The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-24 00:00:00

interests are fairly represented in and fairly consulted by this house. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lord is afflicted with a species of—l don't know whether I should call it a terror or a feeling of no confidence, which I have hardly ever witnessed in this house. .lle has no confi dence in the Government. Well, that I have very often seen. I have seen him in a Government in which a ma jority of the house had no confidence ; but he has no con fidence in the house. First of all, although the Govern ment, through the noble lord the Prime Minister and through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have given the most dis- tinct promises upon the question of the bill for the re arrangement of seats, the noble lord has no confidence in those promises. He has no confidence in the house. Ile has no confidence in the people, because he objects to give them the franchise intended to be given by this bill, and he has a special terror of what may happen if the Franchise Bill pass, and a Seats Bill should follow. The noble lord must know that whatever be the re-arrangement of seats it must lead to greater popular power in this house. What ever be the extension of the franchise it must lead to the greater power of the people in this house. We all know that a parliament that should be elected in favour of elec toral reform, and of a redistribution of seats, would be a parliament of full authority in. the country. It would have power to extend the franchise still further, and to accomplish the distribution of seats—(cheers from the Opposition}—and to conduct all matters connected with legislation. Therefore the noble lord, who has such extra ordinary anxiety about what may happen if this bill should be carried and the other should fail, seems to me to be about the most singular exhibition of political anxiety I hare ever seen. As to the speech of the noble lord, I thought everything true was not important, and everything in the least degree important was not true—(oh, oh, from the Opposition.) But there is one thing which is important, and that is the opposition of the noble lord to this bill, and I hope that he and his colleagues in opposing this resolution will forgive me if I say that it is a painful, and more than that, it is a perilous thing, when the heirs of two of the most ancient—(cheers and counter-cheers) —and most wealthy, and most powerful houses of the English nobility oppose themselves to this moderate and just bill—(Oppo sition cheers)—and set themselves, by a coalition in this house, to drive Earl Russell from power—(laughter and cheers)—for this, and this only, offence, that he has wielded the authority of his great office to extend, in what I main tain to be a moderate and Conservative degree, the fran chise of his countrymen. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) blamed the Govern ment because they took advice from this end of the house, and did not confine themselves to the advice of powerful persons belonging to the Whig party. I should think that a measure supported by the house of Bedford and by the house of Devonshire, that has among its supporters the ilowards and Sutherlands, and the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of Argyll, and that has the support of the Earl of Clarendon and of Lord Granville, and of Lord Stanley, the Postmaster General (cheers and laughter), and of the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary—(hear)—l think that a measure supported by the names and powers I have mentioned, cannot be said to be introduced by the House without some consultation with the Whig party. (Cheers.) If the noble lord the member forKing'sLynnwill allow me in a perfectly friendly manner to give him a little friendly advice I would give him it in one sentence—that the course he is taking is a course that tends to drive away impor tant persons of the Whig party from the Liberal party in this country—(hear, hear)—and if this course should suc ceed in dissevering the most intelligent of the Whig nobility from the great popular party in this country, and if the noble lord should succeed in putting all the dukes and nobles on one side and all the popular party on the other in this houno (hear, hear)—if the noble lord knows any thing of history he will know this, that when a great popular party is fighting for itself against the nobles of the country, whatever their virtues, and whatever their power, you may rely upon it that the popular party will win, and that the nobles will go to the wall. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lord and many hon. members during this debate have referred to a supposed influence which I have had as to the mode this question has been brought before Parliament. Seven years ago, just when the Government of Lord Derby was thrown out, in an incidental conversation with Lord Russell, I suggested to him that when this question should be brought before us the proper course would be to introduce a Franchise Bill by itself. (Cheers from the Opposition.) From the year 1860 until this hour I have only had one interview, ana that a very short interview, of a political character, with Lord Russell ; and until the noble lord mentioned the matter at the meeting of his sup porters in Downing-street I was totally ignorant of the _ _ _ fact that the course of the Government in this matter had been in any degree influenced by anything I had said. It was at a meeting at Rochdale in January that I advised not only the Government to take this course, but I advised all persons in favour of reform throughout the kingdom to support that course if it should be taken by the Govern ment. I will tell the house, with the most complete can dour and fairness, what are the reasons that induced me to give that advice. I will assume during my observations that the house is in favour of reform—l know that is a stretch of imagination—(laughter)—though I regret to come to that conclusion—but as I am speaking not only to gen tlemen in this house but to some gentlemen outside, I shall treat the question as if the house was in favour of some honest measure of reform, though there may be a difference as to its extent. When I suggested to Lord Russell, six years ago, to bring in a Franchise Bill, he said the Opposition willimake use of that plan of action to op pose the Government altogether; they will submit a reso lution to the house, in all probability, not to support the measure until they know all that the Government proposes. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The noble lord knew per fectly well the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite. But notwithstanding that knowledge, I presume he felt it his duty to submit a Franchise Bill by itself. If you look back to the year 18-18, you will find that Mr. Hume proposed a resolution to the house on the subject of reform, and if you come down to the time of the motion of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) last year, you will see that the great question all along has been, so far as it was a great popular question, more one of the franchise than of the redistribu tion of seats. I assert, without any fear of contradiction, that the pledges of the Government were not so much pledges to the working classes as pledges to the working classes who are excluded from the franchise—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition), and who desire at some early day to be admitted to this right. I agree with the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Mill) in this, and I think every mem ber of the house will agree to this, that, apart from all effect which we may hope to produce in the composition of this house by a measure of Parliamentary reform, it is necessary that there should be an extension of the franchise so far that, throughout this country, the working classes should not feel themselves excluded from a share in the delibera tions of Parliament. What I want is to induce a sense of justice among the great class now labouring under the idea that they are unjustly excluded from a share in the fran chise, although the passing of this Franchise Bill should not change'the seat of a single member in this house, and although the distribution of seats were now as equal as it could be made, and though no measure of reform were Tre cy, except as t o th e quest i on o f t h e f ranc hi se. Th e h ouse will e see that there is essential difference between the two questions. The question of the franchise affects a special por tion of the population, while the question of redistribution of seats is one that i nterestshighest class, the middle class, and, to a certain extent, all the working class. But this is a class question, and has ' never been impressed upon the house with so much force an), When n tion as the question to con of the franchise. (hear, hear gentl y er o n u air w ril h e gar the question of seats, an hon. the opposite side of the house (Mr. Newdegate), and who who on is very enthusiastic as to the number of mem b ers that the counties ought to send to Parliament, will probably have something to say on this subject. No doubt populous counties ought to receive more members. So ought the largest boroughs, and new boroughs ought to be created. That is necessary for fair representation, but it is not necessary for any special or particular class. (Hear, hear.) The question of the extension of the franchise comes before the house with a claim far more pressing, I will not say far more righteous, but far more urgent, than any change in the distribution of seats. (Hear.) Then there is areason that any member of the Goverment will see at once, and I asa spectator venture to express the opinion that the ques tion as p ro posed by the Government is very m uch more simple tha n it would measure were proposed, and therelwere be if a larger We know very wel e i npled with it another great measure. that, whether it - s,or, at all events, we think we know -CIO, to £9, to 48, or r e t(olesirable to reduce the franchise to may be the redistributiof' it does not matter a straw what undertake to devise a , sol o! seats. (N o , no.) But I will member for King's L ai le, so that th e no ble lord the Buckinghamshire might andi th e right hon. member for kingdom, and yet, by which sah a a . "te to every man in the be made that the representation an arrangement might and less complete than it is at this:l4 be infinitely worse from the Opposition.) Whe n y ou have trt (Loud c h eers the question of the franchise your ha.ndisse neseda n d se t t l e d standings are perfectly free for the purposea:id your under seats, and if you think to juggle the public arranging the franchise with one hand, and preventing the g y od iving the effect in ano ther way you would be dissatisfying the people with P Par liament even more than they were dissatisfied in Pest times. I think there is another reason which j ustifies t he gover n _ ment in the course they have taken. They did not desir e to combine the opponents of various branches of the reform question in opposition to the extension of the franchise. They thought very fairly that a bill which prop oses to change the disposition of 10, 20, 30, 40, it may be 50 seats, is one involving a question of great difficulty. Though such a measure may involve the exclusion of some members from this house the government may fairly ask the aid of the members for small boroughs to do justice-to the excluded class, and to extend the franchise fairly and moderately among the people. And I think the government made no mistake, because among those of whom I have heard as likely to vote for the amendment of tile noble lord the mem ber for Chester, I have not heard the name of any member, with one exception, for a small borough which is likely to be disfranchised by the bill which the Government aro prepared t o l a y u p on th e t a bl e o f the house. (Hear.) Therefore the members of the s ma ll boroughs, wheresoever they sit on this side of the house, have not shown any hos tility to the exte;asion of the fra • nchrse, whatever may be their course when the Redistribution of Seats Bill makes its appearance upon the table. Now, I shall have to appeal to a right hon. gentleman opposite on the point to which 1 am now going to address myself. I think th it a Franchise 13111 which does not determine this question for a period I say at least as long as has passed sinc3 the bill of 1832, is not a bill which it is desirable to have, and I think further that a Redistribution of Seats Bill which will not settle that question for an equal period is not a desirable bill to be passed by the house. (Hear.) And it seems to me that after you have settled the franchise question, and when you come to dicuss the question of seats, Parliament and the people directing their eyes solely to it, that single question will in all probability receive a satisfactory set tlement, so that for 30, or it may be for 50 years, no fur ther change will be required. (Hear.) It is because I be- lieve that if Parliament were honestly disposed to amend the representation they could do it infinitely better, more solidly, and more satisfactorily to the people, and with greater duration to our legislation by passing the present bill than if they took the course it is proposed by the amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester, or that proposed by the hon. gentleman opposite, which Isup pose is to get rid of this bill and of the Government by the same vote, that I approve the course taken by the Govern ment. Now, I believe that the argument I have laid be fore the house, perhaps not so clearly as I could have wished, has had the effect of inducing great numbers of representatives in the country to approve the course which the Government have taken, and I believe that, if hon. gentlemen opposite were friends of Reform, the argument would be conclusive to them also; but, of course, if they are not the friends of Reform, I must content myself with saying what I have to say, and with leaving my words to make what very small impression th e y ma y u pon under standings not open to conviction, and which fear to receive the truth in this matter. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, I said I must quote the right hon. gentleman opposite. My own honest opinion is, that the course which has been pur sued by the Government is truly Conservative—(hear , hear, and laughter) —because I think nothing can be more non - Conservative, if I may use such a term, than that Par liament should have this question of the representation affecting the basis of power discussed in this house during every session —(cheers and counter cheers) —and discussed throughout the country during every parliamentary recess. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Some striking things were said on this side of the house on the Ist March, 1859, when two right hon. gentlemen who sat in a very serene calm on the Thursday when they withdrew from the Government of Lord Derby, explained to the house the grounds of their withdrawal from their former colleagues. On that occasion the right hon. member for Oxfordshire made use of these words : "If one thing can be more destructive to our constitu tion than another it will be to have a Reform Bill every few years, and that will be the case if you cannot settle a sys tem upon such grounds that you can reasonably hope that you will succeed. Ido not say for any long time—finality Is out of the question, but for a decent number of years. If you can't do that you are laying the foundation for revo lution?' (Hear.) Now the foundation for revolution in almost every country—unless history lies dreadfully—has been laid by those who pretended to be specially Conservative. (Hear, and laughter.) I agree with the right hon. gentleman. I say that never was a passage or a sentence uttered in this house of truer wisdom than that which the right hon. gen tleman spoke on that occasion. Now, I should like to ask the house why it is that we are now involved in this ques tion of reform. (Cheers from the Opposition, and " Tell us.") Yes, I will answer hon. gentleman opposite immedi ately. (A laugh.) The reason is this, because there is a sense universal throughout the country that the whole number of electors is much too small to afford a satisfactory represen tation of the people—(" No, no," and cheers), and that the largest class in the country, and that class which forms the strength of the nation, is specially excluded. ("N0,n0," and "Hear, hear.") It was on the 28th of February, 1859, that the right bah. member for Buckinghamshire stood up at this table to propose a Reform Bill on behalf of the Conservative party, of which be was the leader. He quoted on that occa sion no less than three Queen's Speeches, and he told us that three Prime Ministers had distinctly stated that it was ne cessary to do something upon this question ; and that there may be no mistake as to the peculiar manner in which ho put this to the house I will read the question which ho asked at the time. After recounting previous attempts upon this subject, a course which every Minister appears to think necessary to adopt, and after quoting from the three Queen's Speeches to which he had alluded, he said : " Were you to allow this question which the Sovereign had three times announced as one that ought to be dealt ,with, which three Prime Ministers among the most skilful and authoritative of our statesmen had declared it was their intention to deal with, to remain in abeyance ?" The answer which he would have given was, of course, we ought not to allow it to remain in. abeyance. But, since then three other Royal Speeches have said the same thing with even increased emphasis, and three other Prime Minis ters have declared their intention of dealing with the subject. (Hear.) What, then, was the subject about which the right hon. gentleman asked this question ? I maintain that it was nothing short of the extension of the franchise. Now, how did the right hon. gentleman deal with the subject ? He gave, to quote his own words, "a Franchise Bill of the largest proportions," of proportions so large, indeed, that it dwarfs the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But what 'did he do with regard to the seats ? Why, he altered 15. That was, in my opinion, no redistribution of seats at all, and can be regarded as nothing but a ludi crous attempt to deal with that branch of the subject. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite have possibly for gotten some of these matters, and I would remind hon. gentlemen opposite that they would be a great deal wiser if they would only remember some of the things which the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks tells them. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman proposed that the county franchise should be reduced to £lO, and he said that by that reduction the franchise in counties would be extended to no fewer than 200,C00 electors. Well, 200,060 is the exact number which the Chancellor of the E scho quer proposes to add to the county electo rs b y the bill now before the house. What did the right hon. gentleman do with regard to the borough franchise ? Ile proposed tkat everybody deriving an income of £lO a year from the funds, Bank stock, or East India stock, or bonds should be enfranchised. It would be easy to show what a very fal lacious idea of the franchise that was, because it was capa ble of the most distinct proof that every man who chose to invest £5,000 or £6,000, from which he would receive a steady income, might enfranchise his whole family, from his grandfather to his youngest son, and even include all his uncles, nephew; and first cousins—(laughter)—and these would be enfranchised by a fraud which I believe it would be impossible to detect. He then proposed that every one who possessed £6O in the savings bank for one year only should have a vote, and that pensioners receiv ing a pension of £2O a year should be enfranchised. His fourth proposition was that persons occupying portions of houses, lodgers, in fact, paying £2O a year, should receive a vote; and his fifth that graduates of Universities, minis ters of religion, members of the various branches of the legal profession, medical men, and schoolmasters having Council certificates, should receive a similar privilege. I won't discuss whether this last proposition was a proper extension of the franchise, though I am willing to admit that the persons who were thus to be enfranchised were suitable, or rather, as the hon. and learned member for Be!- fast objects to the use of that word, were proper persons for the reception of the franchise. Now, at what did he esti mate the addition that would result to the number of elec tors ? At no less than 300,000—in other words, 50 per I cent. more than are now proposed to be enfranchised by the bill before the house. Perhaps it may be said that they were not of the same class. (Cheers from the Opposition.) But when you give the franchise to A or B, I take it to be equally an extension of the franchise. When, therefore, at the close of the discussion on the first night the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks was asked what would be the total addition to the number of electors in England and Wales, the right hon. gentleman said, " The increasa, no doubt, will be very considerable, exceeding half-a-million I have no hesitation in saying." Well, then, in deference to three Royal Speeches, and to what preceding Prime Mi nisters had said, and in answer to the question as to how long the question should be left in abeyance, what did Lord Derby's Government do? They proposed a Franchise Bill which, upon their statement, and I am not concerned in allowing or refuting it, said that the electoral body in England and 'W ales would be increased by half a million voters, 100,000 more than will be admitted by the bill now upon the table. Looking, then, at the mode in which the question of the redistribution of seats was treated, am I not justified in regarding that measure as a Franchis e ßill ? For what was done with regard to those seats ? The right hon . gentleman pretended he did not wish to shock hon. mem bers who were to be extinguished, but he felt ind ee d that h th e proposition he had at. had to make was one so trivi a l th at i t laughed would be He did not even disfranchi se t h e borough of Caine. ( L aughter.) He did not even disfran chise the boreugh:ofPortarlingt my on,w h h o i n ch . a,nadftieeraarnneedxfhriaeunsd five pollof 46 votes,had ret u rned Arundel, ou s e. the Attorney-General for l relan dasa m o ef mber to t shnd, in (A laugh.) He defended t h e borough fact, more, I believe, was said about that borough than about the whole question of the on the redistributionofseatgrs.oTunlide right hon. gentleman defended that borough that it ret urne d a no bl e l or d w h o might be r egarded as re presenting 900,000 Catholics in England and Wales. The borough of Arundel is, however, as much a nomination borough as any borough placed on ScheduleA in the Reform Bill. Although the right hon. gentleman touchedthe ques tion of seats with so gentle a hand, I am willing to admit that the redistribution he proposed was a fair and satis factory one as far as it went, for it proposed to give four seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire, two to South Lancashire, two to Middlese x , an d seven to boroughs an d towns whose population entitled them to representation. My argument, however, is that the Government of Lord Derby felt that the real question involved was the exten sion of the franchise. (Cheers.) Now, if I were to ask the right hon. gentleman why he touched the seats with so de licate a hand, and if he were to give me a candid and honest answer, he would say that the difficulties attending the question of redistribution are very much greater than the difficulties attending the extension of the franchise, and he would say that the Government, in dealing with a question than which none can be more important, and, perhaps, more difficult, would be justified in adopting that course THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1866. which avoided difficulties as much as possible, and enabledt Parliament to deal fairly and promptly with one important branch of it. (Hear, hear.) Now, I will ask hon. gentlemen and the house, and I will ask those gentlemen on this side of the house who are supposed, I hope untruly, to be about to vote with the noble lord the member for Chester, whether they believe that if the right hon. gentleman had passed his bill admitting 500,000 new voters and distributing 15 seats ; the question of the distribution of seats would have been settled by that arrangement for 20, 10, or even for 5 years. (Cheers.) Is not every man in this house convinced, and is not the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox fordshire convinced, that in the very next Parliament elected after the passing of that bill propositions would have been submitted to tho house declaring that the small boroughs which the right hon. gentleman had left un- ;ouched ought not to be allowed to retain their power of returning members, but that a certain number of them ought to be extinguished and their powers of returning members transferred to the populous counties and to popu lous and great cities. We should have had exactly what the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire wishes to avoid—we should have had every year a debate on a new Reform Bill and a debate on the basis of power, If the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche- quer were to add to the bill before the house the pro vision for the redistribution of 15 seats, according to the proposal made by Lord Derby's Government, do you think the house would agree to pass it? (Cheers from the Minis terial side of the house.) Will the noble lord the member for Chester, and his colleague the noble lord the member for King's Lynn, who seconded the amendhient, frankly tell the house that they will give this bill their support if this provision be added ? (Cheers.) If they will do so, I will undertake, although it might ruin the Government if I said it —(a laugh)—to give the Government a little advice— (renewed laughter)—andwill counsel them to take it. Why you know perfectly well that all this clamour which you have been making for the redistribution of seats—(cheers) —I am afraid that there are no Parliamentary terms in which I can express my meaning with sufficient delicacy —(laughter)—but at least you know that you cannot im pose upon us with that cry. (Laughter and cheers.) Ido not think that I felt the slightest satisfaction when the Go vernment proposed to lay on the table of the house their bill for a redistribution of seats. If I had been a Minister, I think I should have recommended that the member fa. Caine, for example, and the member for Stamford—beth of whom must know a good deal about small boroughs— should have been requested to propose clauses of disfran chisement for the fair consideration of the Government. (Laughter.) Now, it is obvious —for the arguments on which you have opposed this bill are your worst arguments—that you would not support the bill even though the Chancel lor of the Exchequer were to propose to add to it the dis tribution clauses of the bill of Lord Derby. And I think you would be wise in refusing to do so, because, although that distribution is perfectly satisfactory as far as it goes, it would not in any degree settle the question ; and I am satisfied that the greatest error the house can commit is to agree to something on the franchise, and something on the question of seats, by which neither the one question nor the other shall be permanently settled. (Cheers.) But, at this moment the Government is assailed by a united party on the other side of the house, with a few recruits from this side, and I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not in very good hands. The member for Buckingham shire and the member for King's Lynn, in my opinion, are not counsel to be followed implicitly on this question of Reform; and if, anybody doubts it, I shall call as witnesses the two right hon. gentlemen to whom I have already re ferred. (Cheers.) You have before you the bill of Lord Russell's Government, and you know exactly what it is. (No, no.) You may think quite honestly that the reduc tion of the franchise is something more than is necessary, and you may even think it is something more than is safe, and you know exactly to what extent it goes. (No, no, and Hear, hear.) Well, you have listened with very small at tention to the speakers on your side of the house if you do not at least know the worst of it. (Cheers.) What was the bill that was brought in by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)? It bad in every clause of it the impress of his subtle understand ing. I will tell you what was said of it by the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). When he ex plained to the house why he had withdrawn from the Go vernment he said, speaking of the Government scheme for the extension of the franchise :-- " It is a most dangerous innovation, giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over property and intelligence, while it throws large masses into the constituencies who are almost exempt from direct taxation." That is exactly what your friends have been saying of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) It might have been taken from a speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), although it isnot quite so poetical as some of his utterances. Again, the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni versity of Cambridge, in a letter written to Lord Derby, and read to the house, said : " The measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recom mend is one which we should all of us have strongly opposed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ven tured to bring it forward." (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman knew the character of his colleagues. (Hear, hear.) His statement was prophetic of the course which they would take, which they have taken now in opposition to a bill which only proposes to admit 400,000 electors, while their bill proposed to admit 500,000. (Cheers.) The member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the samo evening with regard to the same question used these remarkable words : " I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the prin ciple of the Government bill, is fatal to the constitution o: this country." I do not think anybody in the house during this discussion has gone so far as to say that the reduction of £3 in the borough franchise would be absolutel y fat al to the constitu tion of this country, seeing that 500 years ago and less every freeman being a householder in every borough had a vote for members to sit in this house. Well, the two right hon. gentlemen to whom I. have referred expressed these opinions of the bill introduced by the member for Buckinghamshire, and I say, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, and especially the noble lord the member for King's Lynn, are condemned out of the mouths of their own colleagues, and ought to be put out of court as advisers of this question. (Hear.) I shall now ask the attention of the house for a little time to the bill itself. Hitherto I have been speaking as to the mode in which the government have proposed to deal with it. Of the bill itself almost everything that has been said has been said in connection with the borough franchise. In thus speaking I omit alto gether reference to the frenzy into which the right hon. gentleman the member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) worked himself the other night when discussing the county franchise ; for anything I know the reduction of the fran chise to £l4 in counties may have a fatal effect in North Staffordshire. (Laughter.) I like to take the views and opinions of men of great experience and great moderation, and R is for this reason I ask the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire to step for one moment into the witness-box on the matter. He said in the speech to which I have before referred : " Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the working people have been having a less and less share in the representation. They had considekakte representation before 1832 through the scot and lot voters and the freemen. They are gradually dying out, and I ask my hon. friends near me if they draw a hard line, and leave the working people behind it, how long they think it will stand ?" (Hear.) That was a wise saying, and a pertinent question in the year 1859, and it is not wise and less worthy of consi deration in the year 1866. The first part of this statement is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. The right hon. gentleman has told the house that the proporti9nate power of the working classes in the constituencies has been diminishing since 1832. I believe there can be no manner of doubt of it; and here I must tell the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my opinion is—and what I think every member in the house who represents a borough, excepting the borough of Coventry, and perhaps one or two others must know—that the figures which have been laid before the house, which fix the numbers of workingmen electors at 25 or 26 per cent., aro not in any degree to be relied upon, nor are they in any degree accurate. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen have a•perfect right, of course, in assailing the Government to fight upon the figures which the Government has laid before them ; and Government would find it very difficult, of course, to retreat from the position they have taken on those figures. But lam not one of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am not one of the Government responsible for these figures ; I am here as an advocate, an honest advocate, of a moderato and just mea sure of reform— (cheers)—and, therefore, I must deal with this question from my own point of view, and speak of it in language based on the convictions I hold. I will give the house only two cases. I have not sought for them in the blue-book, nor have I written about the country for them. The first is to he found in a petition presented to this house by the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent. That is a bo rough which consists of three or four neighbouring towns —one of them the town of Burslem. The blue-book says that Burstein has a constituency of 680 electors ; of these 197 are represented to be working men, so that they form 29 per cent. of the whole number. But what does the peti tion say ? It has been accurately prepared, and it gives an analysis for Burslem. It says that of the 197 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures represent as working men, one is a publican, and that there aro 40 beersellers ; that is 41 to begin with. I would rather have 40 real hard working, industrious, artisans in any borough than 40 beersellers. (Hear.) But there are grocers and other shop keepers to the number of 48 ; and there are persons who are put down as cart owners, cowkeepers, and tradesmen with assistants, earning profits from the capital in their trade, to the number of 33. Adding these together and deducting thein from the 197 there remain in the town of Burslem but 75 working men on the register. (Hear, bear.) You may bring, if you like, the whole staff of the Poor Law Board, but they cannot alter the se figures. It shall not, however, be my fault if the house discusses this ques tion delusive.and d ( e H c i s d u e v s . it ) I w u p n n t a fir r e fiogures y w o h n i. e c h other ae town, deceptivethe a b nd rough of Wakefield. The blue-book: saysrath rather t v t e h r el l e are r 122 working men in the borough, p cent. on the register ; but taking the terms which shall decide who is a working man, the number really is not more than 77. If you will deduct the various classes to which I have referred with regard 'o Burslem, you will bring he number 122 in Wakefield down to 35 ; so that, instead of 11 per cent. of the constituency being working men, there are not more than three per cent. (Hear, hear.) I was talking the other day to a member on this side of the house, the hon. member for Newark, who mentioned some figures to me in reference to that borough. I have not them in my recollection, but I hope he will take some opportunity of stating them to the house. The return for Newark was sent back twice, if not three times, for correction. I think at least one country magistrate was put down among the working men. (Laughter.) Now, I shall trouble the house with a few figures. We have had the figures of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and quite as many more from gentlemen opposite ; I shall therefore make mine as brief as possible. The blue-book says that there are 126,000 working men on the register. I have given you cases which are but samples of the rest, and my exceptions bring the number down to one-third of it; but, for the sake of being within the mark, I will call it one-half—that brings the 126,000 down to 63,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that by the repeal of the ratepaying clauses and of the system of compounding 60,000 persons would be ad mitted; but he put the whole of the 60,000 down as work ing men. Why, there is not a man in England who will say he believes that an accurate calculation. I have put them down at 20,000. Then the Chancellor of the Ex chequer says that the number of persons who would be ad mitted by a reduction of the franchise from £lO to £7 is 144,000, and he estimated all these as working men. But we all know perfectly well that all these persons paying between £7 ancl£lo are not, and cannot be, and never have been, working men. I take it that two-thirds of them are estimated as working men as it will be as fair a calcu lation as can be made. Now, look at the result. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that when the bill is passed there will be 330,000 working men upon the re gister. I say there will be 179,000, or, say 180,000, of whom 116,000 will be admitted by this bill. What, then, will be the gross? The whole number of borough elec tors in England and Wales, if this bill should pass, upon the calculation of the blue-book, will be 691,000, of whom 180,000, or jUst one-quarter, will be working men. There fore, that portion of the people which forms at least three fourths of the whole population would only have one fourth of the electoral power in the boroughs, and have, of course, a power so small as to be not worth reckoning in the whole constituency of the counties. I shall say no more about the statistics ; but, having made my calcula tions, I thought they were as proper to place before the house as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any gentleman opposite. (Hear.) But, after all, there will be more than four millions of men left out; and yet I think so much political cowardice, if I may use the word, has never been exhibited as was shown by the mover and seconder of the amendment before the house. Sir, lam astonished at these alarmist speeches. The right hon. gentleman the member for Hertfordshire, too, deals in alarmist speeches. He comes down once or twice in a ses sion and makes a speech which gives great satisfaction to the house, if not the least attention is paid to what there is in it. (Laughter.) I mean that the tone and the manner, the language and imagery all please us ; but I grieve be yond measure when I think of the side to which he gives his great influence. Now, in 1860, he said the bill which was introduced by Lord J. Russell as a member of Lord Palmerston's Government was a bill to admit poverty and passion to the franchise. This is one of the passages which fell from his lips :—" Though we are willing to admit poverty and passion into the franchise, we are not willing to give poverty and passion the lion's share of political power over capital and knowledge." This is very similar to what the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni versity said of the bill of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire. (A laugh.) He did not use the words "poverty and passion," but said that elements fatal to the constitution were likely to be introduced into that bill. Now, the right hon. gentleman once held very different opinions. (Hear.) Many years ago he published a book called "England and the English"—a book which was not profound, but very amusing ; and I should like to read to the house a sentence which the right hon. gentleman put as a motto at the beginning of his book, and putting it so I presume he adopted it. Ho took it, I believe, from Ben Jonson, and it ran "I am he Have measured all the shires of England over, For to these savages I was addicted To search their nature and make odd discoveries." And the discovery which he made in 1860 was this, that if you introduce artisans and working men of between £lO and X 6 rental, you will give the lion's share of the repre sentation to the poverty and passion of the country. But the right hon. gentleman now assumes a different tone, for in his speech last week he did not treat the working people as though they were made up mostly of poverty and passion; but he said many generous things of them—(hear, hear) and•he told us how there was a tie, not of interest only, but of the strongest respect and affection between the rich and the employing class, and the poor, and the labourers. But what of these compliments? They may be perfectly sincere. Probably the right hon. gentleman never believed that the working men between £lO and £6 were represented by poverty and passion; and the language he used the other night far more accurately stated his real opinion of the great body of his countrymen. Still he would give them compliments and not votes—(laughter)- and it seemed to me that if the me..l had all these good qualities which he described flattery of that kind would go down very ill with the great body of the people who are asking that at least seine of them should be given representation in this house. It reminded me very much of that couplet from Shenstono describing how— " He kicked them downstairs with such a sweet grace, r a speech full of such noble and generous sympathy towards the g g h them tiint u a p f .: (Lau T gh he te y r. n ) ta l , To t o h ne ink w h o o ul w d ' h 's av h e an th d o h n i working classes the right hon. gentleman would have con cluded by throwing all the weight of his character and all the influence of his oratory into the side of the party which not only says little that is kind and generous—(loud cries of "Oh, oh !")—but which—(renewed cries of "Oh, oh !") Well, then, of a party which doeisometimes say something generous of the working class, but never shows the slightest disposition to confer upon them a particle of political rights. (Cheers.) But I only ask the right hon. gentle man's attention to one point upon which he touched. With great force and great beauty of language ho spoke of som e friends and neighbours of mine—the members of co-opera tive societies of Rochdale. I thought when I heard them that he was going back unconsciously to the year 1832, when he was a most enthusiastic supporter of the Reform Bill of that day—(hear, hear)—when he was a member of the Parliainentary Candidate Society, with the learned member for Sheffield and Jeremy Bentham, with Joseph Hume and. Daniel O'Connell, with Francis Place, with Charles Buller, and many others. I thought ho was going back to that time ; but if not as far back as that, then to 1837 and 1848, in both of which years, if 1 am not mis taken, the right hon. gentleman was in favour of an exten sion of the franchise. He said, and most of you must have heard him : " The operatives of Rochdale having been loft thus free to mature uncorrupted their self-guiding power would now, I grant, be strong enough to resist such temptation. To artisans of that kind, whatever their political creed, I am willing to grant the franchise." (Hear.) " Willing, do I say ? That word is much too cold. i wish that, like some old commonwealth of Greece, we might admit them to the franchise by acclamation, too proud of such fellow-citizens to ask what rent they pay for their houses." (Cheers.) Well, sir, 1 happen to live among those persons of whom the right hon. gentleman has spoken in such enthusiastic language, and if the house will permit me I will state a little of their case, and I have no objection to rest my case upon theirs. In 1860, upon the discussion of the bill of the Government, I read some facts connected with these co-operative societies. Those which I purpose . now to bring before the house will be very brief, but they are very suggestive, and, I think, very gratifying. There are three bodies or companies, managed by three committees; one is called the Equitable Pioneer Society, and chiefly concerns itself with th e various shops and re tail businesses Lately,wh en l was at home, about a fort night ago, some facts were sent to me by the secretary of the society. He says The society now comprise s 5,500 members, chiefly of families. It has a capital , of £85,000, and is selling goods and receiving money at the rate of £230,000 . y;er annum." Now, let the house bear in mind that there is not one Of these 5,500 ever gots one farthing of credit in dealing with these shops. (Hear.) The business is managed by a committee of 11, of whom two only have a borough vote ; one of them is a bookkeeper and treasurer ofthe society, and, therefore, in a certain sense, is not what we understand as a working man. He and another have borongh votes ; but the president and secretary of this great establishment have no votes. (Cheers.) I come • to the Rochdale District Corn Mill So ciety, which owns a very fine establishment. It has a capi tal of £6o,ooo,and its turn-over every year—the amount of goods sold and money received—is £164,000. This is also managed by a committee of 11. And let the house hear this. Neither the treasurer, president, nor secretary, nor any member of this committee, has a borough vote. One of the committee has a county vote, being, I dare say, the owner of a cottage in the neighbourhood. Then there is the Rochdale Co-operative Manufacturing Society. This has more than 1,500 members, a capital of £109,000, and has built two of the'largest and handsomest mills in the neigh bourhood. Amongst these 11 there aro three borough voters and two county voters; but of these five voters only one is a working man in the usual sense. The votes are thus dis tribUted,—one manager, one manufacturer, one draper, one out of business, and only one a workman or mechanic. This is his summary :—" Total capital of these societies, £227,246." The whole of that has been contributed, or nearly so, by the working men of Rochdale, of whom the right hon. gentleman spoke the other night in such glow ing language. The secretary goes on to say :—" The writer has seen members of the Pioneer Society who bad scarcely any work or income for their family during the cotton famine come for 58. or 10s. from their investments of pre vious savings just to help them on with their small earn ings. They did not ask or receive relief. This does not show improvidence or want of forethought. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now that the cotton famine is nearly over they are again saving money. In June, 1865, their investments were, in the Pioneer S oc i e t y, £59 , 000 ;in September, 1865, £63,000 ; in December, 1865, £69,000 ; and in March, 1866, they reached £76,600." (Hear, hear.) I hope the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine wil' forgive me for reading the next line. He says,—" This does not agree with the Lowe theory." (" Oh," and a laugh.) " What is taking place in the Rochdale societies is occur- ring in a greater or less degree in all the societies, of which there are 500 or 600 throughout the country." Now, what is the answer that anybody is to give to these men ? Will you give them the same answer as the right hon. gentle man the member for llertfoidshire ? Will you receive them with open arms, and not inquire whether they pay £6 or £7 for their rental ? (Cheers.) To every gentle man in favour of the reduction of the borough franchise— excluding the member for Belfast altogether—l put this question :—lf you accept all these as worthy the descrip tion given by one of your own eminent leaders, will you allow these 5,500 to have the franchise in the borough of Rochdale. And I tell the right hon. gentleman that it is a great mistake to suppose the men of Rochdale are better than the men of the various manufacturing towns of Lan cashire and Yorkshire. (Bear, hear.) They would alto_ gather scout the idea ; and I, who know them as well as most men know them, and who also know a good deal both of the working men of Lancashire and Yorkshire, I would say, these men of Rochdale are a fair sample of the general run of the 'industrious, intelligent, and indepen dent population among whom we Eve. (Cheers.) The hon. member fcr Wick is terrified at the idea of the votes of these men. Northern breezes and long experience havo done nothing for them. He described all the good things that have taken place in Parliament during the last 20 years, but he did not seem to be aware that there was not one of those good things that I know of that the working men of Lancashire and Yorkshire did not heartily support. (Cheers.) But he might have known that not half-a-dozen gentlemen on the opposite side of the house gave any con tinuous support to those good things. (Hear and a laugh.) The hon. gentleman puts it to the credit of Parliament that it repealed the Corn Laws. Why, if he had asked my right hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board he would have told him that until Sir R Peel abandoned protection there never were 100 members who gave a vote in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. (Cheers.) The result was brought about, as everybody knows now, by agitation at an enormous cost of money and labour, and by the concurrence of a famine which was disgraceful to our Government—(hear, hear,)—not because potatoes de cayed, but that when they did decay a whole population ran the risk of being destroyed. (Hear, hear.) The same men who out of doors and in Parliament asked for those good measures are the very men who now ask for this bill ; and I venture to tell the house that if they do not get this bill they will get one very much like it. I shall not ask the attention of the house to mere figures, nor shall I endeavour to show up the inconsistency of any members on either side of the house ; but I will ask them as calmly as I can to consider the present position of this question. Look all over the country, and you will see that in one fortnight there were—l believe I am below the mark in saying there were 100—meetings. Ah! there were many more than 100 public meetings held which were unanimously in favour of this bill. (Laughter and cheers.) Well, hon. gentlemen opposite somehow do not pursue the policy which enables them to hold public meetings. (Cheers.) You have had many hundred petitions, with something over half a million of signatures, laid on the table of this house. If this bill were so destructive, if it struck the same terror into the heart of the people that it has struck into the heart of the member for King's Lynn, surely you would have had some visible result. I believe there was a petition from King's Lynn ; I think I saw a paragraph in paper saying that 100 of the noble lord's con stituents were sending up a petition in support of his amendment. But if the people believed the bill to be in jurious, if they thought the Government had pursued a wrong course, if they imagined the middle classes were going to be swamped, and that all kinds of evil— some of which one hardly dare look at—were to follow from the passing of this bill, is it conceivable that public meetings would not have been held to protest and to petition the house ? (Hear.) Look at the moderate and reasonable character of the meetings that have been held. And I ap peal particularly to the two right hon. gentlemen oppo site, for I think they are not steeped in that unteach able opinion which seems general among their party—the course which they took in 1859 shows that they have a real conviction, and are conscientiously desirous of acting on that conviction—and I ask them to look at the moderate and reasonable character of all the resolutions that have been passed, at the whole conduct and attitude of the people at these public meetings. When Lord John Russell, pre vious to 1830, year after year, was bringing forward his measures for the Reform of Parliament, suppose some of these propositions had been adopted, that some of the old boroughs had been abolished, and Parliament to a certain extent reformed, do you- think the result would have been at least as favourable for those who were then so timid that they could not venture to take a step till• they came to that terrible abyss which they dared not to look over in the years 1831-2 ? (Hear, hear.) You may always pass a measure with more honour to Parliament, with more good to the country in a time of tranquillity than you can in a time of force and compulsion. (Cheers.) And yet a time of tranquillity is invariably, though net immediately, followed in matters of this kind by a time of force and compulsion. What is it that you propose to do ? The right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire told you what must happen t 9 those who draw a hard line and put the working man behind it, and say, " That separates us from you." You have a million of electors now, and you have close on eight millions of grown men in the United King dom. Can the one million say to the six or seven millions, "Hither you shall come and no further." Is the thing possible ? The gallant and right hon. gentleman the member for Huntingdon is looking this way—does he think that it is possible ? No ; ho does not ; he knows it to be impossible. He has the experience of au illustrious member of his own family, who thought it possible to maintain the principle of Protection ; and finally, after doing everything that he could, after violating his own con victions, after fighting the battle of hon. gentlemen opposite for years, ho was compelled at last to surrender, and ad mit to the humblest man in the country -to the poorest weaver—that he, the great Minister of State, had not com prehended this great question as the working men had comprehended it. (Hear, hear.) I want to ask you whether you are resolved—for this question is put to us in discussing this bill—whether you aro resolved that a bolt should be put on the door of the House of Commons, and that the people shall be kept for ever on the other side of it. Tho hon. and learned member for Belfast told us the House of Commons was not to be a representation of persons, but a representation of classes. Why, if the hon. and learned gentleman gave in a court of law such opinions on law as he giveshere on the constitution, depend upon it he never would have occupied the eminent position which he does occupy in his profession. (Oh, oh.) Ho knows perfectly well that there never was in tho constitu tion of this country such a thing as representation of classes in the Commons House of Parliament. We should have been called the House of Classes, or something equally ab surd, if anything so absurd as such a representation had taken place. He knows that in times previous to the usur pation of tho Tudors and the Stuarts every free man who had a house in a borough was represented hole in this house; and he knows that the Parliament of Charles I. de clared the franchise to be the right of every householder in every borough. (Hear, hear.) And though the hen. and learned gentleman attempted to show that the quotation I made from Lord Somers did not bear the interpretation I had put on it, if we come down to a much later period and to the men who lived 60, 70, and 80 years ago, you will find that every leading man of the Liberal party at that timo was in favour of extending the franchise far beyond that which is proposed by this bill. (Hear, hear.) If hon. gen tlemen opposite ever read anything of what is passing in the United States they will see that there is a question there which is causing great difficulty, just as this question of reform is hero. It is proposed that to 4,000,000 of negroes shall be given these rights; that they shall no longer be bought and sold; that they may change their employment and their masters; that they may work for wages and save money; that they may be sued or sue in a court of law; and that they may give evidence in a court of law. Beyond that at present their rights are not to go.. They who were their masters not two years ago, and who bought and sold them, are not willing, for reasons which they think sufficient, to grant those negroes the suffrage wt ich hitherto was almost universal in that country. The franchise never was universal in this country, and it is not necessary that it ever should be. (Cheers.) But we have a representation here ; and if the Crown be secured in its dignity and the House . of Lords in the enjoyment of its privileges, the House of Commons sits here, or ought as a matter of right to sit here, by the free election of the commonalty of the kingdom. (Cheers.) I ask gentlemen opposite whether they mean to stop the working men of this country exactly where the 4,000,000 of negroes in the United States are stopped. (Oh, oh.) Well, that is a fair question. In England all those rights which the bill just passed by the American Congress gives the negro are rights which are conferred for ever to the great body of our people ; but the negroes ask for further rights — for what has been called the creation of a Constitution ; and though it has been resolved not to give them the right of voting, I don't think in the United States that position can be long sustained. I am quite sure in this country it cannot be sustained. If you are resisting millions of peo ple behind those embankments which you have built up, how long will it be before the surging sea from the other side will wash over and destroy the embankments which you have raised? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire asked the question with which I commenced my speech—" Cau this question be kept in abeyance ?" That was the question he asked in 1859. I ask, can it be kept in abeyance in 1866 ? You may defeat the bill. I am not learned in Parliamentary computations. There are gentlemen on the other side who, I dare say, profess to tell what majority there may be for the bill, or what majority against it; but of these things I know nothing. I will admit, if you like, that you can reject this,. bill—you can defeat the Government, you can drive Lord Russell from office. The right hon. gentle man the member for Buckinghamshire no doubt has a Par liamentary Bradshaw, and all his lines converge to Down ing -street. (A laugh.) I myself unwittingly contributed to bring him back there before now, but we had shortly to expel him fiom his high position in official life. If the right hon. gentleman goes to Downing-street again. is he prepared to say that we shall have no Reform Bill, or is he prepared to say that we shall have one, and to propose such a measure as be proposed iii 1809—one which his own colleagues, two of the most experienced of his colleagues, declared to be fatal to the Constitution ? Gentlemen opposito may find that the question will break up their party. (A laugh.) If they come to deal with the question of Reform they will find a difficulty ; and if they do not deal with it, their dif-. ficulty will not be less. There still remains the nation outside this house ; and there will still remain the great question of Parliamentary Reform. (Cheers.) I believe there never was a bill submitted to this house by a Govern ment connected with the Liberal party which it was more clearly the duty and interest of what is called the Conser vative party to support. (A laugh, and Hear, hear.) In 1832, the Tory party, who had opposed the bill, went to their constituencies, and were mostly destroyed for the time. If this bill should pass, large constituencies will not probably look very favourably upon the men who had tried to prevent it from passing. When you see a man like Lord Russell, who was the chief spirit of the bill of 1832 (No, no, and hear), who promoted it years before it made its appearance, and who proposed it on the part of the Govern ment—when you see him, knowing as he does as much of this question as, probably, any man in this house, so con ' winced of the necessity of doing something, and offering a bill so reasonable as this—l cannot help saying that either hon.:gentlemen opposite are misled by their leaders, or have driven their leaders into a course which I think is per nicious to the true interests of their party. Perhaps there never was a bill which more gradually and moderately commended itself to the advancing intelligence of the people. There is not a whisper of dissatisfaction with it. (Cries of "Oh, oh !") I speak of those persons who are in favour of' any improvement in the repre-. sentation of the people ; and so far as I am able to gather information on the subject, even those who are called Conservatives throughout the country, are weary of the perpetual discussion of this question—(hear) —and would be glad if it could be settled on the terms which the Government propose. (No, no.) Well, sir, I did not rise with the expectation that I would convince hon. gentlemen that they were wrong and that I was right. The most I can hope for is that some fact or argument may find a lodg ment in some mind, and may mitigate its hostility to ame-a sure which I think the country requires and which the country is anxious to receive. (Cheers.) I have not spoken in favour of the Government. I have said that I think their figures are wrong, and that the case which they laid before the house is unnecessarily and untruly injuri ous to their own bill and their own cause. Will the house believe for once that I am speaking to them from no party spirit—from no wish to do anything - with the country but what they must wish themselves ? (Hear.) In my view lam at least as honest as they can be in theirs. I have been misrepresented, condemned, and denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite, and by not a few writers in their press; but my conscience tells me I have laboured honestly only to destroy what is evil and build up what is good. (Cheers.) The political gains of the last 25 years, which were summed up the other night by the member for Wick, are my poli tical gains, if they can be called the gains in any degree of any living Englishman. (Hear.) If now, in all the great centres of our population—in Birmingham with its busy district, in Manchester with its belt of towns, in the popu lous West Riding of Yorkshire, in Glasgow, amid the indus tries of the west of Scotland, and in this great Babylon where we are assembled and which our people have built— if, I say, at this moment we do not find ourselvessurrounded by hungry and exasperated multitudes—if now, more than at any time during the last hundred years, it may be said, to quote the beautiful words of Mr. Sheridan, that " con tent sits basking on the cheek of toil"—if tttis house and if its statesmen glory in the change, have not I, as much as any living man, some claim to partake of that glory ? (Loud cheers.) I hope every thoughtful man among you knows, and the gentlemen who sit upon that bench, and who are leading you to this enterprise, know that the policy which I have urged upon the house and upon the country, as far as it has hitherto been accepted by Parliament, is a policy conservative of the public welfare, strengthening the just authority of Parliament, and adding from day to day fresh lustre and dignity to the Crown. (Cheers.) And now when I speak to you and ask you to pass this bin, when I plead on behalf of those who aro not allowed to speak for themselves in this house, if you could raise yourselves for this night—for this hour—above the region of party strife, if you could free yourselves from the pestilent atmosphere of passion and prejudice which so often surrounds us here, I feel confident that at this moment I should not plead in vain with the Imperial Parliament on behalf of the English Constitution and the English people. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) Mr. WHITESIDE, after condemning the vituperative language of Mr. Bright, remarked that throughout the speech the house had just listened to, he had failed to discover what was the advantage of the Franchise Bill, or why they should not agree to the amendment. Indeed, the argument against the bill stood as untouched, and the amendment as strongly supported as before the hon. member rose. It was well that the house should bear in mind what parliamen tary reform meant. As he viewed tho matter it meant the reconstitution of the House of Commons and the recasting a political power in the country. Now, he was quite ready to assist in the correction of any abuse, but when he came to the question of enfranchising the great mass of the people, that he regarded not simply as a change, but a great organic change in the constitution. His theory of the matter was that the author of the present bill was the member for Birmingham ; that the measure had been adopted by the government upon his advice ; that it had been framed in accordance with his speeches and professed opinions, and that it was so shaped for the express purpose of accom plishing the ulterior measures which he had in view, and which he (Mr. "Whiteside) and kis friends would endeavour to prevent or avert. Tracing the history and progress of the reform'movement subsequent to 1852, the right hon. gentleman_argued, in opposition to the sup porters of the bill, that neither Parliament nor the Go vernment was pledged to the question. Noticing, then, the argument that the time had arrived when it was neces sory that the house should have the advantage of the in formation which working men could give them upon many mysterious questions of a social and economical character, what he should like to know wore those wonderful, my sterious questions ? Were the working classes to come into the house bodily? If they did there would be a strike for wages at once. But could not Mr. Fawcett, who was a professor of political economy—could not the philoso phical member for Westminster supply all the information that was requisite on the nature of strikes and the consti. tution of trades unions ? Nothing could be more absurd than to represent that Parliament must be changed in order not to do the thing that was right, reasonable, and moderate towards the working classes ; but that they should be brought into the house to discuss questions of finance, national policy, crime, ignorance, the causes of poverty, and the causes of sin. In conclusion, the right hon. gentleman said there was no doubt whatever in his mind that the bill was directed against the just influence and power of the aristocracy, as defined by law and as part of the Constitution. It would be an unfortunate thing for the country should that policy ever prevail—and so think ing and believing that the Constitution was not a thing which could be suddenly erected, thought it might be speedily destroyed ; that was not the hasty product of a day, but tho well-ripened fruit of wise delay, he asked,the house not to read the bill a second time, but to vote for the logically drawn out amendment, logically supported by his noble friend Lord Stanley. Mr. MC. TORRENS followed in support of the bill, the effect of which he denied would be to swamp the existing constituencies. Mr. WALPOLE, while combating the argument that the bill was so good that it ought to be pressed for ward, reminded the house that of late years they had had several reform bills before them, and said that if ever they got into committee upon the present measure they would find that it was the least defensible and most objectionable of all. The previous bills had avowedly dealt with the whole subject of parliamentary representa tion ; this treated only a part of it. The former professed to be governed by the principles of the Constitution. He looked into this bill, and he saw no principle in it, except the principle that it unsettled everything and settled no thing. The other bills maintained the principle of a con nection between representation and taxation. This entirely destroyed that connection. And if they went on extending the franchise as now proposed they would in the end arrive at the point where the famous antithesis would be realised, that those who governed would not be those who paid, and those who paid would not be allowed to govern. All the other bills proceeded on the notion that there ought to be a variety of franchise ; but with the exception of the lodger franchise and the savings' banks franchise this had literally no species of franchise besides that which pro ceeded in a downward direction. Replying to the assertion of Mr. Bright in one of his Easter speeches, that Mr. Henley and himself (Mr. Walpole) had left the Government of Lord Derby in 1859, because they were in favour of an £8 franchise, the right hon. gentleman declared that they had resigned their seats on the ground of the views they enter tained with regard to a reduction of the franchise. What they did was this : thinking they saw in the Constitution that the county and borough franchises were placed dis tinctly on different footings—the former resting upon pro perty and tenure, and the latter upon occupation and resi dence, and both being connected with taxation, they feared that any proposition which reduced the county franchise to a common level with the borough franchise would do away with that distinction. They considered that there was a danger in any reduction of the franchise either in boroughs or counties ; that if they took an arbitrary line they would always be it, danger of being dragged down to some lower lino ; and they believed that they bad found a resting-place by fixing the county occupation franchise at £2O and the borough occupation at £B. They conceived that by going to something above a £6 rating, which was equi valent to an £8 rental, they would keep up the connection between representation and taxation, inasmuch as at that figure the landlord could not ordinarily compound for the tenants' rates at a lower amount than the other inhabitants of the town had to pay. Under this bill, however, the landlord who compounded for his tenants would have them under a continuous and corrupting influence. He agreed that the question of the franchise ought to be settled, and that nothing could be so mischievous as to leave it un settled ; but he was of opinion that it was to be settled much more easily by the amendment than by the bill. The right hon. gentleman then pointed out the inconvenience and delay which must ensue from legislating in the frag mentary manner proposed by the Government. But 2110 chief objection to the proceeding was the possibility, if they agreed to the Franchise Bill, of having to delegate to another Parliament, elected by the newly created consti tuencies, a matter of such importance to their rights and privileges as the redistribution of seats. To an extension of the suffrage within the limits he had referred to he was quite favourable ; and if the Government would redeem their reform pledges by submitting a. full, complete, and wise measure, they might bo assured that the House of Commons would not be slow to redeem as' fully its part of the pledge, and in doing so redeem it in such a manner as would be most conducive to the permanent interests of the whole community. Mr. GOSCHEN, after remarking on the contradictory nature of the arguments urged for the amendment, ad dressed himself first to Lord Stanley's speech, and asserted that the reason why the bill had been divided was that the Government meant to carry it, and that they believed they could carry it better in parts than altogether. Th eir motto was—the whole this year if possible ;if not, half this year and half next. As to the leverage argument, be maintained that the same constituencies would have the settlement of both branches of the question. The bill for redistribution would be on the table when the house wen t into committee—every borough which was to be disfran chised would know its fate, and he denied that the Govern ment was capable of tampering with their own scheme for the sake of getting a vote. In dealing with the arguinento against the bill he contended that the warning from th e working of democracy in Australia was of no force unless the condition of things could be shown to be the same in both countries, and as to the so much dreaded preponder ance of the working classes, it was not the number of electors but the number of members they could elect whic h must be considered. At present they were said to be 26 per cent. of the constituencies, but they had only t h e com mand of eight elections. He went into minute statistics to show that the expensiveness of the present franchise was a delusion, and alluding to an expression of Lord Elcho be characterised the opposition to the bill as founded on "fea r of the people and defamation of its friends." Mr. LOWE moved the adjournment of the debate, wh ich was seconded by Mr. ONSLOW, who availed himself of the opportunity r to express his conviction of the honesty and sincerity °' the Government. He believed, however, if an angel from heaven were to produce a reform bill, that in spite of its celestial origin it would not be approved of by gentl emen opposite or by certain gentlemen on the Liberal bench es " Mr. YORKE drew attention to the circumstance that the whole sitting had been monopolised by four speakers, and that a very considerable number of members still de sired to address the house. Observations were also made by Sir R. Knightleh B. Johnstone, and Mr. Hibbert, with reference to the perl ° ' at which the debate was likely to terminate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —I am afraid that, as regards the adjournment of the debate, we have no choice, in consequence of the decision of the hen' member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), who is unwilling t ° give way, although I believe every other member is will ing to do so, but to adjourn it until Thursday next., I confess I think that is very inconv en ient—(hear, bear) —and that it would be a great advantage to cont inue debates of this kind from evening to evening without a n / intermission at aIL (Hear, hear.) I do not think, 11°W ever, that there is any remedy for the difficulty which we now experience. The course of the debate this ev enMs has undoubtedly been rather peculiar. (Hear, hear.) It 4 not for me to notice the particular moment of a gentleman rising and sitting down—(laughter)—but undoubtedly r do hope that on Thursday it will be found practica ble f°' gentlemen who are now waiting to address the house t ti t do their duty in that respect. So far as the Governilten, are concerned, I am sure we have shown no indication ed'• impatience in hearing hon. gentlemen—(hear, hear) --an whatever takes place it is not for us to i n terpose, espec ial ' , as the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) soreeci what hypothetically stated that six speeches which ha been delivered had interposed such difficulties in the wa of hon. members (At the other side that they wou ld reclua several nights' debate to remove the obstacles. (Chee— rg and laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI (who on rising was received With cheers and laughter) said— So far as I can form an opin ion be there seems to a fair prospect, with some forbea rat ! c,, „- and management, of bringing the debate to a concltist°' this week. (Hear, hear.) I should be very glad 0 morrow evening could be devoted to the discussion- - O legt % —but, so far as I am personally concerned, I am a nxious that the debate should be prolonged, in order to g ive 21¢ opportunity to members who have taken their places In the house for the first time of addressing it. At the sat ° time we must feel that it is almost impossible that, by any arrangement, we can satisfy even a majority of th e iliat claims brought to our notice. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, I should be very glad if we could come t° some distinct understanding to-night as to the t er minati on of the debate. (Hear.) I originally contemplated that '" might have ended on Thursday. No doubt if the b °l3 . ; member for Dudley maintains the position w hi c h he n ° , occupieli, that will prevent the conclusion of the debate °'" that evening ; but I should think that under any oire nel f : stances, the house being now full, we might come t° - definite understanding that it should certainly end On Friday. (Cheers.) The debate was then adjourned to Thursday. The orders of the day having been disposed of, thehouge adjourned at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. NORTHAMPTON—ArmL 21. old New white wheat, 45 s t o 49 s •, new red, 40s to 48s ; white, 48s to 535; old re d , 44s to 498 per 36 stone. 133 fr - 30 for malting, 38s to 40s per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 3 8 s 118 ,, 0 e. ' stone. Oats, old, 30s to 34s • new, 28s to 32s per 24 I,olls Beans, old, 46s to 50s ; new, 40s to 44s per 38 stone. 36s to 40s per 36 stone. CHLSISFOI Hero to-day a good supply higher rates, with a firm sale, tions fully as dear. :D—Arnm 20. r of wheat commanded rather . Spring corn of all descrir Wheat, old white....4ss new .433 5.s ° Peas, Partridge ...... 34i W hite 29g 4 0 ........ 370 , 4 00 Dun.... dit o, new._ 400 Beans, Tick, new.... 3 5" 42 4 Harrow ficks. 3Bo 4 (s new...• 3 6! •SO Mazagan •••33P old red 343 45s flew. 303 45s Barley.... - 25s 33s Chevalier 3Ss 42s Grind ng 288 34s Malt sBa tOs Chevalier Of's 62i Oats 26s 30a GRANTHAM—Arnm 21. Old white wheat, 52s to 55 5; o ld red, 48s to 50s; 11110°11- white, 50s to 53s ; new red, 44s to 47s per 36 stone• ley for malting, 36s to 42s per qr. ; grinding, 30 stone. Oats, o ld, 30 s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s Pe toe . stone. Beans, old, 48 s t o 50s; new, 43s 30s to 36* p _. r l o 46s er 38 i 3 Peas, 3 6 s to 40s pe r 36 stone. COLCHESTER--APRIL 21. A limited supply o f w h ea t, w hi c h i mprove d is on the prices recently quoted. Barley nominal in value ' the Il in d ing season being over. Beans a n d pe as w e re scarce' is per qr dearer. 36 4 Wheat, white 40s 54s Beans, Mazagan.,....331 401 rcd Ns 48s Middle and small-I!! 42 4 Barley '4Bs 40s Peas, white ....... ... ?" 40 .30 6 Oats grey Wheat was rather inquiry Lue 6O effected at advanced rates. A f a i r inquiry for oale, $ 4 4 0 0 5 s o O d d t t o o 4 4 5 5 5 s 0 0 d d Potato oats i t more money. White wheat wheat 62lb ? bushel' 25s Od to 25s 6dt 40th qa bushel. Common oats 24s Od t o 24 s 6dj -- - Bere 30s Od to 31s Od t 53th %.1 bushel' Barley 32s Od to 32s 6d) SO' Oatmeal 19s 6d to 20s Od 131 boll of 2 1 1 ) , Flour, fine 36s Od to 37s Od ?sack of 2°' KIRKCALDY—Amu. 21. ce l° Small supplies of wheat and oats, and only two P r of barley. flood wheat and oats is per qr. up. Wheat ' Barley. Oats. I First...... 44s Od ' 34s Od 28s Od i:•econd.... 45s Od I.s Od 2 s Gli Third.— 470 Od —s Od Ws Od Births. „pp H AMMERSLEY—On the 21st inst., at P r ince's-gate, the ", of Hugh Hammersley, Esq., of a daughter. of PETRE—On the 22d inst., at Thorndon, the Lady Pe"' • ' a son. ter , c SCHUSTER—On the 21st inst., the Lady Isabella Schg° ' of a daughter. WARD—On the 17th inst., at 37, Hyde-park-gardeTA the wife of Lieut.-Colonel Ward, R.E., of a son. Marriages. JACKSON—SAWYER—On the 21st inst., at St. Myddelton-squaro, J. W. Jackson, Esq., o f Linde,n r ief" biaf Stock Orchard-crescent, Holloway, t o Blanche .1110 eldest daughter of the late Edwa r d Sawyer, Esq. , ° Majesty's Treasury. ii „ r too ROBERTS—HALL—On the 19th inst., at St. Mary's, - ' l , - ,rtel Kirby, Edward Arthur, eldest son of James 10 :,.08D Esq., of Broom Hall, Sh oo t er ' s -hil l, to Elizabeth, ril",,vear daughter of Henry H a ll , Esq ., of Horton. Kirby, - Dartford, Kent. Deaths. n mief BODE—On the 21st inst., at Hare Hall, Berks, 'Wrn• ms" Esq., aged 81. 1 3 ' FRYER —On the 20th inst., at 14, Chester-street, W' Fryer, of South Lytchett, Dorset, o,ged 64. aac if; GODBOLD—On the 20th inst., at 34, Euston-square, Godbold, aged 74. Locke—On the 20th inst., Edward Locke, Esq., of dee, Newport, Monmouthshire. MAULE—On tho2lst inst., at Hamilton-terrace, Blacicuo'7. Louisa Mary, relict of the late Rev. J. Maule, age d PORTER—On the 17th inst., at York, Harry Porter , •li" aged 83. ROE—On the 20th inst., Sir F. Adair Roe, Bart. lsit es THYNNE —On the 22d inst., at Haynes Park, Bedfords the Lady John Thynne, aged 60. , ra ce, NVEmYss—On the 19th inst., at 3, Green-park, Bath e , " til e" only surviving daughter of th e l a t e C o l one l J. w of Southsea House, Hants. Ng!' London : Printed and Published by WIL LIAM AN ,Thipt l.l , ; of No. 112, Strand, Punter, at Trill Sun 0 1110 °. ,`„:ti o f Strand, in the Precinct of the Swop in the "t r- Bliddlesex—Tuesday, April 24, 1866. other 445 . str eei 1 1 lii si sand of the p :t ?N n Ctv`;' 11 . y 1.13, 133, ITy 13y 113, 1114 ( E'srA: Ili vubli It tom e. , Sol 6 3' ti W 1101( 01), n 4 No' ill th, Of J o ] 11S111. Fly fOHON S` !prod, 54 et 4ml 4' • ti ' ` 01°,W11( A' et g 'E is t i ,__ 0 .1 Inarne r, qel App r~ Of II 4 114 Etre(