which belong t) the redistribution of seats to perplex and endanger the qtestion, so as to make legis lation hopeless. Therefore we have adhered to the prin ciple that it is the best and safest course to separate the two questions of reduction of ;he franchise and redistribu tion of seats. But, on the other hand, we do not agree with the member for Birmingham in thinking that after dealing with the franchise the question of the redis tribution of seats might be reserved until the public mind had ripened on the subject. To do so would be a base device on our part, and utterly inconsistent with the honour and character of tie Government, (Cheers.) And now as to the charge of tyrannising over this house. If I had been a man who from the very outset of my career, half a century ago, had with prophetic foresight fastened on two great groups of questions, those relating to the removal of civil disabilities, and to par liamentary reform ; had I been a man who in early youth, in the first stage of my parliamentary career, had made these questions my own, had prosecuted them with sure and unflagging instinct until the triumph had been achieved ; if my name was associated for 50 years with every measure of beneficent legislation —had I been Earl Russell—there might have been some apology and tempta tion for going to some excess in the exercise of authority, and for applying a pressure to the house which would otherwise be unjustifiable. But that is not my case. The right hon. gentleman, secure in the recollection of his own consistency—(loud cheers)—has taunted me with the errors of my boyhood. The right hon. gentleman, when he ad dressed the member for Westminster, showed his magna nimity by declaring that he would not attack the philoso pher for what he wrote 40 years ago. But when he caught one who, 36 years ago, when just emerged froth boyhood, and still an undergraduate at Oxford, expressed opinions adverse to the Reform Bill of Which he had long and bitterly repented, then he could not resist the temptation—he, a Parliamentary leader Of 20 years' standing, is so ignorant of the House of Commons, that he thought he had a Par liamentary advantage in reyesenting me as an opponent of the Reform Bill of 1832. A.s he has so exhibited me, let me exhibit myself. I deep:y regret it. I was bred under the shadow of the name of Canning. Every influence connected with that great name governed the politics of my youth. With Canning I rejoiced in the removal of disabili ties, and in the character he gave to our policy abroad. With Canning I rejoiced in the opening he made to freedom of commercial intercourse with foreign nations. With Canning, and under the shadow of that name, and under that of the still greater pane of Mr. Burke, I grant that my youthful mind and imagination were impressed just as the mature mind of the right hon. gentleman is now im pressed. There is this difference, however, between us— that having these opinions, it seems I moved the debating society at Oxford to express them clearly, plainly, in downright forcible English, while the right hon. gentle man is obliged to skulk under cover of this amendment. (Loud cheers.) I envy him not one particle of the ad vantage which ho has gained by his discreet reference to the Oxford Union Debating Society. My position in the Liberal party is the reverse of that of Earl Russell. Earl Russell might have been misled by his position into at tempting to exercise a pressure on this house. I have none of the claims lie possesses. I came amongst the Liberal party as an outcast from those with whom I had been pre viously connected. I come before you, to use lawyer's language, in fin-ma pauperis. I have nothing to offer you but faithful and honourable service. (Loud cheers.) You received me with kindness, with indulgence, and with generosity, and I may say oven in some measure with con fidence. The relation between us is this, that you never can be my debtors, but I must be for ever in your debt. (Cheers.) Now, sir, let me endeavour to state the actual condition of the question that is to be decided to-night, for this is not only a protracted, not only an important debate, not only a subject on which the House of Commons has freely lavished on both sides the treasures of its wit, its argument, its invective, its persuasive powers, but it is an historical debate. We are now making history. We are now laying the foundation of much that is to come. This is a starting point from which I presume the career we have to run as individuals and parties will take its cha- racter. Now, the charge brought against us is this, that we have introduced a Franchise Bill alone. Is that a very great offence ? There were two reasons that might have moved us to it—one was the reason of policy, the de sire to avoid uniting unnecessarily independent combina tions of persons, causing them to join together, upon dif ferent grounds for the common purpose of rejecting our bill. I don't think we were influenced by such a motive. But the conclusive motive was that which I mentioned in introducing the bill, viz., that the passing of a com bined bill was impossible, and that if we introduced a measure which we knew could not pass the house in the time available for its discussion there would not only be a failure, but that failure would be attended on our part with the greatest dishonour. We should have met all and more of the opposition (though of a different kind) which has encountered us as leaders at present, and in addition we should have had the reproach from within that we had adopted an indirect method of procedure—claiming to be the friends of Reform while laying upon the table a double measure which we knew the house could not discuss. Therefore the question of time— the 12 or 24 days' argu ment—is disposed of. My noble friend the member for King's Lynn told us that our alternative was the post ponement of our measure till next year. After what has passed, let the noble lord put himself in our position. Most of us have made two or three former failures in this matter of Reform. When we rejected the Government of Lord Derby because we were not pleased with his bill, and in 1860 again took up the subject, but only dealt with one part of the question, was it visited upon us with extreme severity that we thought more of our own honour and of the honour of our party, than to attempt dealing with more than we could accomplish ? Was it, then, so strange a thing that, after four Reform Bills had failed, we should think of varying their form— of putting some of the cargo out of the ship when we found it impossible to carry the whole ? The house has never laid down the principle that it will refuse to entertain the franchise reduction ex cept in connection with the distribution of seats. Both in the cases of the bills of the member for West Sussex, and the member for Leeds, the principle of reducing the franchise was recognised without insisting upon the distribution of seats. In the case of Ireland, also, we dealt with its small boroughs and constituencies without touching the question of redistribution. Moreover, what did gentlemen say when they went to their constituents ? I have examined the addresses of a number of the borough members, and I find that, out of 117 members who en tered into particulars on the subject of Reform, not more than 16 referred to the subject of the redistribution of seats. (Loud cheers.) It is thus made apparent that the vast majority of the borough members who alluded to reform did so simply in connection with its first and by far its greatest head, namely, the question of the exten sion of the franchise. I therefore do not see how the Government can be blamed as they have been for the course they have taken in this matter. Then, again, with regard to the inconvenience of the separation of the two matters to which I am referring. What was the case in 1859 ? How did the noble lord then in power deal with regard to the question of boundaries and the redistribution of seats ? With respect to the former, he did nothing but recommend an inquiry which must have resulted in subsequent legislation, and with refer ence to the latter, he put fifteen seats into his bill, leaving power to disfranchise afterwards as many as Parliament chose. And having done this, he complained of the intolerable inconveniences of making a separation between the two. (Cheers.) May I say one word upon an illustration used by the noble lord ? He has told us that we have got this house, and we should take care how we touch it. But our object is simply to improve and make it better. Furthermore, I may call to his re collection, as bearing upon the matter of a complete bill, that five years ago those who sat behind the noble lord urged the great advantage of having all the chief finan cial measures introduced in independent bills. (Cheers.) The objection has occurred to a great extent, certainly such as to invite criticism. The right hon. member for Cam bridge made a helpful suggestion, and I thank him for it, when he proposed we should proceed by resolution. We can easily conceive what the first resolution would be. It would be very short. Suppose we put a resolution to the house on such a subject as the reduction of the franchise ; that might be done. But I want to know how my right hon. friend would put the redistribution of seats in a reso lution. Would he have a resolution saying it is expedient to take away so many members from 30 or 40 boroughs ? Would he name those boroughs in the resolution? If he named them in the resolution, what is the difference be tween that and the till ? Nothing would have been gained by such a course. What is the real merit of our case with regard to redistribution, which is at the root of the present difference ? My hon. friend the member for Birmingham, has said and said truly, and it is demonstrable, that you might have a scheme of redistribution such as altogether to frustrate and to intercept the effect of your reduction of the franchise. If we were to introduce a scheme of that kind I admit that anything which might be said against us would be warranted. But wo are not the persons to do that. Have we given no indications in former times as to our intentions with regard to redis tribution ? I believe that redistribution, though an im portant part of the Franchise Bill, is altogether subject to the Franchise Bill ; because that is limited to a prin ciple, and leaves little room for difference of opinion among fair-minded and moderate men. Our Redistribu tion Bills of 1854, 1859, and 1850 have shown some mode of dividing the seats obtained from small populations be tween counties, the enfranchisement of towns, and the giving of some increase to boroughs. That being so, there is nothing at all that can fatally affect in any manner a bill which extends the franchise. The bill of Lord Derby en franchised six towns. Birkenhead has been enfranchised since. These towns have an average population of 20,000; that is, 120,000 altogether. Well, what is the number of £7 voters you will create in those towns? It is not worth considering for a moment. The right hon. gentleman said millions might be taken out of the counties and put into the towns. Just so, if they liked to cook them, as it was called. No doubt they might make redistribution with a dangerous intention; but we disclaim such intention. If that was imputed it should be imputed by an enemy. Dan gerous intentions should hardly be imputed by political friends or confidants. (Hear, hear.) We had decided to do some things and we have done them. It has been said, and said assiduously, that we have said redistribution might be postponed until another year, and that it had nothing to do with the Franchise Bill becoming law. We have said neither the one nor the other. We have said the Redistri bution Bill could not be proceeded with until the Franchise Bill was secured. That might be upon any stage of the bill, according to the circumstances of the moment ; but as to postponing the bill another year, I never said anything of the sort. I myself said that if it were the pleasure of the house to prolong the session during the autumn, the Government would not be the parties to ob ject. I am bound to say that, although that offer has been made, not one of the members so keen for the redistribution of seats has by a single statement shown they would accept it. (Cheers.) We have said the redis tribution of seats is an essential part of any plan of Reform. We have stated the political necessity which we feel for staking our existence as a Government on the Franchise Bill, as well as on that for the redistribution of seats. We have said also that if the house has a mind to proceed with despatch, they shall not be retarded by any laziness of ours. We have been taunted, not altogether unjustly, with having made further concessions in order to meet the views of gentlemen who would wish the bill for the re distribution of seats before going into committee on this bill. What more is required ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) If the Franchise Bill falls the Government will fall with it, and those who wish to redistribute .the seats can come in and redistribute them. (Laughter.) Can anything be more obvious than that the Government has every con ceivable motive to avoid a dissolution ? We have no reason to think, as my right hon. friend near me painted out, that the new constituencies that are in future to be enfran chised will be in our favour. It is in your power to get quite as great an interest in them if you will depart from the course you are pursuing, show some trust in them, and refrain from telling us that in giving them them the franchise we are Americanising our institutions. As to rumours in this house, I wish it clearly to be understood our object is to draw a separation clearly between those who really de sire a reduction of the franchise in counties, and above all, in boroughs, and those who do not. (Loud cheers.) We shall be loth to quarrel upon a mere question of procedure with any gentleman in whom we recognise a community of purpose and object with ourselves. We hold procedure as secondary to the purpose for which it is introduced. But we cannot undertake to do this. We cannot under take to lose the ground we have gained, for in my opinion we have gained ground. We will not have prevarication, and no concealment shall exist if we have power to unveil it to the public eye. (Loud cheers.) That, sir, is the state of the case with regard to our intentions on the second reading of the bill. It is well to understand what is meant by the second reading of the bill. [Here there was some interruption to the right hon. gentleman's remarks, occa sioned by an observation of an hon. member.] lam greatly pained to be compelled to protract this address at so late an hour in the morning. Let it be clearly understood we are not debating the question of savings banks, we are not de bating the question of the dockyard franchise, nor a ques tion of householders in counties—which, after what has been stated by the hon. member for Staffordshire, may be a matter for consideration—we do not ask any gentleman to pledge himself as to the particular figure at which ho would fix the reduction of the franchise. (Opposition cheers.) Wo do not conceal our intention. We do not intend to Dart with th a t. We cannot part with it. The question is, Will the house consent to give a vote for the second readirg of a bill for the reducticn of the franchise in counties and in towns? (No, no, by the Opposition. Ministerial cheers.) That may not be the question ;n the es timation of the hon. gentlemen opposite ; but it seems to me not unfit that those who move the second reading of a biil should at any rate put the house in possession of t hat which they believe to be the intention of the bill. Have we a reason for asking for the second reading of the bill ? I think we have a strong reason for asking it. There are two. We gave notice of this bill, and in intro ducing it we were saluted from a friend of the Government with a hostile motion concerted with the opposite party. (Hear.) My noble friend the member for Chester is a gen tleman to whose character I have endeavoured to do jus- tice. I have now the additional pleasure of doing justice to the mildness and temper of his language ; but he cannot blind tho Government to the severity of his acts. That motion came from a friend—an old and attached friend and follower, as he says—of Earl Russell ; but was the motion concerted with the party opposite ? (An lion. Member, believed to be Mr. John Hardy, said—" I don't believe it at all.") Ido not recognise thelon. member as leader of the party opposite. I recognise only the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks. (Cheers.) lam not aware of any case in which any Goverment has con sented to accept such a motion so prepared and so pro duced. I frankly own, if we are to be dragged at the chariot wheels of any man, I should be as willing to be dragged at my noble friend's chariot wheels as any one I know. My noble friend said he looked back at his conduct in 1859. He was then so zealous for a reduction of the borough franchise that he would not hear of allowing the bill to be read a second time, because it did not do that. But he has repented of the vote he then gave. He sees that it was an unwise thing to do. He had got a Govern ment which had introduced a Reform Bill, and who were pledged to stand or fall, and the noble lord said to stop that Government was not the way to promote Reform, so he repented. But, strange inconsistency of human nature, at the very moment he repented of the sin the temptation again presents itself, and again he falls. (Laughter.) In the very act of making confession he repeats and renews the offence. The noble lord is now going to do that very thing. Is our request an unfair one ? Ido not found it alone on what is necessary for the Government. An hon. gentleman the other night 'quoted Hallam to the effect that " advisers of the Crown owe a double allegiance —an allegiance to the Crown and an allegiance to this house. It is their business to consider as far as in their power, what their honour requires, and to consider what is expedient for the public interest, and what is required for the character and efficiency of this house." We did think, after all that has happened, after all the miscarriages which have happened to previous re form bills, after all the equivocal and questionable proceed ings that have produced those miscarriages, after all the misfortunes, jealousies, and reproaches which the people do not understand but of which they see the effect, after the total stoppage for the time of the movement of reform, we did feel it was essential in our judgment for the position and honour of this house, in the eyes of tie country, forits retaining the full confidence of the country, that when it had been asked of Ministers of the Crown its opinion on the plain and simple question of the reduction of the franchise in counties and boroughs—a question which in these gene ral terms cannot possibly be affected by any shadow or substance of the redistribution of seats—we did feel that in our judgment it was necessary to ask the house foran answer to that question before proceeding to any other. (Cheers.) That is what we thought, but I think we may ask some thing of my noble friend. He aims a blow at the Govern. ment. He is perfectly entitled to do it; but there was a wish of ono of the old heroes of that country to which my right hon. friend and myself so often refer, a very simple wish, which, when translated into English, says, "Let us die in the daylight." (Cheers.) I ask my noble friend that we may die in the daylight. (Loud cheers, and some laugh ter, caused probably by the near approach of dawn.) My noble friend's real hostility to this bill is not founded on the circumstance that it contains no clause for the redis tribution of seats—(hear, hear)—but on the fact of its being a bill for the reduction of the franchise in towns. (Cheers.) That is beyond all question. He differs vitally from the Government on that subject. Ido not complain, but it is not too much to ask that he should state it in plain words. But when he asks for a seats bill to be given along with the franchise bill, I ask him, supposing the seats bill is fair and unobjectionable, will he then support the franchise bill? (Cheers.) I think that if a fair challenge, and in the answer to that challenge, or upon the no answer to that challenge the judgment of the country may very well depend. (Cheers.) Then I come to my right lion. friend (Mr. Lowe). He states, as the last head of his indict ment, that we have no good reasons for our bill. Com menting on the statement of the hon. member for Caine with reference to his fierce denunciations of any admis sions below the £lO franchise, and his description of the classesbelow that limit being more and more drunken —that is as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it— the more and more unfit, he went on to say that the honourable member for Caine asked if the franchise was good in itself, and returned a House of Commons which worked well, what need was there for alteration ? I ad mit, said the right hon. gentleman, that the performance of the House of Commons place it far ahead of all other legis lative assemblies in the world, but it does not follow that it cannot be improved. I will tell you the points in which I think it can be improved. An eminent man still alive fetid, after the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, " The unreformed Parliament used to job for individuals, the reformed Parliament jobs for classes." (Hear, hear.) Now I think the influence of class is too strong in this house, and that public influence is too weak. I speak thus from my own experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Secondly, I believe that a freer representation of the work ing classes would supply us with that description of mem bers whom wo want, viz., those who would look not to the interests of class, but to the public interest. I mean this as no reproach to parties or rlasqoa, hnt merely as an an swer to the challenge of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) to show what reason there was for the introduction of this bill. Meeting next the charge of a want of public interest in the success of the measure, the right hon. gentle man, in confirmation of what Mr. Bright had said, stated that an examination of the public returns showed that between the 11th and 17th of April 187 petitions, signed by the chairmen of public meetings had been presented, to which were appended 50,000 signatures. Grappling next with the argument of the bill destroying the Eng lish constitution and Americanising our institutions, he said, lowering the franchise, so far from doing either one or the other, was only a return to old English principles, which had succeeded before and would succeed now. He showed that since the passing of the Reform Act of 1852 the power of the working people had become less and less in the constituencies, and that diminution had not been in any way counteracted, and went on to say : I will now prove this diminution of electors in boroughs, not since 1832, but since 1851-52. Now, I pray the house to ob serve these few particulars. In 1851-52 the total electors were 410,000 ; in 1865 they were 509,000. The increase is 99,000—that is 24 per cent., 1-7 per annum. That is the increase of electors in boroughs. Now we will look at the population of the boroughs. In the year 1851 there were 7,186,00 ; in 1866, as computed in the regular manner, there were 9,266,000, an increase of 2,079,000, 28.9 per cent. in population, or 1.9 per cont. increase in the popu lation of boroughs against 1-7 in the electors. I ask those hon. gentlemen who have supposed that the fran chise is within the reach of all intelligent working men to consider this ; and you have that in conjunction with the enormous increase of wealth which has taken place While the population has increased ibnutthine givingrati this I olhave described, wealth has moved thus; income allowance tax to for b e charges, was £ 850 , 000 per penny. wish it to be understood that it is onl y the best estimate. The income tax for 1851, making T The ue proposed this year is £1,400,000 per penny. This is al most entirely in the middle and upper classes. But even with the vast increase of wealth the number of electors did not keep pace with the population. I hope we shall hear no more about what was said I won't say dishonestly, but erroneously, to serve the pur poses of debate that the franchise was absorbing the popu lation. (Hear, hear.) The working men are not represented according to their number. They are not represented ac cording to their income ; they are not represented, I think, in proportion to their intelligence and their virtue. If the reasons which have been advanced from this extension of the suffrage are not sufficient reasons, where are reasons ? (Cheers.) Well, sir, the right hon. gentleman delivered a most beautiful prophecy, as far as language was concerned, but we have heard many such before. Out of Mr. Burke might be found noble passages that now form admirable declamations for school-boys—(a laugh)—pieces to be translated into Greek. And some thirty years hence, when the prophecies of the right hon. gentleman have vanished into thin air and left not a trace behind, his prophecies for beauty and force of language will be selected by teachers of schools to give to boys to translate and to declaim, and the right hon. gentleman will receive his reward : " Etonare aliquis nostris etossibus ultor." (Loud laughter.) He says we know nothing of the work ing classes. Do we know nothing of them ? Is there not one single word that is a sufficient reply to him, and that is " Lancashire ?" (Cheers.) Lancashire associated with the history of the last four years—that history so painful, so bitter, so noble, so glorious. They showed forth the noble qualities of the mass. Amongst them, as amongst others, not but scattered individuals are unworthy. I la ment that strong denunciations of the labouring classes have been made, because it loads to strong panegyrics. The people of Lancashire were only a sample, I believe, of what the rest of the people of England—(loud cheers) —would have been under similar circumstances. I cannot conceive what ground of argument there can be against the fitness, as to the discharge of civil duties, of those whom it is proposed to admit, or that such a wise, limited, and temperate extension of civil privileges amongst a por tion of such men should not be made. (Cheers.) Let us consider the enormous though silent changes that are going forward amongst the labouring population. Let us try to raise our views above the fears, the suspicions, the jealousies, the attacks, and the recriminations of the hour. (Hear, hear.) Lot us look onwards to the time of our chil dren and our children's children. Let us ask whether there shall or shall not be a steady movement on the part of the labouring classes —a movement onwards and upwards. The progress of the working classes is like all great moral pro cesses. It is unobservable in its details, but it is solid and unassailable. It is like those movements in the earth which scienca tells us are even now going forward in certain por tions of the globe. The sailor sails over them, or the tra veller treads the ground if they be on land. lie does not see them. He is not conscious of them, but science tells us that these changes are taking place with silent and resist less force. Science tells us in these spots things are not as they were, and this is precisely what is going on with re spect to the labouring classes. We know the self-denial exhibited by those men in respect of the American war. Could any one believe that a reflection so still, so firm, and so energetic could have planted itself in the mind of the population without its becoming a known, a patent, and notorious fact to the whole country ? (Hear, hear.) And yet when the day of trial came, we had manifested that sympathy with the people of the North—that subtle sympathy on their part with the people of the North— that determination that, be their sufferings what they might, no word should pro ceed from them to damage the cause which they believed to be just. (Cheers.) Hero was, on one side, a magnificent moral spectacle ; on the other side it was a remarkable les son. It was a lesson to us—it was a lesson to us all—to teach us this : that in those minds, by a process of quiet instillation opinions and sentiments, gradually form themselves, of which we remain for a long time unaware, which at last, when they make their appearance, we fi nd to be matured, solid, and irresistible. (Loud cheers.) Si t, we should prepare for these things while there is yet time. (Cheers.) But I must yet ask my noble friend what he means to do with the incongruous associates whom be has gathered around him. Here is his amendment. Th ere ought to be some unity of purpose among those who asso ciate together to destroy a Reform Bill and overthrow all Administration. (Cheers.) What is the unity of purpose between my noble friend, and sh a ll I sa y hi s friends o' l associates—those who are leagued with him in the ema hl-- nation which he has been pleased to form ? I will quote a portion of the contradictions that are to be gathered from this debate—not from the the two sides, but the one side' My noble friend suggested that we should refer the question to the Privy Council. The right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge answers two things—first, that it would be useless, and secondly, that it would bo entirely unconsti tutional. My right hon. friend the member for Cambridg e says we ought to have introduced a measure including a redistribution of seats. The right hon. gentleman th e member for Stroud and the noble lord the member for Galway say that they would have been quite contented with us if it was not that we also propose a measure for a redistribution of seats. (Cheers and laughter.) The lien' member for Wick says we ought to proceed with the bills pari pussu. The hon. member for Cambridge says it would increase delay. The member for Calne says it would ne t remove any of his objections. The hon. member for Dublin and the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire demon strated there was no pledge whatever. Then I defy All man to extract from thOse speeches a single eatena or cow tinuous agreement. The noble lord the member for lied' dington says ,he is an ardent Reformer, but he has con tradicted himself, because he says he glories in Lord Pal" merston, whose life, if it had been prolonged, would hav e effectually kept off the bill. Such are the contrarieties of a party gathered together und e r suc h c i rcums tances, an d with no bonds of cohesion, no deliberate principles, and with no avowed intention, meaning one thing and saying another. (Cheers.) And not saying that which the most important persons in it deeply feel but do not wish to saY• That is the state of things under which they continue to gether. This debate will soon come to an end. (S eer ' hear.) Ido not resent the warmth with which that re" mark is answered. lam deeply indebted to gentlemen opposite as well as to gentlemen on this side for their patience and kindness, but may I say to hon. gentle men opposite, as some gentlemen have addressed advice to us, "Vv ill you not consider before you emb ark upon this new crusade what were the results of the old." Three great battles have been fought , and you have fought them manfully. The battle of main" taining civil disabilities, the battle of refusing the Re Orin Bill, and the battle of prot ec ti on . All th ese gre at bates have been fought by the party opposite, and I admit rof own share of responsibility as to the opposition to the Be form Bill. Have they been so satisfactory that you ar e disposed to renew the experiment? Certainly those whet sit on this side of the house have no reason to find f ault with the results, for the result has been that for five ra i l out of six and six years out of seven since the Reform Ac t we have been in power. The effect has been to lower, re-d• duce, and contract your just influence in the count*" your share in the public administration. But if you a re strong you can only be strcng by showing not only per sonal,, kindness and generosity t owar d s th e peop l e , but pub lic and political confidence in them. (Cheers.) You' listen with kindness to what I now say. We are assailed' This bill is in a state of crisis and peril, and the Gover n : melt along with it. W e s t an d or f a ll b y it , as Was dared by my noble friend. We stand with it now--we may fall with it a sh or t ti me h ence ; b u t if we f a ll we sha ll rise with it hereafter. (Loud cheers.) We cannot plea sure with precision the forces that are to be raised in the coming struggle. Perhaps th e grea t di v i s i on o f to-night . not the last act of the struggle. You may succeed ousel° point. You may drive us from o ur sea t s; y o u may liy the bill we introduced ; but for its epit a ph we will Vint on the gravestone this line with perfect confidence— " Et onare aliquis nostris et ossibus ultor." (Cheers.) You cannot fight against the future; time is on our side. (Cheers.) The great social forces are aga inst you. They are arrayed—they are marshalled en out side ' The banner which we carry, although perhaps it 1 1 at this moment droop over our sinking heads, yet i t soar again and float in the eye of heaven, and will be born : in the firm hands of the united people of these tbret kingdoms—not perhaps to an easy but a certain and 21° distant future. (Immense cheering.) The right right hon. gentle m an resume d hi s sea t a t tel l minutes past three o'clock. The SPEAKER then put the question in the nsu 4 form, but the responses in the affirmative and negati-go were given with extrao r di nary ve h emence. The house then divid e d, an d a f ter the lapse o f of an hour the result was de c l are d . A t exact l y h a lf-Pas t three, Mr. Brand and Mr. Ad ams acte d as te ll ers on th e G ove rnment side, Lord G rosvenor and Lord Stanley °,ll, behalf of the supporters of th e amen d ment. The result thus appeared: a q uarter ter For the Motion For the Amendment 313 Majority for Government The announcement o f t h e num b ers was greete d with deafening cheers from the Ministerial side e* the home, and counter-cheers from the Opposition. The bill was then read a second time. Mr. GLADSTONE said that he would fix the conolit te° for Monday, and would then state the order of busines s ' The other business was disposed of, and The house adjourned at 20 minutes before 4 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL.—FRIDAY. r kett There was a limited attend ance at th i s day's TO' t A and there was very little b us i ness passing. Whea t rue,.. moderate demand f or consumption and remained at Pio and vious rates. Flour d u ll, and prices almost the same last week. O a t s an d oatmeal were in limited reques t, 6 barely maintain e d th e i r value. Barley, beans, and Pelvd last quoted. Indian corn in limited request—prime In— American, 28s 9d to 295. DERBY—FRIDAY. 3 6 New white wheat, 53s to 57s ; old red, 49s to 52s Pef na, stone. Barley for malting, 38s to 40s p er q r. ; grinoclß: to 30s to 32s per 30 stone. Oats, new, 21s to 26s ; 483 33s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 51s to 525; new, 44s ' A) per 38 stone. RIPON—FRIDAY. tber The farmers brought a good supply of wheat and 0 but grain to market this day. There was a fair demand , last week's prices were barely supported. White wheat, 6s 6d to 7s per bushel ; red, 6s 3d to 65 , 6 t0 ; beans, 6s to 6s 4d; oats, 27s to 22s per qr ; barley, 3 u S 40s. LINCOLN.—FRIDAY. r 6 New white wheat, 52s to 55s ; new re d, 43s to 478 - 1 3 Sin e, stone. Barley for malting, 36s to 44s per qr ; 4 to 31s to 34s per 30 stone. Oats, 27s to 325. Beans, 51s per 38 stone. S T AMF ORD—FRIDAY. r 0 New white wheat, 47s to 50's ; red do., 42s to 47 8 pc- 310 stono. Barley, malting, 36s to 40s ' • grinding, 28s t°,„ ne per qr. Oats, new, 24s to 28s ; old, 28s to 30s per 24 13 Beans, 43s to 46s per 38 stone. Peas as of late. WAKEFIELD.—FRIDAY. eOSi We quote wheat at our market to-day a t f orm er P—,4-110 with a dull sale. The little English b ar l ey o ff er ing 6e o at full prices ; foreign the turn c h eaper. B eans and - „ were rather dearer. Averages, April 21.—Wheat, 3,024 qrs , a t 478 1 • barley, 40, at 36s 11-1-d ; oats, —, at —6 Od. Births. ;fe O'REILLY—On the 24th inst., at Knock Abbey, the svm - of M. O'Reilly, Esq., M.P., of a son. PITT 7 On tho 21st inst., at . 1, Tavistock-street, C°Vellt# garden, the wife of Mr. Major J. Pitt, of a son. Marriages. .a 11 ' CUNYNGHAME-BA.KEL-At Denton Church, Sir Don (A 3 Cunynghame, Bart., of Miln Craig, Ayrshire, an d wra. ham, Hants, to Louisa Mary, daughter of the late Baker, Esq. JORDAN-JACOBS - At Trinity Church, Bishop's-road , o dington, Richard Jordan, Esq., Kensal New-t0W 13 ,4 0 0 Sarah, second daughter of the late Mr. Jacobs, Brag Farm, Taunton, Somerset. Deaths. BIUDAZON—On the 26th inst., at The Cloisters, 'Mel; the Rev. W. J. M. Brabazon, of Tarn Hill, county 14"-t Ireland, aged 77. FINCH—On the 24th inst., Charles Finch, Esq., Camb ridge' aged 30. JOHNSTONE—On the 26th inst. at No. 21, Neville -str Brompton, James Johnstone, Esq., of the firm of 5311 ders, Lindsay,Moorgate-street. -,01,h04 NicHoL 7 On the 26th i o. nsl., at Edinburgh, Mr. J. J-"-- publisher. g, SANDERS—On the 26th inst., Mrs. S. L. Sanders, aged'tie ; SALUSBURY—On the 22d inst., at Llanwern, Sarah rine, eldest daughter of the late Sir Robert tialusbu'd' aged 83. . 0 i ., of WILSON—On the 25th inst., Stephen B. Wilson, - 1,46,1 30, Bucklersbury, aged 71. ___.....!-- London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM A.-,,rgOif jig: of No. 112, Strand, Punter, at THE Sus ofiloc, Strand, in the Precinct of the Sevoy .in the C °llll liliddlesca.—Saturday, April 28, 1866. to ) 1.4