The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-14 00:00:00

liiiiillA.L PARLLUIENT HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING. The LORD CITANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PETITIONS. Several petitions on different subjects were presented by Lords Chelmsford, Houghton, and Earl Grey. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Aften Valley Railway, Bodmin Water, Neath and Brecon Rail way (Capital), and New Milford Docks. . The Montrose Harbour Bill and the Dublin Connecting Railway Bill were severally read a third time and passed. himself with proposing a £7 franchise, which gives to the working class not far short of half the borough constituency, taking it altogether—viz., as 333,000 to 362,000 electors of the oilier classes. That may be the proportion this year, but it is not for this year that we legislate. (Cheers.) And even granting that a £7 franchise is not lowered by Parlia ment, a £6 rental is raised to its level by time, and raised so rapidly that within three years from the next registration, owing to permanent causes which necessitate the rise, of urban rentals, the man who pays between £6 and £7 a year for his house will pay £7 and become a voter. And if you pass this bill you give in all borough towns an additional and irresistible impetus to the rise of rent. (Hear, hear.) It will be the interest of builders, the object of political parties, the natural desire of petty householders, who value a vote, whether for its own sake or as money's worth in some shape or another, to bridge over the narrow space that divides the £7 voter from the man who pays a trifling iota less, for It is not the rental of £6 but rather the rental of £6 108., or 2s. 6d. a week, which forms the gene ral staple ofrents between £6 and £7— (cheers) —and the hon. member for Leeds, addressing his constituents the other day, truly said that the absence of the ratepaying condition is equivalent to the other 10s. in the pound. So that it must be perfectly clear to every man of sense and candour that, should you pass this bill, that which is now a £6 rental will be a £7 rental within three, or at most four, years—viz., within the natural Me of the present Parlia ment; and thus that you will create that very preponder ance of the working class which the existent £6 rental would insure, but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us Parliament never contemplated and is not prepared to con cede. (Cheers.) This does not rest on assumption ; we have ample evidence of the fact in the case of the £lO franchise. Look down those statistical tables and see how compartively few occupiers there are in the £9 column, because the £9 houses have been absorbed into the £lO franchise. And th e reason why the increase of the £lO voters was more rapid in the early years after the bill of 1832 is that in these years the process of the absorption left less for the following years to effect. As a general rule, at whatever rent you wish to fix a franchise, especially if freed from ratepaying condition; you must calculate the real numbers so admitted to be within three years those that are repre sented by the rental of £1 below it. But gentlemen have said that if the poor householder was induced by the gain of the franchise to pay more for a bettor house that world be a social benefit, and an argument in favour of the bill. Yes, but the rise of rent does not necessarily mean the im provement of the house. (Cheers.) Many gentlemen pre sent know that they must now pay £3OO a year for a Lon don house which four years ago would have been thought dear at £2OO. Nothing in this age of progress is so rapidly progressive as the risers rents in all the large towns. in Parliamentary boroug the house that is now worth £6 10s., or even £6, will remain just as squalid as it now i s . (Hear, hear.) The £7 franchise raises its rental without bettering its accommodation, (Hear, hear,) But then it is said the vote itself is a moral benefit to every man, whatever his education or condition of life. It raises his sense of dignity and self-respect. Does experience tell you so ? Was the vote a moral benefit to the freeman and pot walloper ? (Cheers.) Do you suppose that freemen are cor rupt merely because they are called freemen? No; they are corrupt because they belong to a condition of life in which, no doubt, there are many upright and earnest poli ticians, but in which there are many others who, if two rival candidates, prefer Smith and a £5-note to Brown and the Rights of Man. (Cheers and laughter.) You disfran chised the freemen of Yarmouth. Did you extinguish corruption at Yarmouth ? (Hear, hear.) No, you find this very year that the same class of men are not less corrupt as petty householders than they were as freemen. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the first reading of this bill, cited as an notable illustration of the soundness of his proposal a distinguished instance of the intelligence and self-guiding power of the working class. Where does he go to for that instance ? To one of those eight boroughs in which the electors of the working class are most equal in number to those of the middle class? No, he goes to the borough of Rochdale, where the electors that belong to the working class aro only as Ito 20. (Cheers.) Does he not see how his illustration tells against his argument? (Hear, hear.) These admirable specimens of the working classre quired no £7 franchise to develope their intelligence and self-guiding power. Is there anything in the air of Roch dale more favourable to virtue than the air of Yarmouth ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) No; but these voters of Yar mouth had been for a long series of years exposed to the strongest temptations poverty can undergo when it is can vassed by wealth—temptations to which these noble ope ratives of Rochdale had never been subjected. (Cheers.) But the operatives of Rochdale having been left 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. Willing, do I say? That word is much too cold. I wish that, like some old common wealth of Greece, wo might admit them to the franchise by acclamation, too proud of such fellow-citizens to ask what rent they pay for their houses. (Cheers.) But if you want to make a safe experiment of a working-class suffrage, and an experiment fair to themselves and true to the dignity of honest and thoughtful labour, are you sure that it can be made by the abstract principle of your bill ? That is, by an uniform abasement of the franchise applied equally to all boroughs, whatever their population and whatever their character. Perhaps for such an experiment the wiser plan would be to revive that variety of suffrage which is agree able to the ancient custom of the Constitution, and which was strongly recommended by the high authority of Sir James Macintosh, in any further extension of populous constituencies; and having decided how many boroughs should be devoted to majorities of the working class, then select those constituencies in which skilled labour tends to to create a superior class of artisans, and in which their numbers alone would be some safeguard against the bribes of a candidate, and, giving three such a suffrage as would amply secure your object, decline to -apply the same low rate of franchise to those other and numerous middle-sized boroughs in which the skilled artisans are too few to be come a fair representation of the intelligence and integrity of their class, and the electoral population not sufficiently large to frustrate the bribery by which the ambition of the rich man tempts the necessities of the poor. For, do con sider what are these boroughs in which, take them alto gether, we axe asked to make this abrupt and wholesale transfer of electoral power. Are they not the predominant influence on the legislation of this house, and therefore in the choice and control of the Imperial Government ? (Hear, hear.) Despite the great wealth, despite the larger numbers represented by county members, the boroughs have so decided a majority in the House of Commons that no Government can last which does not obtain the sup port of a considerable proportion of the borough members ; whereas a Government opposed by the large majo rity of county members, if it has the general support of the boroughs, carries,all measures and secures its existence. Gentlemen have gone into calculations as to the number of boroughs in which the working classes at a£7 franchise will have majorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates the number at 60 boroughs or 801 seats ; but in a very able pamphlet by Mr. Baxter the numbers appear to be these—Majorities in the election of 95 members—nearly majorities in the election of 93—and from bne-third to two fifths in the election of 85. But if lam right in maintain ing that the rise of rent in Parliamentary boroughs will ra pidly make what is now a £6 rental a £7 franchise, the number will be considerably increased, and in most of the boroughs where the working classes will not actually have the majority their proportion will be so large that the elec - tion will be practically in their hands. There seems to me this fallacy in the argument of the Chancellor of the Ex ihequer, that it is only in those boroughswhere the work ing classes are to have a clear majority that he considers their influence predominant. But a class may have a majo rity so large as to be practically predominant. lathe county I represent it is said truly that the tenant farmers can carry an election, yet the tenant-farmers do not appear by the books to be muchmorethan a third of the constituency. (Cheers.) A class that has a third of a constituency has an election in its power. When, therefore, you hand over the c cce, l ‘ool a wranm s s se s mee N lmt v leo, h rsca o bituaf w hlote i ucy l rtolomuhul systemt i ma t e e l f y t become hi s eabe r t a h t e e boroughs to the urban worki ng c l ass , it i s th e ur b an work maerbniatreerhsyofft l d l t t h h f a s t mh sharevn e w b e oe a f e l t th h h ea ds ( um H ffi e itt.a a ig r n , eghwe theai t r h . )0 urban rt ß bda u an t it wg e i or s „ s a yt n i o d gu , have not even been conscious that they were admitted, and therefore it can be no danger to give them a half share upon a principle which must rapidly give them a predominant majority." Sir, that argumen t rem i nds me of the Irishman's bull— good" If one quince can g i ve so a flavour to an a pple pie, how wonderfullygoo i d s m a ustbe an apple pie that is all quinces"—(loud cheers and laugh ter) —for the franchise of the working class gene rous stimulant to the action of a free State. But too much stimulant is living too fast. The physician may re commend a certain degree of alcohol in our daily drink, and the more it does us good the less are we conscious of the amount of the alcohol we have taken. But would the hardy Scotchman who was all the better for his temp e rate glass of whisky and water progress to a finer state of wealth, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer implied in his speech at Liverpool, in proportion as he swamped he water by in creasing the whisky. (Cheers and laugh the water by in creasing the whisky. (Cheers and laughter.) So much for the persuasive kind of argument ; but the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham g ives us instead what school men call the argumenturn baculinwn. He says, ac Wretched Parliament that you are, take this change now before some accident occurs by which the working class may compel tu doorsm ul t o u t a the y You to take something much worse." And it is not the fault of the members for Birmingham if one of those accidents does not occur in the shape of a fortuitous concourse of this subject of the Emperor something is said by liontes aHtoonlauses,. eefxcteonmdinmognsf.romuuCouhdarichngee-rcsr.o)ss stc:r7tohne quieu' which h ing to "History of Ca3sar." ry les m th on e a w re o h rld. quoteEraeror of the French thinks suffi ciently with approval in his preface to the "It is not Fortune," says lifontes cuh, ‘a‘cwhich ev ru e of an a d b all accidents are subject There are general causes battle. to those causes. If the failurey,madettle has ruined a State, there was a general cause whichite n ln ecessary that principal cause drags with it the particular accidweno State should perish through a single accident the ll then, we wish to create a general cause that may make any particular accident of a revolutionary c. aracter fatal to the independence and dignity of this grand assembly, letus ac cept this argument of the bludgeon, and proclaim to the masses that we yield to intimidation that which we refuse to reason. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) And, Sir, if we desire to create a general cause that may make any particular accident of a domestic character fatal to the mixed Constitution of this country, let us at once accept this bill, which, if any accident can occur of a nature to accelerate the impetus and widen the circle of democracy, makes the political leaders of the urban working class the masters of the situation. (Loud cheers.) Sir, lam not one of those who have an absolute horror of democracy, and can only speak of it in the lan guage we apply to something monstrous and abnormal. I recognise democracy as one of the genuine and legitimate forms of national polity. Like every form of government, it has its defects and faults. But it has also merits of its own—merits identified in the history of the world with marvellous achievements of individual genius, of national energies, of passionate devotion to the public cause. I would even here undertake the defence of our Anglo-Saxon colonies from much that has been said against them. But democracy seems to me essentially the government that belongs to societies in their ycuth, and in which the habits of men, even more than their laws, produce a certain equality of manners and education. There is no special form of government adapted to every varying community in different epochs of its existence. But if there be a coun try in the world in which democracy would be a ruinous experiment, it is a country like England, with , a very limited area of soil compared to the pressure of its population, with a commerce so based upon credit and na tional prestige that it would perish for ever if by any neglect of democratic economy, or, what is more probable, any adventure of democratic rashness, our naval power were destroyed, and with such strong differences of reli gious sect that we should find it impossible to preclude de mocracy by that universal and general system of education without which it would be madness to make the working class the sovereign constituency of a Legislative Assem bly. I may here, indeed, quote the authority of the member for Birmingham, who, speaking the other day at Manches ter on the subject of education, showed that in the States of New England education did not follow, but long pre ceded, the establishment of democracy. So that even in America, despite the unequalled bounty of nature, the true fathers of the future republic made a period of 150 years of education, brought home to the door of the poorest citizen, precede the establishment of a demo cracy the action of which is even now qualified by checks on the Representative Chamber which, as I will show you pre sently, are unknown to the English House of Commons. But this bill, you may say, does not create such a demo cracy. No, but it is the inevitable step to it, and it is received and understood as such by its enthusiastic sup porters out of doors, who, laughing at it as a settlement of the question, hail and applaud it as an installation of the principle to which absolute democracy is the only goal. It is the inevitable stop to democracy, not so much because of the actual franchise it gives now either in towns or counties, but because of the abstract principle, adorned by the eloquence of members of the Government, which alone wins to their bill the approval of the National Reform League—viz., that every working man has a right to avote ; and while no political community could exist for a quarter of an hour if all rights which speculative philosophers say we take from nature were not merged in an acquiescence to the social compact that wo have no rights except those that we take by law, this solitary right of an electoral vote forms an exception and the privation of it constitutes a wrong. (Cheers.) By this principle you create and sanction and perpetuate a discontent on the part of every working man whom the suffrage you bestow on his fellow workmen still excludes, and you gather round the doors that your principle keeps ajar the millions whom your principle invites to enter. (Cheers.) What, then, says the Chanceller of the Exchequer—surely sensible that he is treading on what he calls tender ground? "Do not regard these new applicants as an invading army. Are they not your own fellow-Christians ? - Are they not your own flesh and blood ?" I share in the amazement general among his warmest admirers how a man like my right hon. friend can descend to a species of argument so hollow in itself, and so perilous in its logical deductions. So hol low in itself, because, suppose, for instance, I introduced a Reform Bill by which I admitted rural voters to swamp the urban voters, as you propose to admit the urban voters to swamp the farmers. And suppose I said, "Do not regard these honest farmers as an invading army. Are they not your own fellow-Christians ? Are they not your own flesh and blood ?" (Laughter and loud cheering.) Would you not answer then, perhaps less civilly than we wish to answer now, "All that may be very fine, but the mind and opinion of one set of fellow-Christians are not to be overborne by the flesh and blood of another set." (Much laughter and cheering.) But see how perilous are the de ductions to be drawn from an irrelevant platitude when it is used as an argument by a man in authority, and in scribed, as the very few Liberal journals which favour the bill say that this platitude shall be inscribed, on the banner of Democratic Reform. I will assume for a moment—my right hon. friend will pardon and correct me if I am wrong —that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in favour of universal suffrage. (A laugh.) But how can he oppose it consistently with his own inscription on his own banner of Reform ? (Cheers.) What has he to say to the millions who will ask him one day, " Are we an invading army ? Aie we not fellow-Christians ? Are we not your own flesh and blood ?" Does he think it will be answer enough to give that kind of modified opinion which he put forth last night, and to say, " Well, that is very true. For my own part, in myindividual capacity—(laughter and cheering)—l can not see that there is any danger in admitting you, but still you know it is wise to proceed gradually. A7£ voter is real flesh and blood, but you are only gradual flesh and blood. (Great laughter and cheering.) Read Dr. Darwin on the origin of species, and learn that you are fellow- Christians in an imperfect state of development." (Renewed laughter.) That which is an amiable sentiment when ap plied to the claim of all mankind to our humanity and com passion becomes a doctrine formidable to those who dis like universal suffrage when it is applied to a principle of political franchise by the most conspicuous Minister of the British Crown. Sir, the most painful part of this discus sion is that which is forced upon us by the Government statistics, thus sharply separating the working class from the rest of the community, and thus rendering it difficult to argue against the principle of democracy without wound ing or offending the honourable pride of men with whom every employer of labour, be he manufacturer, merchant, or country gentleman, is brought into affectionate and familiar contact. Do you suppose it does not go to the heart of a gentleman if he utters a word which, either from his own defect of language or from an unfair perversion of his meaning, hurts the manly feelings even of the humble labourer with whom he has formed an intimacy as cordial as any which exists among those equals whom he calls his honourable and noble friends ? And what man of letters does not revere those lofty aspirations of the educated artisan towards a more perfect form of human society, which may, indeed, be Utopian, but which form an eternal link between the aims of educated labour and the dreams of philosophy and genius? But, looking to this present state of this workday world, it is no disrespect to the urban working class if, in their relation to the State, I object to cut out of them a rude slice, and, without any test whatever of intelligence, give to that slice a prepon derating influence in the constituent body and the legisla tion of this complicated empire. I should have the same objection to the preponderating influence of scholars and men of science, or of great merchants, or of a territorial aristocracy. Each of such sections, however indisputably honest and intelligent, would fail to represent ,that common sense of the common interest which is best expressed by the word commonwealth, and which can only be fairly represented where the middle class is, on the whole, largely preponderant. Not that the middle class has not as many faults of its own as any other class, above or below, but that, on the whole, it most faithfully represents all the interests and opinions which constitute the mind and welfare of a nation, and the most felicitously reconciles the securities of order with the demands of free dom. And are men to be stigmatised as traitors and con spirators because they desire to preserve from virtual dis franchisement and political subjugation the middle class constituents of which they aro as yet the trustees ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer lays much stress on the fact that all the working class do not agree in politics. I do not say that they do, but I say this : that where they ob tain a marked and general predominance they cannot fail to colour and influence legislation, especially where ques tions in which they feel a special interest are concerned. All clergymen do not agree in politics, but if they returned the majority of members I fancy you would feel their in fluence in a division on church rates. (A laugh.) All far mers do not agree in politics, but if they returned the ma jority of members you would feel their influence in a divi sion on the malt tax. (Laughter.) All working men do not agree in politics, but as soon as they return the majority of members, rely on it you will find their influence in those questions between laboir and capital, between manufacturer and mechanic, between supply and demand, upon which the very existence of this commercial England depends. Even in foreign affairs, as welt' as domestic, the very virtues of the working men, in their detestation of what they con sider tyranny and injustice, would be a perpetual source of dangerberfor h i e n y o r m et in urn sa a ys m t tj h i i o s ri b ty ill of is m w em an b t e e r d s. to T s h a e v m e erhe country from the risk of war, provoked by the depravity of Tories—though, by-the-by, I think all the wars in which we have been engaged since 1815 had their origin under Liberal Administrations. But what says the member for Brighton, who spoke on the first reading of this bill with so much ability and promise ? Why, that the work ing class would have gone to war with Russia on behalf of Poland. That is quite consistent with their generous ten dency to side with the weak against the strong. A House of Commons, had the large majority been chosen by the working class, would then have wished to provoke a war with Russia. (Hear, hear.) But a war more dispropor tioned to our powers, less sanctioned by our interests, and more vainly exhaustive of blood and treasure the imagina tion of men cannot conceive. Why do such dangers never occur in America and France, countries in which universal suffrage is adopted ? Because both in America and France the popular Chamber has no voice in foreign affairs, no voice in creating Cabinets and determining the choice be tween peace and war. And the examples of both these countries makes the fact clear, that in proportion as you lower the scale of franchise to the preponderance of the working class, the safety of the State compels you to limit the powers and authority of the Representative Chamber. The more you lower the standard of the constituency be low the average education of the country, the more you will transfer the intellectual power of this house to some upper chamber, whether it be an English House of Lords or an American Senate. Take America itself ; no one there cares what is said in the House of Representatives. Every man there looks alone to the Senate on questions that affect the general interests of the nation. The Senate there alone discusses foreign affairs, and when it does can become the executive body, resole© itself into a secret committee, and exclude the reporters. The wise safeguard of. America, against her popular suffrage is in the scantiness of the powers she leaves to her representative assembly. I dare say you might grant not only the £7 franchise, but even a universal suffrage in this country, with safety as to foreign affairs, with safety as to making and unmaking Cabi nets, and with safety to everything except genuine freedom —(loud cheers) —if you then left to the House of Commons as little influence, power, weight, and authority as are left to the representative Chambers of America and France. But, whatever objection there may be in the principle of this bill itself is increased to an extent which no man can define by the mode in which the Government propose to deal with it. We are favoured with a volume of statistics, by which we are to compute how many boroughs will re present a majority of the working class, how many will re present a majority of the middle class, to what degree the balance between rural and urban constituencies will be dis turbed or maintained ; and yet it is perfectly clear that all our calculations may be made utterly worthless by a new distribution of seats and a new definition of the boundaries of boroughs. (Hear, hear.) It is true that, before we pro ceed to committee the Government will give us their ideas on those subjects. But how ? By bills with which they do not intend to proceed till this bill becomes law. What answer have you to the masterly argument of my noble friend the member for Lynn ? "Supposing we were satis fied with the scheme submitted as to re-distribution, what guarantee should we have that that scheme might not be altogether changed next session ?" Possibly, during the recess those advanced Reformers who advise her Majesty's adviser—(cheers) —may declare that a scheme much more comprehensive is absolutely essential, and their advice may be taken. Possibly the material and spirit of the Go vernment may be as much changed next session as by one lamented loss it has been changed since the last ; and the Cabinet of 1867 may as much vary from the Cabinet of 1866 in its views of Reform as the Cabinet of 1846 has varied from the Cabinet of 1865. But the Govern ment will, I understand, declare that, as it stands or falls by this bill, so it will stand or fall by its other bill—that is, next year. Well, but if it caries this Bill and stands, before it carries the other Bills it may fall, or Parliament may be dissolved, and the whole question as to seats and boundaries and remedies against corruption may be referred to new constituencies created by a Bill of which the only ardent advocates are in favour of electoral districts and vote by ballot. But if, having once passed this Bill and made it law, we were then to proceed imme diately to the other Government measures necessary for the completion of their scheme of Reform, would this house be as competent as the Chancellor of the Ex chequer assures us to the task of making that scheme con clusive and binding? We should be literally members without constituencies. We should have destroyed our old constituencies, and be without authority to act for the new constituencies that have never chosen us. Suppose we did deal with some 20 or 30 seats, and in so dealing failed to satisfy the next Parliament, chosen by a more democratic suffrage, would not our successors say, with truth, that when we had extinguished our constituencies we had lost the right of representatives to prejudge ques tions affecting the electoral bodies to which we were with out any existent responsibilities ? And with what heart should we set about the most ordinary work of legislation, with what uncertainty of temper should we address our selves, no longer to the men who sent us here, but to that Virgilian threshold of our souls not yet launched into the world, whom we must seek to propitiate even before they are born! We should drag out the rest of our doleful existence like those monks of La Trappe who have no other thought but that of memento mori, and no other occupation but that of digging their own graves. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must forgive me if I venture to doubt whether there is an educated man in this house or out of it who :accepts the validity of his reason—the want of time—for thrusting upon us this measure, isolated and detached from all other portions of a general scheme of Reform, and insisting that we shall affirm its principle without ev©n a guess as to the constituent bodies to which that principle is to be applied. No, sir; every one must feel that the true reason for this mode of dealing with the question is that which was so frankly announced some months ago by the hon. gentle man the member for Birmingham— (hear) hear)—viz., that if the house can be persuaded to pass this bill in its simple and severe integrity the bill itself becomes the leverage for lifting out of the representation, whether in this Parlia ment or the next, many of the very members who may thus be eßtmpped to their own perdition—(laughter and cheers) —many members, indeed, whom a bill for redistri bution of seats may spare for the moment, but whom a Par liament chosen by the provisions of this bill will sacrifice to the manes of those whom they have assisted to destroy. (Loud cheers.) Indeed, I have observed that in all the public meetings held in favour of this bill no speaker has accepted the reason for not proceeding simultaneously with the question of redistribution, but every speaker has ac cepted the reason stated by the member for Birmingham, often interrupted by loud cries from the body of his audi ence)—" Let us in, let us in, and we'll soon settle the ques tion of seats." Sir, no one can blame the member for Bir mingham for the candour with which he avowed his share in a conspiracy to which I will not be so discourteous as to apply the epithet of "dirty"—(cheers)—but a conspiracy in which members are to be allured to resign "this pleasing, anxious being," and kept so blindfold that they have even not the privilege to "cast a lingering look behind." But, with all deference to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think the house has a right to complain of him that ho does not imitate the candour of the member for Birmingham. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the leader of this house is more than the chief of party, more than the organ of a Cabinet—he owes a duty to the house itself, and in all things that appertains to our common existence we have a right to expect from him an ingenuous frankness, incompatible with these masked bat teries and these crafty decoys into the dark. If there be among us any members who, in voting for the principle of this bill, will by the completion of the scheme it involves destroy their own seats in Parliament, I think they have a right to be so far warned of their fate as to have the scheme put plainly before them by the Minister who, in leading the House of Commons, represents that good faith and straightforward dealing between man and man without which no conceivable suffrage could make us the true image of the English nation. Now, sir, before I conclude, let me, with great respect, address a few words to those moderate Liberals who do not desire to be buried alive in that me morable tomb in Westminster Abbey, in which the last of the Whigs is to rest, and his countrymen to be thankful that he can repose. To them I say, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Bo wise, and be wise in time." (Loud cheers.) Be wise before you cross the Rubicon and burn your vessels. (Continued cheering.) There is a story of a famous French preacher who, delivering a sermon on the duty of wives, said, "I see a woman present who has been guilty of disobedience to her husband, andin order to point her out to universal condemnation, I will fling this breviary at her head." He lifted the book, and every female head present ducked and dived. (General laughter and cheers.) "Alas!" said the preacher, "the multitude of the offenders necessitates a general amnesty." Now, I see a gentleman opposite who is guilty of detesting this bill, and yet intends to vote for it; and if, in order to point him out to universal .condemnation, the courtesies of Parliament would permit me to fling these statistics at his head, so many heads oppo site would duckand dive that nothing but a general amnesty could deal with such a multitude of offenders. (Cheers.) Sir, I am the last man to disparage that loyal discipline of party by which we all must so often suborn our individual opinions to the decision of those whom we accept as our leaders. I do not, therefore, presume to impugn the motives of any fellow member who, though detesting this bill, yet intends to vote for it. But I believe that the respect and gratitude of that large portion of the Liberal public which is represented by so powerful a majority of the Liberalpress will be the reward of those who, on a\ question so grave, and of which the results are so irrevocable, prefer the wel fare and safety of their native country to a blind submis sion to a Government that has not even the courage of its own opinions, for it does not dare to invite to its Cabinet the powerful orator who tells it the way to go ; and thus, at least, make him responsible to his Sovereign for the counsels he dictates to her Ministers. (Loud and pro longed cheering.) For Imy part I can honestly say that, looking to the nature of the bill, the mode in which it is introduced, and the arguments by which it is defended, my vote against it will be given, not as Conservative against Liberal, not as employer against workman, not as Englishman against Englishman, but as Englishmen for the sake of our common England. (The right hon. ba ronet resumed his seat amid enthusiastic cheers, which were sustained for au unusually long time.) Mr. J. S. MILL said that, notwithstanding the wording of the question which would be put from the chair, few, ho thought, would dispute —particularly after the speech of the right hon. baronet—that the question they were really discussing was whether the bill ought to pass. (Hear.) The noble lord the member for King's Lynn was, he be lieved, the only speaker on the Opposition side who argued the nominal issue as if be thought it was the real issue. That noble lord, in a speech marked by all the fairness and can dour of his own character, and with ability even more earnest and sustained than he exhibited on ordinary occasions, said the very most and the very best which cold be said in favour of the amend ment considered as a substantive proposition. Ho brought forward a number of considerations well calcu lated to make an impression, but only on a part of his au ; dience—upon those who, though they might not be averse from all Reform, looked with extreme jealousy on that es sential feature of it—the enfranchisement of a large num ber of working men, regarding this less as a good to be de- sired than as a doubtful, and perhaps, perilous experiment, and who were frightened lest they should eventually find themselves committed to grant a trifle more representation to the working classes than they had been duly warned of beforehand. (Cheers.) What was the extent, what was the extreme, what was the orst evil with which the noble lord had threatened the house in the event of its being so unguarded as to pass the Bill without the other measures of Reform which were to succeed it ? If something happened which it required a most extraordi nary concurrence of chances to bring about, something against which neither the honour of tho Government nor the inexorable gate fixed by the laws of registration, nor the expressed will of Parliament itself, if it should think proper to express it, could effectively guard against—in that almost impossible case it might happen that a redis tribution of seats, in spite of all that could be done to pre vent it, might devolve on a House of Commons elected under the new franchise. Now, be put it to the noble lord's in tellect clear, and because clear impartial, was this au argu ment which could have the smallest effect on anybody who thought that an extended franchise would be an improve ment ? (Cheers.) if the Legislature created by an ex tended franchise were better for all other purposes, would it not be better for this ono also ? (Hear, hear.) If it could be trusted to govern us, if it could be trusted to tax us, if it could be trusted to legislate for us, could it not be trusted to revise its own Constitution ? (Hear, hear.) Was that, of all things in the world, a task in approaching which expe rience justified us in believing that Legislatures in general, and British Parliaments in particular, would be rash, head long, precipitate, subversive, and revolutionary ? Why, to him it seemed that a Parliament which would not be cau tious in anything else might be depended on not lightly to trifle with the very springs of its owu existence. (Cheers.) That formidable ono chance in thoitsand which the noble lord held over the heads of members was doubtless a serious thing to those who saw in the bill a vast and portentous transfer of power to the working classes ; but to those who thought that the very moderate enfranchising clauses of the bill wore good in themselves, good if there was to be no re distribution of seats—(hear, hear) still better if there leas (cheers) to them the phantom would have no force what ever. (Hear, hear.) And that, he believed, was the per suasion of the great bulk of Reformers, both in that house and in the country—(cheers)—who were as sincerely de sirous as the noble mover of the amendment could be that family and pocket boroughs should be extinguished, and that the power of some noble and opulent families should be curtailed. (Cheers and laughter.) They were quite as anxious to abridge the power which wealth possessed of buying its way into the House of Commons and shutting the doors in the face of humbler merit as the richest gen tleman included in that assembly. (A laugh.) On these fundamental points they were entirely agreed with the Conservative Parliamentary Reformers, and they looked forward with delight to the co-operation of gentlemen opposite in the genial task of converting these theories into facts. ("Hear," and laughter.) A measure of enfranchisement such as the present bill gave—moderate, indeed, far too moderate, for the wishes of the great bulk of Reformers, would yet make the working classes a sub stantial power in the house, and therefore would be highly valuable, even if nothing else were to follow. Beside this view, not any of the questions raised in the debate was worthy of discussion, and he should make no further apo logy for confining himself to it. (Cheers.) Measures might be recommended by their principles or by their political consequences, and if they possesed one recommendation they generally had both. As to the matter of principle, a bill going even further than the present would raise none of those questions upon which the house was divided; and he could not help thinking that his right hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire in raising such questions was causing the debate to deviate from its legitimate and na tural course. If it were necessary, as the right hon. baronet seemed to think, that we should take into consideration all the reasonable, and much also of the unreasonable, things that could be said pro and con. about democracy—and he fully admitted that the right hon. baronet had said things both reasonable and unreasonable on that subject—the house necessarily would have a much larger task before it. But the present bill was not a democratic measure ; it neither merited that praise, nor, as some would call it, that reproach. It was not a corollary from the numerical theory of representation ; it followed directly from the class theory, which was the Conservative view of the Con stitution. A favourite doctrine, not only of Conservative Reformers, but of Conservative non-Reformers and oppo nents of all Reform, was that the Constitution knew nothing of individuals, but only of classes—(h ear, hear)—and that individuals had no right to complain as long as the class was represented. But if the class was altogether unre presented, or had not its proper share of representation, that admittedly was a grievance. The only thing neces sary to be urged was that this theory should be carried into practice. There was one class which had not the benefit of representation ; while so many other classes, numerically insignificant in comparison, and not supposed to be entirely free from class prejudices— (cheers) —were fully, he ventured to say, in some instances, greatly over represented. This class, the most numerous of all, and therefore the most entitled to consideration, was weak as yet, and consequently needed representation all the more ; but it was growing daily in strength and becoming more capable of making its voice heard. For this, the working class, Reformers claimed a large and liberal representation. (Cheers.) They demanded the representation of a class. Let hon. gentlemen opposite prove the sincerity of their convictions by giving the benefit of those convictions for the first time to the great majority of their countrymen. But perhaps hon. gentlemen would say that the working classes were already represented. True it had lately come to light that the working men were already the majority— not the majority, but 26 per cant. of the constituency. But it had required so much research to find their namesonthe registry that their votes could not have had much effect for good or for evil. Though they had had all that power of shaking the foundations of our institutions, they had ob stinately persisted in not doing it. (A laugh and hear:) He would remind hon. members it did not follow that a class was represented in that house because it had a num ber of votes in every constituency in the kingdom. It was perfectly possible a class might have a great number of votes in every constituency in the kingdom and yet not be represented at all. Tho right of voting in that casemight be only the right of being outvoted. (A laugh and hear.) If our system allowed elective rights to minorities—if it were possible for those who were in a minority in one place to join voters in another place—then the power of the working classes in the constituency might be a very sub stantial one ; 26 per cent. whose wishes were acceded to might be a valuable percentage, but 26 per cent. might be worth nothing at all. He admitted that the right hon. ba ronet who had just preceded him brought forward a very plausible argument on that point. He said that a class which was by no means a majority in a constituency might by a skilful management of their votes become mas ters of the situation ; and ho added that, in his county, the tenant farmers carried an election in that way. It was possible that the tenant farmers might decide the question whether a Whig or a Tory was to come in at the election. The tenant farmers might be masters of so small a situa tion as that—(a laugh)—but if they tried to carry any question in which they were interested as a class, they might have the remaining two-thirds of the constituency against them, and then he did not think they would be masters of the situation. (Hear.) You could not make a majority of a minority by any natural contrivance. What might be done in that way by preternatural contrivance he did not know—(laughter)—but by no natural contri vance could one-third be made to outvote two-thirds. (Benewed laughter and cheers.) The power of the work ing classes in the constituencies was marked by the num ber of members whom they might return ; but that was only a measure of the power which the working classes could exercise, and by no means a measure of the power which they really did exercise. This would appear evident if reference was made to some of the constituencies in which the proportion of working men was greatest. If they took Coventry for instance, he believed the gentle men returned for that borough generally voted correctly in the matter of French ribands—(a laugh)—but it often happened that they were Conservatives, so that things were pretty much the same as if the master manufacturers had the power of returning the members for Coventry. If the working class of Coventry sent to Parliament mem bers pledged to support a proposition for taxing working looms there would be some exhibition of power in that, although he believed the working classes had outgrown absurdities of that sort. (Cheers.) If the franchise were so extended that the working class, by applying the whole of their strength, could succeed in returning by small majorities 200 out of the 658 members of Parliament, still there might not be out of those 200, 50 representa tives of the.distinctive feelings of the working class—their class representatives ; and even if those 200 were the repre sentatives of a class they 'would have two to one against them.. Even if unanimous among themselves, they would not by able to prevail unless they could bring over some thing like one-third of the remaining representatives to their way of thinking. If they did this, in his opinion it would be a very strongprimapcie argument that they were in the right. (Cheers.) His right hon. friend the member for Caine (Mr. Lowe) asked what particular measure these was which they wished to have carried, but which could not be carried in Parliament as it was at present constituted. Now, that sounded very well. If be understood his right hon. friend distinctly, he thought they ought to come down to that house with a bill of indictment against the house itself—(a laugh)--setting forth the things which it had done but ought not to have done, and the things which it had not done but ought to have done. (Hear, hear.) When the house pleaded guilty and cried peccavi, then his right hon. friend would give them his permission to bring in a Reform Bill. He (Mr. Lowe) said this question was not to be decided on prima facie arguments—that they ought to proceed on practical grounds. He asked whether what his right hon. friend seemed to suggest was practical. He wished that in this case all special applications could be left out ; for, if they descended to particulars and pointed out this or that which they wished to be altered, but which the house would not alter, could they suppose that the house would be influenced by such particulars in the con sideration of a question like Parliamentary reforria ? The ' fact was, if such a mode of argument was pursued, theywould not make the slightest progress or advance at all, but would raise all sorts of irritating topics. (Hear, hear.) Sup ' pose they were to say—he was going to adduce a small in- stance which would not give offence—that if the working classes had been represented in the house they would not have found that gentlemen who had their cattle slaughtered were to get compensation twice over. (A laugh.) Again— only for the sake of illustration—would it be right in a discussion on a measure of reform to drag in , the question whether the rights of labour had been duly considered in that house ? (Hear, hear.) Suppose the framers of the Re form Bill of 1832 had foretold—which they had not been I able to do, for they did not know it themselves—that in consequence of the passing of the bill, the corn laws would be repealed, the navigation laws put an end to, free-trade with the whole world without reciprocity be established by this country, the inland postage reduced to a penny, the exercise of legislative authority over our colonies re nounced, and that a great many other things which had since taken place would come to pass,—did the house think that . the announcement of those events would have been calculated to make the Parliament of 1832 pass the Reform Bill? (Hear, hear.) Whether results of similar importance would follow the passing of the next Reform Bill, the future must disclose; but certainly whatever measures were to follow it did not at present appear to the house to be required improvements, or the house would adopt them. (Cheers.) The better way to induce those who had power to give that power up was not by telling them that they made unfair use of it. We were all aware of our own fallibility. We knew that we made a thousand mistakes ; but we could not tell which of our opinions was errone ous. if we did we should not continue to hold the errone ous ones. (Hear, hear.) Consequently all assemblies ought to take precautions against their own mistakes, without being told of particular instances of mistakes. If from previous habits of mind and previous associations men were without experience in particular matters, they ought to accept assistance in thoso matters from persons whose habits and associations would enable them to give it to them. Each particular class knew something which was not so well known by the other classes of society. He did not suppose there was in the house a member who could lay before them the cause of the working man's trade unions or of the working man's strikes in as satisfactory a manner as the class concerned would wish to have it stated. Ho doubted that even his hon friend the member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) could do that. There were none of them, he thought, who had not much to learn on all these subjects. Probably, along with much valuable in formation and many just views, they would have members of the working classes now and then pressing upon them wrong ideas and erroneous opinions; and he was not pre pared to say that if that class had the predominance in that house attempts might not bo made to carry some wrong principles into practice. But there was now no question of giving the working classes such a predominance. All that was asked for them was that they should have such an amount of representation as that their opinions should be fairly brought before the house, that they should be met by real argument, addressed to their own reason, and that their sentiments should be expressed by men who could enter into their own way of viewing the question in which they were interested. (Hear.) When some persons attempted to correct the errors of the working classes they did it as if they were talking to babies. (Hear, hear.) If they condescend to argue with them it was from premises that hardly any working man would be ready to admit. They spoke as if they thought everything which appeared self-evident to them Selves must appear equally self-evident to the working man. Consequently their arguments scarcely ever reached the mark. Those persons hardly ever came into real contact with the working man's mind, because they did not know it. When questions which lay near the heart of the working men came to be considered there was no want of goodwill shown towards them ; that he cheerfully admitted. (Hear, hear, hear.) But all those artificial arrangements of society the necessity and advantage of which required to be proved to them, and in respect to some of which it was most essential that they should be proved to them, wore usually taken entirely_ for granted. He did not believe that the working classes would be found to be unconvincible. (Hear.) It was one of the special defects of a democracy to be obstinate in error. (Hear.) An observant Englishman nho had long lived in the United States lately summed up his judgment upon the Americans in these words. He said, "They are the most teachable people on the face of the earth." An old country was not so teachable as a young one ; but, nevertheless, he believed that our educated operatives—and especially those of them who were educated in politics—would be found to be among the least intractable portions of the community. As a rule they were much more in earnest, and their opinions were often much more genuine than those of some other classes who wore actuated by the mere desire to get on in the world. Above all, there was one thing to which testimony would, he was sure, be borne by almost everybody who had had much to do with them, and of which even his own small experience had afforded not a few striking examples. There was no class which bore so well as the working men to be told of its faults, and that, too, even in harsh language, if they were only convinced that the person who so spoke said what he honestly thought. (Hear, hear.) He could scarcely, therefore, conceive a more noble courso of education for them than might be found in the debates of that house, if the various notions, right and wrong, which were fermenting in the minds of the working classes, and some of which went dawn very deep into the structure of society and of Go vernment, were fairly brought before that house and im partially argued there. (Hear, hear.) It was often a sub ject of remark with what readiness in a free country people resigned themselves even to the refusal of what they most wanted, if they felt that everything which they could have said for themselves had been said for them by somebody in the course of public discussion. (Hear, hear.) Our work ing classes had never yet had that tranquillising assurance. They had always had the impression that not they them selves, perhaps, but, at all events, their opinions were pre judged and even condemned without being heard. But let them have the same opportunity which other classes had of pleading their cause—let them feel that it was a question, not of power, but of wisdom ; and then, even if they did not obtain what they desired, they would acquiesce quite as readily as any other section of the community in the deci sions of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) De Tocqueville, who was often quoted as though ho were the enemy of democracy, instead of its sincere but discriminating friend, said that democratic Governments, although they were perpetually making mistakes, were able easily to correct them, and that whatever mischief they wrought was coun teracted by the salutary influence of their legislation, which, more than elsewhere, was directed towards the actual posi tive well-being of their population. (Hear, hear.) They were told that our own legislation was also making very great progress in that direction—that that house had re pealed the Corn Laws, done away with religious disabili ties, and accomplished he know not how many other great objects. He should be the last person to disparage these important reforms, which had probably saved the country from a great convulsion. As little did he undervalue that sound sense and good feeling which had enabled the go verning classes of this country to keep their ground and at the same time advance thus far. " liabez pretium ; cru d non .figeris." Their reward was that by doing no harm they were not hated as other privileged classes sometimes had been. (Hear.) But was that all that the Legislature of this country could offer to the people? Were they to be con tent with only undoing the mischief which they and their predecessors had done in former times? Were not all the groat and crying evils of an old and crowded state of society waiting to be grappled with ? (Hear, hear.) The curse of ignorance, the curse of pauperism, .the curse of disease, the curse of a population bred and nurtured in crime—all these things they were just begin ning to think of—just touching, as it were, with the tips of their fingers. And by the time that two or three more generations were dead and gone they would perhaps have found out the way to cope with these evils and to make their countrymen's lives a little more worth having. He could not help thinking they would make more progress in that good work if they had the classes who were the chief sufferers from the chronic maladies of our civilisation regu larly among them to stimulate their zeal as well as add to their knowledge. (Hear.) Of all the great questions whose solution would bo most accelerated by tho presence of re presentatives of the working classes in that House there was one with respect to which they perhaps flattered them selves that they had done the most—namely, proper edu cation. And let him there offer to his right hon. friend the member for Caine, who liked facts, a practical considera tion which ought to have some weight with him. If those whose children they voted money to educate had been suf ficiently represented in that House his right hon. friend would never have had to resign his office through the Re vised Code. ("Hear, hear," and a laugh.) They would have seen in him an administrator of a public fund who was honestly desirous that the work for which the public paid should be good and honest. (Hear.) They were not the people to have preferred a greater quantity of sham teach ing to a smaller quantity of real teaching. Real education was what they wanted. It was what his right hon. friend also wanted ; and they would have understood him. (Hear.) He had heard these things called to remembrance in his right hon. friend's honour—aje, even in the present mo ment of strong exasperation— by the leaders of the working classes. [Mr. Bright was here understood to say, "So have I."] Unless he was much mistaken, very few years of a real working-class representation would pass over their heads be fore they would have in every parish a school rate with the school doors freely open to all the world; and in a generation from that time England would be an educated country. (Hear, hear.) These considerations alone, if no others could be fairly urged, would justify them in passing the pre sent bill. These were some of the benefits which he ex pected to accrue from an enfranchisement of the working classes; and they told with great force in favour of that bill, without regard to any other measure by which it might or might not be accompanied. (Haar, hear.) The sufficient representation of the working classes in the house was, to-his thinking, by far the most important improve ment which it was at present in tho power of the house to make. (Hoar.) As ho would have been happy, and still would be happy, to receive this greatest improvement along with others, so he would bo very willing to accept it by itself. Whatever other improvements were needed, there was no doubt that they would be obtained in time ; and he would be a very simple person who should fancy that they would be obtained one day sooner if the Ministry were to encumber the question by binding any of them up with it. (Cheers.) Mr. LIDDELL characterised the bill not only as an in- complete but an insidious measure, so far as the counties were concerned. He bad no fear of the working classes themselves, but he believed the creation of those gigantic constituencies in boroughs would lead to an enormous use of hired canvassers at electiols, and tend to throw the representation into the hands of interested leaders and agitators. The only part of the bill which he approved of was the savings banks clause; but, curiously enough, that was a feature of the scheme which was not viewed with favour by the Liberal portion of the house. Mr. HANBURY regretted tho course which had been pursued by Lord Stanley,:after the manifesto he had issued to his constituents at the last election, when he expressed himself favourable to the lowering of the franchise, and said he thought the noble lord had better have contented him self with recording a silent vote with the noes. , Mr. SELWIN remarked upon the absence of agitation amongst the working classes as showing that they were not dissatisfied with the existing state of things. All recent efforts to carry reform bills had been of a spasmodic nature, and had failed entirely through their own inherent weak ness. He objected, moreover, in dealing with the question in such haste and in this fragmentary manner. The present scheme would inflict great injustice in many cases, and in the southern division of Essex would really transfer the . representation to the mass of town voters in the north eastern district of London. Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the bill, and justified the Government in dealing with the franchise in the first in stance and the question of the redistribution of seats in a subsequent measure. Lord B. MONTAGU had no faith in the sincerity of Ministers, and observed that those who had once broken faith would do it again, and that there was no confidence to be reposed in them. They had made reform the stalking horse t 9 power in 1859, yet they had never honestly .set themselves to work to • effect a settlement of the question, whilst they continued to advertise the reform burlesque , and their claqueurs at the Liverpool amphitheatre still applauded the immoral farce. He believed there was no real difference between the Government of 1859 and that of the present day. The truth was that the Ethiopian could not change his skin. Hence those who had once trusted them and been deceived, looked now with reserve and suspicion. Sir G. GREY contended that the amendment was not s fair or honest way of meeting the bill, and that if it were carried, the result would be to throw back the question for an indefinite period. He also taunted the Opposition with exhibiting a uniform and invariable distrust of the work ing classes, and an indisposition to giving them a proper share in the representation. It must not be forgotten, however, that the majority of the house had been returned to the present Parliament pledged to consider this impor" • tent subject with a view to its satisfactory settlement . Parliament was bound to treat the working classes with a generous confidence, and the Government had adopted the best course to effect that object. The right hon. baronet further ridiculed the idea of the slightest good arising from a reference of the subject for solution to any body of men , whether the Privy Council or a royal commission, how-. ever carefully selected, as had been suggested by Lord Grosvenor; condemned the amendment as an underhand proceeding; and urged that everything relating to this important matter should be aboveboard and in the light of day. Mr. LAING, as the meaning of the amendment ha d been disputed, explained that it meant not that there should be no Reform Bill, but that the subject should he dealt with in a complete and comprehensive manner. I t had been truly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Liverpool that the question constituted a turning; point in the history of the country, and the great problee l the house had to grapple with was that of extending the franchise among the working classes without establishing a preponderance of numbers over property and intelli gence. He readily admitted that the difficulty did ne t arise from any moral defect in the working classes, or a °l want of intelligence on their part; but the bill was 6 , democratic solution, which unsettled the settlement of 1832, without proposing anything that professed to be e ' complete and final settlement in its place. The first cow dition of any settlement of the question was to deal with it as not to swamp and overwhelm the constitution of Par" liament, as it had existed under the Reform Act, but t° perpetuate the spirit of that measure, and invigorate it 1)1 an infusion of the more skilful and intelligent of the er tie= class. Credit had been taken by the Government for having brought in an honest bill ; but when he ca m e to analyse that phrase, it was clear to him that it pae an ct honest" only in one direction, and that the democratic. The course which the Government ought to have taken, after they found that they could not introduce a compl ete and perfect measure this session, was to have postp oned it until next year, and pledged their existence as a 31inisti try to treat it as a whole in a satisfactory manner. they done that the house would have believed that they_ were not trifling with the measure. They woul d hate kept their party together, and saved many Liberal Yue n ': bers from the unpleasant alternative of choosing betwe en their party and their personal convictions. On the motion of Mr. MAGUIRE, the debate was at o'clock adjourned until Monday. The orders of the day and the other business on the paper were also gone through, and at half-past 12 o 'cloo' he house adjourned. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he would post pone the second reading of this bill, which was appointed for Tuesday next, for a week. THE OATHS BILL. The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a large number of petitions from different parts of the United Kingdom, and from Jersey, from different sects of dissenters, against the Abolition of Oaths Bill. The enumeration of the names of the places from which the petitions emanated occupied the noble marquis more than a quarter of an hour. He said that although some members of the Church esta blishment had shown a great indifference to the interests of Protestantism in this country, the Dissenters proved that they did not partake of that feeling. The noble mar quis then read extracts from one of the petitions from Hastings and Kent, signed by 2,000, strongly denouncing what they designated the tendency of Protestants in high places to promote Roman Catholic ascendancy. The noble marquis then moved for copies of the declara tion against transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass by certain Protestants holding office under the Crown, and of any oaths bearing on religion to be taken by per sons in any civil office. He then proceeded to comment on the Abolition of Oaths Bill. Earl GRANVILLE called the noble lord to order on the ground that it was not usual to deal with a bill not before their lordships' house. The Marquis of WESTMEATH, in continuation, said that the progress of Roman Catholic practices in the Church Establishment had filled Protestants generally with alarm, and there was a strong feeling amongst the people of England against that innovation. He would warn the Roman Catholics to restrain their clergy from the aggressions they were making on the Protestant Church, as was shown by the petitions for the disendow ment of the Church, which, he contended, was dictated by the Roman Catholic clergy. He called on her Ma jesty's Government in that house to declare the nature of the bill they proposed to introduce. Lord RUSSELL said he had no objection to the returns moved for by the noble marquis. The return was accordingly ordered. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : 7 Bromsgrove and Droitwich Water ; North-Eastern Rail way (Durham New Lines, &c.) ; North Eastern Railway (Yorkshire New Lines, &c.) ; Manchester Improvement; and Thames Tunnel Company. THE REFORM BILL. Several hon. members having postponed motions that stood before the order of the day for resuming the ad journed debate on the Reform Bill, the CHANCELLOR of the Excir ", R presented petitions in favour of the bill, one of which was from Calne—(hear, hear, and laughter)— signed by the chairman (Mr. Bishop)—(loud laughter)— o n behalf of the meeting. The order of the day having been read, Mr. BAXTER rose and said, in the observations he should make to the house he should abstain from person alities, with which he thought all wore tired, and that the debate would proceed without making further allusions to the hon. member for Caine, because such things were not worthy the dignity of Parliament. He did not stand there as the apologist of the hon. gentleman, as his observations would apply not to the merits of the actors, but to the bill itself. The speech delivered last night by the hon. mem bers for Huntingdon and North Lincoln were still ringing in his ears, but if any one present believed in the terrible dangers prophesied to the House of Lords and to the Throne of their beloved Queen itself, they would not have slept soundly in their beds. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion those observations were levelled at the Re form Bill of 1832, and how the hon. member for Hunting don could come to the conclusion that the addition of 400,000 persons of a vote would be fraught with con sequences so outrageous surpassed his comprehension. (Hear, hear.) Moderate measures never brought about revolution, but that which did so was a fixed determina tion to refuse the slightest boon that was calculated to bene fit the middle and working classes. (Hear, hear.) What he complained of was that the Opposition did not clearly define what they meant. He could only say that he be lieved the Opposition were in favour of a Reform Bill so large and so comprehensive that the house was not at all likely to agree to it. (Hear, hear.) If the course was taken that the Opposition seemed to recommend, the bill certainly could not have passed during the present session, and perhaps that was what was required. A great point had been made of the non-introduction of the bill for the redistribution of seats, but if such a measure had been laid before Parliament previous to the Reform Bill, he should have opposed it, because it would occasion a dissolution before the ques tion of the franchise was settled. (Hear, hear.) If the Government had adopted that course, he for one should have doubted the sincerity of her Majesty's Government altogether on the subject of reform. The present bill, he believed, was looked upon by the country as an evidence of the honesty of the Government, and their desire to suc ceed. (Hear, hear.) He must say, however, that the bill did not come up to his expectations. (Hear, hear.) He meant that it did not go far enough ; and in his opinion, if the scope of the measure had been largely extended, not the slightest danger was to be apprehended. The house had been told that the working class did not care about reform, that it was a much ado about nothing, but those who knew the best knew things were very different. They knew that the working classes had a dependence on the promises of Parliament, and they felt that they would receive their enfranchisement without violence and without agitation. (Hear, hear.) If they were of opinion that Parliament was not sincere in the desire to admit them to the exercise of the franchise they would hear a scund of a very dif ferent description. (Hear, hear.) He did, however, hope the Government would reconsider the savings bank clause, as it would enfranchise but an infinitesimal num ber of voters, while it was a temptation to fraud and other things much to be deplored. Why was a working man to be tempted to buy a vote by keeping his money in the savings bank in preference to investing it to better ad vantage ? He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, and that the bill would at no very distant day become the law of the land, because its rejection would be attended with danger and disappointment. Sir B. LYTTON on rising was received with loud cheers. He said—Sir, I approach this subject with deep and sincere anxiety. I cannot bring myself to regard it in party point of view. It is not to my mind a ques tiou.rwehether the Government of to-day is to be confirmed or displaced ;it is not to my min d only aquestion how many seats a party called Liberal , or a party called Con servative, gain r o i r ae l y e l ose. a T ul h e e consequences se e,od. of the mea sure before us or for evil ; they affect the permanents considerations for good character of this v house, whether it be regarded as the fair various classes and interests, or as a faithfuTliekseenessio°fnth°ef mind and state of the whole nation, or as a deliberative assembly requiring an amount of prudence and of culti vated intelligence beyond that of any other popular chamber in the world, because no other popular chamber, either in Europe or America, exerts the same control over the Exe cutive, arrogates the same authority in maintaining peace and provoking war, or, by the temper of its . debates and the grandeur of its renown , commands the samemfluence over the ideas and the destinies of mankind. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the E xche q uer has said elsewhere that the magnitude of the propose d chan g e is imperfectly understo o d in the country ; yet in h is s p eech last night it :dined to me rather his object to conc eal its magnitude Parade its insignifican ce. A reform is the co rrection of abuses, a revolu t tion is a transfer of power. A bill for the o redistribution eu seats is a correction of abuses, a bill for a large alterati less, a transfer of o f the franchise is, and must be more or the Exchequei g i v r e r• (Cheers.) The Chancellor of vernment scheme no glimpse of that part of the Go greoick rongs to Reform, and I think I can show that he belongs to :revolution. Aunderstates that part which Majesty's Government ors ') Sir,- the last time her tured to state that while thet:l Reform Bill I ven represmathee _ class iulinishion of a certain proportion of the working essential to a well-balanced represent at ion the franchisefii that that was class was not inconsiderably secondly, that a£6 franchise would rat ed at present ; and share of the representation. (Hear, hear.)glv to it the lion's' propositions were stronglycontested, but contested of these with more confident assurance than by my righ s t te b d by none the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In condescendingoen answer my remarks, he asserted that the working•atso were now, except in some intinite2imal degree, altogether excluded from the pale of the constitution, and that a £6 franchise, according (I quote his own words) "to the b es t , most comprehensive, and most accurate information that could be obtained, would admit them in numbers so mode rate that it would be idle to talk of the lion's share ; ii would admit them to less than one.:third of the borough constituency." Now it is clear from the statistics furnished by the Government that in both those propositions I was within the limits. (Hear.) Now, we know that by the exist ing suffrage the working class have already something more than a fourth of the whole borough representation, and that a £6 franchise would give to them that lion's share, that electoral preponderance over all other classes in this king dom, which the Chancellor of th e E xc hequer frankly says Parliament never contemplated, and is' not prepared to con ed. 3: The re f ore, on t h e l owest v erge to which the Govern ment can venture to flescend ) my right hon. friend contents COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVEIW 0 OL.—FUIDAY. ea There was a fair attendance at this day's market, A t 3 1, a better demand for wheat at an advance of 2d per con ,0 except American, which remains at previous rates. F lo • in more active request at previous full prices. Oa tt ly , genera lly hold for an improvement of id per load. 133 r is steady. Beans firm. Malt unchanged. Indian co il moderate request, at 3d per qr. advance. DERBY —FRIDAY. whe at The market to-day was s p ar i ng l y supp li e d with r 3 1,1 —New white wheat, 53s t o 56 8 ; o ld re d , 50 s t o 51s Pt°oo„,e, s t on e. Barley for malti ng, 38 s to 40s per qr. ; gr i1 , 1 ,8 6 to 30s to 32s per 30 stone. Oats, new, 21s to 265; old, 4SI 33s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 51s to 525; new, 44s to per 38 stone. LINCOLN.—FRIDAY. ~6 New white wheat, 50s to 55s • new red, 41s to 46s Pend, stone. Barley for malting, 36s to 44s per qr ; grin`” to , 4 ,0 33s to 35s per 30 stone. Oats, 27s to 325. Bean° , 46s per 38 stone. STAMFORD.—FIUDAY. W Ol9 Wheat was rather a limited supply, and sales u ito effected at advanced rates. A fair inquiry for oats, a'' , as much money as the previous week. N THE SUE, LONDO.N , SATURDAY Ev ENING, APRIL 14, 1866. 46$ P er, 16134 ,ew white wheat, 47s to 48s ; red do., 43s to -36 A stone. Barley, malting, 38s to 40s • grinding, 3°5 ° W e per qr. Oats, new, 23s to 28s; old, ' 2Bs to 308 per 21S Beans, 44s to 46s per 38 stone. Peas as of late. WAKEFIELD.—FRIDAY. l 0 13 Wheat generally is higher. New, deficient in co n is no higher, and still difficult to quit ; foreign dull. ~a ; Averages, April 13.—Wheat, 655 qrs, at 43s 14 barley, 485 at 85s Old ; oats, 70 at 27s 7i-d. BRISTOL SUGAR—FnmAY. '1 N ell The market has been quiet during the w eek, and few sales made. Prices are fully 6d per cwt. lower. COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. 9. el. s. d. 1 6 6 Buddle'sWestHartley 17 0 Hetton Lyons ••• 16 6 Lambert's W.Hartley 17 0 Pensher Primrose N.Staffordshire 17 0 South H e tton ......... ,g 6 Walls End Haswell... 19 0 Tunstall ............... 1 ,-" 8 6 Walls End Hetton ... 19 0 East Hartlepool ..... Ships at market, 27 ; sold, 26. A EADVERTISEMENT.I Holloway's Ointment an row- cane Few ailments are more disheartening, and Done Inliber nous, than ulcerations on the surface of the body. .40 ever they are situated it is difficult to cure there i orat treated judiciously with some cooling, healing , invft I'.! ing application like this never-failing ointment. eve' worked wonders in makingbadlegs sound and strengn de' when the power of the blood-vessels had nearly. be stroyed, and almost entire stagnation of the en''' l ,„ on had rendered every other curative means aborlotteo, sore, wound, or ulcer can withstand its healing '„ter which can bo most benefici a lly exer t e d when V; ianr y giving place to spring, and the circulation biSnin":fifyio active and more readily controllable by proper P ll ' soothing, and strengthening agents. .5' `rift of Births. IRBY—On the 11th inst., at Chelsea Hospital, Captain John Irby, of a son. o ,io, SCOTT—On the 9th inst., at Humble House, E ast Le'. the Lady Mary Scott, of a son. 0 0Y , SAVILL—On the 12th inst., at Valley Lodge, Snaresbr the wife of Martin Savill, Esq. , of a son. tii° SUTHERLAND—On tho Ith inst., at St a fford HouSet Duchess of Sutherland,3 of a daughter. Marriages. a mps LLOYD —HowAnD—On the 12th inst., at Tottenham, Svaool son Zachary, eld est eon of S. Llo y d, Es q ., of t o- of G r ove, near Stourb rid g e, to Elean or , fourth datig-P J. E. Howard, Esq., of Tottenham. me da l STEWAR T —BOWSELL--011 the 12th inst., at Haw - we' Church, Surrey, Lieut.-Colonel J. H. Stelva r Marine Light Infantry, to Flora Catherine, third da do . ter of the Rev. E. Rowsell, M.A., rector of llaya ble Deaths. ry BRODERIP—On the 10th inst., at Cossington nect° n - Rev. John S. Brode r ip, M.A., rector of Coss iugt°- CRAFT—On the 11th inst., John Craft, of L outh°. Brixton, and Knightsbridge, aged 66. sot° uopKnis—On the 11th inst., at 4, Clapham-.-s°/64. C. Hopkins, Esq., of the Stock Exchange, aged 94" HARRISON—On the 12th inst., George Harrison, F.R.C.S.E., of 65, Grosvenor-street, aged 69. • iirtlf Kinnv—On the 9th inst., at Inhurst, H ants, Tlicis„a 15. of Esq., Commander R.N., of Mayfield, Sussex, itgu„, NETTLEFOLD—On the 12th inst., J. S Nettlefokl, d e, The Grove, Highgate, aged 74. Robert S¢ SA DD —On the 11th inst., at Cambridge, Mr. formerly of King's-parade, aged 00. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM A— $O , 1- n f of No. 112, Strand, Philter, at Tim . SUN 0 10 ' 00 0V Strand, in the Precinct of the SsvoY t " Middlesex.—Saturday, April 11,1666. I