The Sun. — London, England, 1866-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONIIOA, TLTEm)AY EVENING, MARCH 18, 1866. - We now approach the question on which it is idle to dis guise from ourselves that so much indecision, jealousy, and apprehension has existed—the question of the town fran chise. We wish to remove that indecision, to allay that jealousy, to banish that apprehension, and we think this can best be done by a full exposure of the facts of the case. What is now, I may ask in the first place, the present state of the town constituency ? The town constituencies in the first year of the operation of the Reform Act of 1832 amounted to 282,000, of whom 63,000 were freemen, 44,000 old-right voters, and 174,000 were £lO householders. Since that period the freemen have fallen in numbers to 42,000; the old-right voters to 9,000, being, as I May say, on their way to extinction—(hear, hear)—while the £lO house holders have risen to 463,000. The gross total of the con stituencies, therefore, is 514,000. That shows an increase since 1832 of 82 per cent. In the same period the popula tion of the towns has increased as follows : In 1831 itVe f_ 9 t 5,250,000 ; in 1865 it was 9,330,000, being an increase of 7 s per cent. So that the growth of the constituencies in towns, notwithstanding the vast augmentation of the wea lth of the country, has punctually but just exceede d the bare growth a n important of the populati on . (H ear , h e ar.) Now, w fact for the h ouse t o b ear in mind. countiesoln,thatis the case was different. Th ere th e g rowth of the constituencies was h quite as great, but the growth of the population a n muc less . Well, now we come to a poin t of very great importance and I think the house • will be of opinion that the three or four months which have been spent upon those re turns would not have been ill spent if they had led to no other result than to the particulars contained in the blue book of Friday with respect to the representation of the 'working classes in the present constituencies. The figures -as they stand come out thus. I mentioned, I think, 512,000 as the town constituencies ; but great pains have been taken in the striking out of double entries, and I have no doubt that, upon the whole, they have been struck out with considerable precision. Then striking out the double en tries, it may be said that the net amount of the town con stituencies is now 489,000. The £lO voters of the working classes are returned as 108,000, and the freemen and old right voters of the working classes as 20,000 —making a total of 128,000, and showing an apparent percentage of 26 per cent. of the present constituencies as belonging to the working classes. There will be, no doubt, some dispute upon the soundness of our definition of the working man— (hear)—and I am bound to say that our definition is a large definition. I believe, however, it to be the best that can be found. I do not believe the term admits of an accurate de finition ; still, the only definition capable of being taken is undoubtedly a liberal one. Rut you may possibly say that 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the persons here included as of the working classes are so considerably interested in shop keeping through their wives and children, that they ought not really to stand as working men. No doubt there is a certain amount of debatable ground under that head ; but suppose we deduct 20 per cent. on that account, the result of these remarkable figures would be, that at least 21 per cent., or at most 26 per cent., of the present consti tuencies may be considered as belonging to the working classes. (Hear, hear.) So far, I freely own, that is a larger percentage than I had expected to find. (Opposition cheers.) Still I am exceedingly glad of it, and I only wish it had been larger still. (Hear, hear.) But I must observe upon this infusion of the working classes in the present consti tuencies that, in the first place, it is exceedingly unequal. (Hear, hear.) I have gone over roughly 200 boroughs, and I think I have gathered together about 60 in which the proportion of the working classes possessed of the franchise, taken upon the whole, was not less than one-third. I gathered thirty other boroughs, probably boroughs of greater importance, and in those thirty boroughs I found the proportion of the working-classes was not more than one-tenth. (Hear, hear.) And this distribution is not only unequal, but I must say myself, rather of a northerner, that it is also least where it ought to be largest—that is in the towns of the north. (Hear.) I will give you six towns by way of example. In Oldham, with a constituency of 2,665, the working-classes are 315, or 1 in 8. In Halifax, with a constituency of 1771, the working classes are 171 or 1 in 10. In Stockport, with a constituency of 1,348, the working classes are 124, or 1 in 11. In Bradford, with a constituency of 5,189, the working-classes are 438, or 1 iu 12. In Leeds,, with a constituency of 7,217, tho working classes are 523, or 1 in 14. And, last of all, there is a town which deserves special mention, not only on ac count of the distinguished man by whom it was but 12 months ago represented, but for other reasons—l mean the town of Rochdale, which probably has done more than any other town in making good to practical minds a Case for some enfranchisement of the working classes. For it is in Rochdale where that remarkable system, and at the first sight I do not hesitate to say that most criticaland perilous system obtained, of ousting the retail trader, and the work ing class taking into his own hands the business of its own supply ; and whore, through an extraordinary intelligence and self-acting power, that system has been successfully worked out, and made a source of the greatest comfort and profit to the working class. (Hear, hear.) Now, what is the case ? Rochdale, with a constituency of 1,358, shows an enfranchisement of tho working class of 68, or 1 in 20. (Hear, hear.):lf then the proportion of the working classes to the whole constituencies is more satisfactory than we might have supposed ; on the other hand, the distribution is not less unsatisfactory. (Hear.) The case of Rochdale is peculiar, for it so happens that a district which naturally ought to belong to it is not included in it ; and that illus trates the necessity of including some consideration of the present state of boundaries in any complete review of the representative system. Well, we are in very good humour with ourselves, because we find that 21 or 26 per cent. of the borough constituencies are of the working class. But how was it in '32 ? (Hear, hear.) I have endea voured to make the best estimate in my power, and I ap prehend there cannot be the smallestdoubt as to these pro positions. First of all, thatthe enfranchisement of thework ing classes, as it stood in '32, was not an excessive enfran chisement ; and, secondly, that the advance of the work ing classes since '32 in everything that can entitle men to same share in the government of their country has been a great and undeniable advance. (Cheers.) It is not de nied on any hand —whether we take the education in schools—whether we take conduct, obedience to the law —whether we take self-command and the power of endur ance shown under difficulty and privation—(hear)— whether we take avidity for knowledge and self-im provement—applying any one of these tests, there can be no doubt that if the working man was in some degree fit to share in political privileges in '32, he has at any rate attained some additional fitness for it now. (Hear, hear.) In 1832 there were 63,000 freemen, and of these 34,000 were of the working classes. Then there were the scot-and-lot and the potwalloping voters. I take only 6.0 per cont. of these as belonging to the working classes, and in my opinion that is a very moderate estimate. (Hear, hear.) That gives us 27,000 under this head. Next as to the £lO occupiers in 1832. Using the same figures and the same definition, I assume the proportion of the working classes to have been 15 per cent. of the whole, or 26,000. Adding these together, I come to this result—that the total constituen cies in 1832 were 282,000, and that of these 87,090 were of the working classes. That is to say, in 1832 they were 31 per cent. of the whole, and they are now but 26. (Cheers.) It is not satisfactory on all points to deal with this question as a matter of pure statistics ; still, if statistics prove any thing, I think the figures 1 have quoted prove that the pro portion of the working classes which ought to have been increasing and growing, has been, on the contrary, di minishing; and consequently that the time has arrived when it would be right to do something to increase the proportion. May I address one word to gentlemen oppo site ? There is no wile, there is no stratagem which can lay hidden under what I say. Let them take the distri bution of the working class voters in different parts of the constituencies, and they will derive immense consolation from it. Lot them observe the effect of this working class element upon the condition of political parties, be cause it is not denied that there is upon the benches oppo site a not unnatural, but still a very considerable, appre hension of the effect of a wide enfranchisement, or of any new enfranchisement of the working glasses in respect of a diminution of those parliamentary influences which, most legitimately, these gentlemen regard as essential for the well-being of the State. I will now mention a case, called celebrated on the one side and notorious on the other —I mean the metropolitan boroughs. How stands the pro l'ortion of the working classes in these as compared with the rest of the country ? England without the metropo litan has " boroughs in its town constituencies 27,000 per c at . - et the working classes ; England in the metropolitan ap l , g e h i s .te ta d s . only 23 per cent, of the working classes. Yet the mensb„ ,, it is undoubted that if there be one section of uniformly re of this house who steadily, constantly, and advanced Ll.l2E:re:list, not Liberalism alone, but a somewhat s ophic Liberalism 14(71 (hear, hear)—and sometimes a philo beenauglater)—it has been those who have sent up here by b o roughs which have the s m etropolitan boroughs. These lest proportion of the work ing classes in their constituency that ha t o at least b een Conser vative in the party sense e,rrmh.i is my sma ll con in the representa tives they have sent to Parli ament. 8 tribution of consolatio n to gentlemea OpPosite. (Hear heir. ) I have, Sir, stated that the Government, • the consideration of this question, nastiunripaliliye i t ter o o , l:f s r -- ° i a t e : yt i o n b : e ties the bill of 1860 as their starting point ; „ a I' may asked, do you adopt the bill of 1860, for towns? I will now call the attention of the house to the discussions which took place in 1860. Although I sa i d we then spent ten nights in doing nothing, and a go o d deal of irrelevant discussion took place in comparing our ow n institutions with those of other countries, yet some effec tive discussion occurred in the bill of that year. I do not think that if we had been permitted to have gone to com mittee with that bill of 1860 we should have held it exactly as it was, but not because in our view of the case it ad mitted too many persons to the franchise. For what was our view of the case? My noble friend now at the head of the Government, in introducing the bill on the Ist March, computed that the effect of it would be to enfranchise 194,000 in boroughs, but that was in our belief the outside estimate. And Sir G. Lewis, on the 23d April, stated the enfranchise ment of that bill at 160,000 in boroughs. My hon. friend the member for Birmingham had taken it at about the same amount, viz., from 160,000 to 170,000. I do not think any booY who considers our borough representation ought to b et r emodelled would say that was an unreasonable or Very largo enfranchisement, but it was an enfranchise ment which was badly cligtributed anti imperfectly Ad justed. (Hear, hear.) What appeared in the course of these discussions was this. First of all, bear in mind partof the whole h' d ir by population—that is, as measured by the number of human hearts and minds w ithin whole town population of the country ; and, untloubtedly, I think it was show n a g ainst us that the operation of that bill would have been hi g hl y unequal as between the me tropolis and the towns of the provinces. Very large num bers would have been enfranchised in many eonsicicraM3 towns, but at the same time what would have . been the result in the metropolis? It was shown to us that in 1 London, under the present law, there were numbers of 1 persons who are excluded from the franchise, though the i l a w entitles them to hold it—l mean particularly the class of compound householders, a body comprising in London alone nearly 40,000 persons. All these the bill of 1860 virtually passed by. The enfranchisement here was quite insignificant. The descent from £lO to £6 was a matter of comparative unimportance, such is the value of the ground and the scale of rents in London. For London, therefore, the bill of 1860 was almost no bill at all. And yet my noble friend had proposed his measure upon a double basis. It is quite true it was a bill for establishing a £6 rating franchise, and also a bill for enfranchising be tween 160,000 to 170,000 persons. Against that calcula tion of ours there were raised other estimates. The mem ber for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James), in exhibiting the real state of the London constituencies, estimated that the £6 rating franchise would enfranchise in the various London boroughs 400,000 ; but I think a committee of the House of Lords by a large majority adopted the state ment that the £6 franchise would have enfranchised 300,000. We, however, did not admit that. We held to our own estimate, and still placed the number. .of the working classes to be admitted to the franchise at from 160,000 to 170,000. If the bill had proceeded to com mittee it would have been shown that these two propo sitions could not have stood together. Either the one basis or the other would have been required to have been given up. It would have been impossible to enfranchise down to £6, and at the same time to leave the householders above £lO unenfranchised. It is plain we- must have admitted large numbers who were then, according to law, entitled to the franchise. Not wishir to change the relation of class to class, had we got into committee we should have had to make a change as regarded the £6 franchise. Indeed the best proof of that may be found in the statement of Lord Russell towards the close of the discussion on June 4, 1860. He said that if they would propose any measure for raising the franchise by making it a rating instead of a rental franchise, by in creasing the amount of the rental, or by admitting voters qualified to exercise the franchise by their knowledge or by their property, any such proposal should be fairly consi dered in committee. Government, he said, were not so com pletely wedded to the franchise they had brought forward that they would not treat on that subject, but if the house should prefer such a proposition, it would be for the Go vernment to consider whether a bill with such an altera tion would be rendered more valuable—whether it was a measure calculated to strengthen the institutions of the country, and if it were considered a change for the better whether they might not be justified in adopting it. It was in our viewessential, as was declared in a motion carried in this house in 1859, that any measure of enfranchisement in towns must be an enfranchisement downwards. But now facts are brought before us to prove that by some provi sions in the present law large numbers of persons—house hollers paying rent that has been declared by law to be a sufficient presumptive qualification—are not in possession of the franchise. We found it impossible to overlook their case. We found it to be our first duty to enfranchise those as being in the spirit of the law entitled to such, and then to consider what we could do towards enfranchising down wards. The first question, then, was to ask, What were the defects in the law? There are two. One of these I have already glanced at, and the other I will mention. By the present law a man fulfilling various other conditions with respect to time of occupation and residence, and being rated, cannot be brought upon the register unless he has paid the Queen's taxes and the local rates made since a certain date. The clause is commonly called the rating clause. They do not call it the tax-paying clause, and certainly, as far as the Queen's taxes aro concerned, I think the local authorities have been extremely considerate, and have not given any great annoyance to voters. But, so 1 far as the ratepaying clauses are concerned, there has been a very great obstacle, and great trouble has been occa sioned. In some cases it has been supposed that the local officers, under the influence of a particular bias, did not apply for the payment of the rate until the date passed when it was available with a view to the franchise. In other cases we need not conceal from ourselves the fact that the rates of certain parties were paid by the political agents in the interest of the respective candidates. Nay, one local gentleman who sent up this information from his own place, judiciously added, " I hope this communi cation will be considered confidential." (Laughter and cheers.) There are certain boroughs where the law is overlooked on both sides. The operation of the clause has been very unjust and unequal, and we propose to do away with it altogether. In Liverpool, I do not overstate the case when I say that there are not less than 6,000 or 7,000 persons, probably more, whose rates are regularly collected from the landlords by an arrangement with the parish officers, and who therefore are disfranchised. They are not compound householders, but rate-paying house holders. We propose to abolish these clauses, and we ex pect, as the victims of the clause almost all belong to the general designation of working men, to admit not less than 25,000 to the constituency of those I call above the line by the abolition of that clause. Then we come to the question of the compound householder. What we think just and right is that the compound householder should be treated exactly like the rate-paying householder. If the rent of their house is on such a scale that in the judgment of the Legislature they are suitable persons to be enfranchised, it is perfectly certain, as an economical truth, that the rates of that house, though paid 'in the first instance by the - landlord, are ultimately and truly paid by them; and it cannot make any difference to us, and does not justify drawing any line of distinction, that instead of being paid directly by the householder they are paid by the landlord, \ and charged by him in the rental. At present the law is defective in this respect that the name of the compound householder does not commonly appear on the rate-book, though for the purpose of rating it ought so to appear ; and in the amendment which we shall have to propose in the ilaw of rating, we shall provide that the name of the holder of the house, as well as of any rate-paying tenant who is not the landlord, shall appear on the rate-book, from whence, just like the:name of any rate-paying householder, it will be placed on the list of voters, without imposing trouble of any kind on the householder himself. Being on the list of voters it will be subject to the scrutiny of the revising barrister, just as it would if it were the name of a rate paying householder, and unless objected to it will remain on the rate-book. Therefore, an effective enfranchisement will be given to the compound householder, whereas up to the present time their enfranchisement has been almost purely speculative. • Take the metropolis, for instance, you may say without fear of contradiction that it is not in one case in fifty that the compound householder is enfranchised, and when it is done, it is done for some particular purpose —that an election agent thinks it worth his while to find out the name of the compound householders, and prefer a claim for their names on the list. This is not the way in which we wish to have the franchise extended, and there fore let it be understood that if our proposal be adopted, the holder of a compound house will be put upon the list without clhim, and come upon it by the same spontaneous process by which the man who pays rates now finds a place there. Then comes the third of the classes to which I formerly alluded—also a very numerous class in the me tropolis—who inhabit flats or portions of houses, which, though they have separate access, are not made subject to a separate rating. With regard to them we can do nothing but leave them as they are. At present, if they can show that the value of the rooms which they hold is of the clear annual value of £lO, and they can got them rated, which I believe they are entitled to ask— but legal diffi culties of that kind form insuperable obstacles to rating —they might by a circuitous process get themselves on the list of voters. Of course, under our bill it is obvious there will be no necessity that they should be rated, and conse quently they will get rid of that difficulty. But a public officer does not and cannot know who these people are. He knows the value of the holding of the compound house holder, because for rating purposes it is necessary for public authorities to know the value of the house ; but they do not and cannot know the rent which is paid, including rates paid in the rent, by men occupying parts of houses. Consequently, on him we must leave—as he has now—the full burden of claiming. If he can show that his rooms are of the clear annual value of £lo,lthe only benefit he will will get will be, that he will be relieved from all necessity of being rated, and will then come upon the register with out the necessity of renewing a claim from year to year. The compound householders will be in addition, as near as we can estimate it, of 35,000 persons, nearly the whole of that number being in the metropolis, because we have ascertained the number of compound houses where rates are paid by the landlord. I have given the house a computation of what I call the above-line addition, amount ing to 60,000 persons-25,000 by the abolition of the rate- Payingr clause, 35,000 by a new provision of the law with in teresting to compound householders. I now come to the in we pirnogporeethstaitonioedogmermsinplyropeaelrlieydsothceallleocdi7gperersfroannschwisheo. hold rooms as inmates on of anoth er man ' s h ouse — we propose to place Ulcer,. n exactly the s ame f oo ti ng as th ose w h o hold tenements or apartments having no separate rating, although with sepaa n :at eeess.These classes we shall gethe c r o , npod householders, tr ho togetherl rate - paying house ht roeladt o and e rts the list of vote rs a t once by the agen c y del's ' bringing them u p on So we take men wh o li ve in tenement s and public authority. and in lodgings pr o p er l y so - called, and if they prove that the rooms they inh a bit are o f the clear annual can value Of .£lO --of course without taki ng i n t o v i ew their rates,‘ or taxes, or furniture—then they sh a ll b e entitled, upon r claiming from year to year, tc be placed upon the register. I shall now refer to the proposal of what was called the lodger franchise in 1859. It was then proposed by the last Government that any person. paying £2O a year or Bs. a week for any rooms, whether furnished or unfurnished, should be entitled upon claiming, and subject to certain formalities, to be placed upon the register of the list of , I voters. We think there are insuperable difficulties in at tempting to create any franchise based on the rent paid for furnished apartments. In the first place, the clear annual value of apartments is a thing which is continually esti mated from day to day in every town in the country. It is capable of being brought to some definite standard of value ; but the value for furniture, even if that were all the rent to be paid, that is to say, of movable commoditics— would be a novel and, I must say, inconvenient basis for the franchise. But much more is it defective when we come to consider what is the meaning of £2O or what any other sum paid for furnished lodgings really is ; for not only with the rooms does it include the use of furniture, but various other things, and almost always more or less of personal service. It sometimes includes fire, sometimes cooking, very commonly the use of the kitchen fire. In point of fact, it gives a basis so slippery that it would be quite impossible to use it for the franchise. I hope the right hon. gentleman will not think that I have criticised his bill in a censorious spirit, because I have not criticised it more severely than our own bill. 1 wish the house, therefore, to understand, because I know well the interest which has been excited on the subject of the lodger fran chise, that we propose to deal with it in a manner which we think will include every case, and more than every bona fide case, that could have been included by the provisions of the bill of 1859 ; for if a man pay £2O a year for his furnished lodgings, then they ought, and really would be—unless many other things besides the furniture were included — worth more £lO of clear annual value. We propose, then, th a t £lO of clear annual value, subject to the usual condi tions as to time of occupation and residence, will be en titled to claim to be put upon the list of voters. Perhaps you wish to know, but I can give no information—and I believe the right hon. gentleman gave no information in 1859 —as to the number of persons who will be enfranchised under the title of lodgers ; but I may say that my firm belief is that it will be a small number ; secondly, my firm belief is that it will be a middle rather than a lower class en franchisement. The operation of lodgers claiming from year to year is one which must be very burdensome to the working man. But to educated men, like clerks and men of business, versed in and familiar with the use of pen and ink, they, if desirous of obtaining the franchise, will take the trouble to do so, and I am in hopes that there will be a certain amount of middle-class enfranchisements of that kind ; but it would be misleading the house if I said that any large number of the working classes would be put upon the register by virtue of the lodger franchise. The great number of persons now inhabiting what are called tene ments, the bulk of whom are working men, out of whom scarcely any find their way on to the register, is a proof that no great number might be expected from this source, and consequently I do not venture to quote any figures for that purpose, but I tako 60,000 as the additional enfran chisement which will be granted by the provisions of the bill which I have the honour to ask leave to introduce. Then I come to the last and important question, which I venture to call the below-line enfranchisement—that is, the enfranchisement downwards—which is the most im portant part of my measure relating to the franchise. Now in the passage which I read to the house from the speech of my noble friend Lord Russell in 1860, the noble lord adverted to the possibility of changing the £6 rental fran chise for a rated franchise of the same kind. Well, that question of a rated franchise has always been one of the greatest interest to those engaged in the preparation of our too numerous reform bills. The advantage of having an external standard, and one net dependent simply upon a process which each man must renew for himself, but dependent upon the fiat of a public authority, and guarded, of course, by an appeal, it being the business of that public authority to fix the value of the holding for certain parochial purposes, not political—l say the value of the franchise, considered closely in that point of view, is obvious. There was another reason, which I will presently mention, which would lead us not only to the adoption of a rating franchise, but which would almost precisely lead us to that point indicated in the passage of the speech of my noble friend. It is this—ln the Small Tenements Act it is provided that in all boroughs where it is adopted—and you will see that it is adopted in a large majority of boroughs—that in all of them where it is adopted every tenement, up to that including a rate of £6, the rates are paid by the landlord. There would no doubt be a great advantage in saying that we will adopt the pre cise limit which Parliament has indicated in showing, the capacity for direct local taxation, and of declaring where that capacity begins the franchise shall begin, and where the capacity does not exist the franchise shall not exist. But when we come to look at that portion of the Small Tenements Act, we find that the franchise under it would not exceed more than 80,000 persons. And we did not think that that was such a number which, as on an occa sion for the readjustment of the franchise, we ought, in the face of Parliament or the country, to hold up anything like a settlement of the question. (Hear, hear.) But then we were met by another question, and this is the last of the drier subjects I will have to submit to your attention. It is, nevertheless, I think, of some importance, and one to which I beg to invite your attention for a few minutes. We were called upon to consider the great change, and I will go a step further, and say, the great reform, which has been effected by my right hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Villiers), through the medium of the Union Assessment Act. In former times it was asked, " Why don't we have a rated franchise— a franchise taken from the rate-book ?" But the inequality of that rating is so gross, and so anomalous in various parts, that, though we did admit it into the bill of 1851, wo yet felt that it would not prove a satisfactory basis for the franchise. The rating is now, however, immensely improved. It is our duty to take the best and simplest basis for the franchise that we con find, and the simple question is, whether there is not another basis more nearly coinciding with the pre sent basis, although differing in legal expression, which is better than the basis of rating—that basis, I mean is the clear annual value as determined by the co-. lumn in the rate-book called the gross estimated rental. Now the rating is good if we consider it as the' adoption of a public standard—a standard supposed to be impartially chosen for local taxation. But in everything that the rating is good the gross estimated rental is good also ; and it also avoids the fallacies and errors in point of inequality which are inherent in rating, for the rateable value after all is estimated by certain deductions from the gross estimated value. The rateable value contains no new and independent element of estimation which we don't get from the gross estimated value. The rateable value is not, per se, the proper test for us to adopt as the basis of the franchise. It is not the test of what a man pays for a tenement, but it is only the test of the net value of the tenement, which no doubt is important to parish officers, but with which we have nothing to do. You may have two houses paying £lO each. One of those two houses may be a solid class of house, and may only require a deduction of £6 or £8 per cent. for repairs, but the other may be built of slight materials, and therefore requiring more money every year to keep it in repair. The same rent was paid for them both, and the same franchise, according to the view of Parliament, under the circumstances I have re- I ferred to, might be demanded ; yet if you adopt the stan dard of rating as the basis of the franchise, the one would be enfranchised while the other would be excluded. (Hear, hear.) There will also remain an element of inequality as to insurance as well as repairs, the duty of insurance hav ing of itself undergone a material change during the last few years, so that whereas it was formerly 4 per cent., it was now reduced to less than half that amount. We pro pose, therefore, that the gross estimated rental shall become the basis of the franchise. We will distinguish it by a legal definition in the rate-book by saying that the column of gross estimated rental shall be prima facie evidence, until it is contested, of the clear annual value. I think, if I have made myself intelligible, we shall by such a measure secure a double advantage of avoiding all inequality common to rating, and at the same time adopting a standard of great simplicity, certainty, and facility, such as can be obtained by the use of apublic standard like the rate- , book. The gross estimated rental is, as we find it, in what may be fairly called exact correspondence with the rack rent. There will of course be an appeal to the revising barrister; but in all the boroughs except 30 the gross estimated rental ap pears to be as nearly as possible equal to the rack rent. In these 30 boroughs, one-half exhibit a considerable inequa lity, but only because the operations under the act of my right hon. friend are not quite complete. But certainly, be fore any practical steps can be taken under this bill, those operations will be completed. There aro other local acts and certain cases in the metropolis where, in point of fact, the column of gross estimated rental is not in accordance with the union assessment. There are many inequalities in it, but even with these inequalities we have the means of testing its accuracy sufficiently. We propose to provide by enactment en the subject, not for the purposes of this bill, but for the perfection of our system of rating, so that we shall be able to recommend the gross estimated rental as the general basis of the franchise. We called for the income tax returns, and these represent a sum considerably above the rack rent, because in all cases of cempound house holders, and where the landlord pays the rates, he inva riably pays income tax upon the rates as well as the rent. The income tax returns, allowing for all excesses, give a total value of £39,218,000, and the gross estimated rental, though still defective in some places, gives a total of £37,375, the difference being at this moment only £1,863,000, or 5 per cent. Consequently, we have no hesi tation in saying that we offer a secure basis for the fran chise, which will be the means of introducing a great prac tical improvement in the administration of the law. The present town constituency consists of 488,000 persons ; dividing these above the line of the working classes, and be.ow that line, and in the category of the working classes, there are 126,000 persons belonging to the working classes; go that 362,000 persons constitute the number of the voters in the towns belonging to those classes. We propose to add 60,000 to the present number of the £lO voters, and all those I think belong to the working classes except the lodger and savings bank classes, which are insigni cant in number. That will make -186,1*0 altogether. If a £6 rental franchise wore added to them, I find this will be the result : The £6 rental franchise would give, according to the most careful calculations, and subject to allowances and additions, 240,000 persons, mak ing a total of 428,000 persons, and thus placing the work ing classes in a clear majority of the town constituencies. Now, I venture to say that that has never been the Wen tion of any bill proposed in this house. I cannot say that it Will be attended with any great danger, and although for my own part I do not think much apprehension need bo entertained, yet I fully admit that upon general grounds of political prudence it is not well to make too sudden and extensive changes in the depositories of power. Ido not think we are called upon, under the circumstances in which we stand, to give over the majority of town constituencies into the hands of the working class. We propose, therefore, to take the figure above that, viz., £7 clear annual value. (Laughter, followed by the buzz of conversation, during which the hon. gentleman paused for several moments.) I will give the house the exact numerical result, so far we can find it out distinctly, of the admission of the £7 clear annual value. The figure of 7is not very far from that apparently fixed by the small Tenements Rating Act, but the result as to admission will be considerably larger. If gentlemen will take the pains to add together the gross total of the male occupiers at £7 and under £lO, and if then they will make a rule-of-three sum, having for the first two terms the gross number of occupiers above £lO and the present number of the £lO constituency, and for its third term the gross number of occupiers between £7 and £lO, the fourth term will give them the probable constitu ency upon reducing the franchise to £7. (Laughter.) lam very glad, sir, that studies in arithmetic prove so amusing, as they are generally thought to be most dry subjects. Tho result is 156,000 persons net. The gross would be between 207,000 and 208,000. From that a deduction must be made fora certain proportion of freemen having houses of the value of bet Ween £7 and £lO, and who have already the franchise. I take off one-third of the total freemen now enjoying the franchise. That leaves 144,000 who would be enfranchised by the reduction to £7. It is right 1 should point out the causes by which, in the view of some persons, this calculation would be in some degree modified. There are some per sons living in houses between £7 and £lO who do not belong to the working classes, but the number of these, so far as our inquiries have gone, are very small-3 per cent. would be an over-statement. Taking into view the reduc tion on this account, there must be some reduction made on account of the more frequent removals which take place among the owners of small houses ; but on the other hand, an increase ought to be made for the effect of the abolition of the ratepaying clauses on that class of persons. Our rule-of-thiee sum is based on the operation of the ratepay ing clauses. An addition would have to be made for the savings-bank franchise. Ido not myself attach very great consequence to any of these various modifying circum stances. I think they may be taken on the whole as balancing one another, and should think the addition to the working class voters by the reduction to £7 would be about 144,000 persons. I wish to point out to those who think that this addition to the constituency ought not to take place that I think all are disposed to admit that the franchise ought to be attainable by the working man. All the speeches we have heard in this house in opposition have agreed it is desirable that the working man shouldbe able to reach the franchise. What is his position with re gard to the £lO franchise ? A £lO clear annual value, when you make the proper addition for rates:and furniture, must mean the-house costs the man not less than £l6. Well, then, I think that I am safe, and I speak with mode ration, when I say that the working man does not spend more than one-sixth of his income on his house. There fore, his income must be £96, or, in other words, without making any allowances whatever for sickness or interrup tion of work, he must receive £1 17s. a week. Now, it is only a small portion of the working classes could hope to receive £2 wages, and I do not think therefore a £lO franchise can be said to be liberally or largely within the reach of the working man. The £7 franchise would work in a different manner. Adding 60 per cent. for rates and furniture, it would come in the gross to the sum of £ll 4s. That would' represent an income of £67 45., or instead of 37s a week, a little under 265. a week'. Now 2Gs. a week is an income which is undoubtedly unattainable by the peasantry or mere hand labourers, except under very favourable circumstances ; but it is generally attain able by the artisans and skillet' labourers of our towns. I will now endeavour to give a general view of the figures in order that they may be placed clearly before the house. In counties, as I have said, if our bill becomes law, the working classes will be a smaller 'proportion of the whole constttuency than they aro now. In the towns the voters of the classes, apart from the working, amount to 362,000 persons. The working class has now 126,000. There will be new electors of the working class having houses above the lino of £lO amounting to 60,000, and below the line of £lO, as far as we can reckon, 144,000 ; making the number of the working classes in the constituency 330,000, or a total addition of 204,000 to the 126,000 who are now in cluded in the constituency. The total enfranchisement contemplated both in towns and counties is—in counties, by the £l4 occupation, 172,000, to which is to be added whatever may be thought fit on account of copyholders, leaseholders, and savings bank franchise ; in towns there would be 204,000, making a total of 376,000, so far as we venture to offer definite figures on this subject. I think with respect to the ledger franchise, to the county, copy hold, and leashold franchises, and the savings banks, we must be pretty safe in throwing in the 24,000 necessary to make the round number, and to state that the enfranchise ment by this bill would be an enfranchisement of 400,000 persons, of whom one-half would belong to the middle classes and one-half to the working classes—persons of some education, though not of large fortune. Now, sir, as to the proportion which the new constituency will bear to the householders. There is in our towns a population of 9,326,000 ; of those the adult males are 2,331,000, the adult male occupiers 1,347,000, and of those at over £7 there are 847,000. The actual constituency of 488,000 represents 36 per cent. of the male occupiers; but the proposed con stituency of 692,000 would represent 51 per cent. of the male occupiers ; and of the working classes in towns there would be 330,000 enfranchised against 588,000 unen franchised, being less than two in five, and more than ono in three. The gross constituency of the whole country would stand thus :-550,000 for the counties in England and Wales, 514,000 for the towns—making a total of 1,40,0 persons 00 whoa very p g deduction must be made for h plurality of votes. I cannot those possess think that even upon the most liberal estimate the present i nproposed England a brin g n constituency consists of mo re than 900,000 persons. Iu `gales a 4 l e o s o, o o f oo l , , r 3 n 0 a o k , o i n o g o a total T h The addition constituency its total number of adult males is 5,300,000, so that the number enfranchised in town and country would be, as nearly as possible, 1 in 4. I do not know whether the house would like me to recapitulate the proposition shartly. (Hear, hear.) First, as to creating an occupation franchise, including houses beginning at £l4 rental and reaching up to £5O, the present occupation franchise. The second is to introduce into counties this provision, that copyholders and leaseholders within Parliamentary boroughs shall be put upon the same footing as that on which the freehold Parliamentary boroughs now stand for the purpose of county voting; and the third is the savings bank franchise, which would operate in both counties and town, but would have a more important operation in counties. In towns we propose to place compound householders on the same foot ing as rate-paying householders ; to abolish tax and rate paying clauses ; to reduce £lO to £7 clear annual value ; to bring in the gross estimated rental from the rate-book as the measure of the value, and thus make the rate-book the register; and to make the lodger franchise both for those persons who hold part of ;thous° with separate access, and those persons who hold partof a house as inmates with the family of another man. We propose to follow the ex ample set us by the right hon. gentlemen of the Go vernment of Lord Derby in 1859, and which has receiued the support of many great authorities, and introduce a clause disabling from voting persons employed in Govern ment dockyards. (Cheers.) I have detained the houso very long with these explanations respecting the plan which we submit. It certainly makes a large addition to the consti tueßcy. The number of persons who would be enfran chised in this bill is not vaguely estimated, but taken from positive and absolute figures which we have been enabled to lay before you. It would certainly be a larger number than was enfranchised by the Reform Bill, for no estimate of the enfranchisement effected under the Reform Act would carry it very greatly beyond the number of 300,000 persons. As respects the county voting we do not appre hend that it would raise any' question of principle. As regards the borough voting we hope it is a liberal, and we aro sure that is a moderate and safe measure. It does not give an absolute majority in town constituencies to work ing mcn. It is probable that according to tho various tempers of men's minds we shall bo told that we have done too little or that we have done too much. Our answer is, that we have done our best. (Cheers.) We have en deavoured to take into account the state and condition of the people, as well as the qualification which the people possess for the exercise of political rights. We are mindful that the limbo of abortive creations is peopled with the unfortunate skeletons of Reform Bills—(a laugh) - and we do not wish to add to the number of those unfortunate measures. We may have erred, but we have endeavoured to see how much good we could effect. As to the com pleteness of the measure, I have given to the house what I think a clear and distinct statement of our honesty of purpose for completion upon a careful examination of facts ; not to attempt by any measure that we could lay upon the table of the house at a given moment what we know to be impracticable, and in which, therefore, we must fail. If we are told that wo ought to have done more, our answer is, that it was our duty to take into view the sentiments of the country—disposed to moderate change, sensible of the value of that which it possesses, and sensitive with regard to bringing what it possesses into hazard. Nor can I deny the opinions expressed of the intelligence of the working classes, and of their admirable performance of duties, at least of their duties towards their superiors, for it seems to me that if they sin their sins are against themselves. (Hear, hear.) Yet it is true of the working classes—as it is of any other class—that it is a dangerous temptation to human nature to be sud denly invested with preponderating power—(hear, hear) — and that, I think, is the reason why we have not done too little, and, notwithstanding that we may bo told that we have done too much, Ihope that will not be said. I do not entirely abandon the expectation that oven from those who have almost protested on principle against any extension of the franchise, that they may be disposed to accept the measure, and if they do not wholly approve they will not be averse to settle this great, important, complex, and dif ficult question. (Hear, hear.) But if there are, I would beg them to consider what immense value there is in an extension of the franchise for its own sake. (Hear, hear.) Liberty is a thing which is good, not merely its fruits, but is good in itself. With regard to English legislation, when we are told that things are clone more economically, more cleverly, and effectively in foreign countries, we answer yes, but they are managed freely. And in freedom, in the free discharge of political duties, there is an immense power for the people both for discipline and for education. (Cheers.) If the issue is to bo adverse to the bill, 1 hope it will be taken direct. I trust it will be taken on the ques-- tion whether there is or is not to be an enfranchisement made. If it is taken at all, we have felt it to be essential to character, essential to credit, and essential to usefulness —by character and credit not merely of the Government, not merely of party, but of this house, committee as Par liament has been with respect to the question of the repre sentation of the people. We cannot consent to look on this addition, considered though it be of the "working classes, as if it were an addition fraught with nothing but danger; we cannot look upon it as a Trojan horse ap proaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled with armed men bent on ruin, plunder, and conflagration. (Loud cheers.) Wo cannot compare it, Monstrum in felix," or say " Seandit fatalis =china muros Fwta armis, media3que minans illabitur urbi." We believe that these persons whom we ask to enfranchise ought rather to be welcomed as if they were recruits to your army. (Hear, hear.) We ask you to give within what we consider a just limit of prudence and circum spection. Consider what you can safely and justly offer to do in admitting new subjects and citizyns within the • pale of the Parliamentary constitution, and having so con sidered it, do not do it as if you were compoundidg with dangerous persons, as if you were conferring a boon, but which will be felt and reciprocated by a feeling of grateful attachment, by a new interest in our constitution, by a beneficent working of the law of nature and Providence, begetting new attachment to the constitution—attachment of the people to the throne and laws under which we live, which is, after all, more than gold and silver, and more than your fleets and armies, at once the strength, the glory, and the safety of the land. The right hon. gentleman then resumed his seat at ten minutes past seven o'clock, amidst the cheers of the house. Mr. MARSH, who rose amid a rush of members leaving, the house, and was rather indistinctly heard, was under stood to say that he looked upon the measure which had just been so eloquently described t 3 them as the beginning of the end. There had been no petitions presented in favour of a £7 franchise, and very few in favour of a£6 franchise. The tendency of the proposed bill was towards universal suffrage ; and he appealed to the right hon. gentleman himself whether it did not lead to that result. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the measure would settle this question ; but he maintained that, on the contrary, it was just such a measure as would keep it unsettled. Mr. P. W. MARTIN expressel his hope that the Go vernment would not mar the simplicity of the measure by disfranchising the dockyard labourers. Sir F. CROSSLEY regretted that the Government had not gone further in reducing the franchise, but believed that the measure would give satisfaction to the great ma jority of reformers. He presumed there would be a measure for the redistribution of seats next year. Mr. R. W. CRAWFORD advocated the claims of City merchants and traders who had their places of business within the municipality, but who, living in the country, were now disfranchised. Mr. Sergeant GASELEE protested against the proposed disfranchisement of the dockyard boroughs. Mr. DUTTON, though not representing a dockyard borough, like Mr. Martin or Sergeant Gaselee, was not disposed to disfranchise a large class of intelligent work ing men. Sir H. HOARE felt disappointed that the measure did not contain any provision for the redistribution of seats, and intimated that, unless the Government gave a pledge to bring in a bill directed to that object next session, he would vote against the second reading. Lord R. MONTAGU demurred to the paulo post future legislation shadowed, out by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, which, ho said, would keep the country in a state of agitation for years to come, and the effect of which would be to swamp the agricultural classes. Mr. lIANBURY approved of the bill, and born testimony to the good conduct and intelligence of the working classes, as entitling them to the share in the representation which it was now proposed to give them. Mr. LAING spoke from the old Tory point of view, contending that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had him self shown the impolicy of dealing in a hurried and preci pitate manner with a measure which required the most grave and cautious consideration. Ho was indisposed to reopen a question which he thought had been satisfactorily settled many years since, and he objected to a bill which, while professing to amend the representation of tho people, gave as many members to lloniton as to Liverpool, Man chester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Dublin. He admitted that he was elected to support Lord Palmerston's policy, but ho contended that the present was a measure which that statesman would not have sanctioned. Mr. BAINES replied to Mr. Laing, and while expressing himself in favour of a £6 franchise gave a general approval to the measure of the Government. Captain GROSVENOR denied that there was no feeling out of doors in favour of reform, and asserted that the Unbounded confidence which all classes of tho public re posed in the late Lord Palmerston led to a general under standing that the question should not be raised until that distinguished statesman thought fit to bring it for ward. For his own part he could not condemn the working man to continual exclusion, and therefore ho would give his cordial support to the bill. Mr. HORSMAN complimented Mr. Laing on his speech, which he regarded as sound and constitutional. The address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the con trary, when divested of its incongruous proportions, was nothing more nor less than another bid for power, another promise made to be broken, another political fraud and Parliamentary juggle; and, as a whole, a combination of weakness, incapacity, and failure. The bill was brought forward to meet the exigencies of a single statesman. It contained no great principle, it would settle nothing, but unsettle much, for it was based upon the old State device of government by numbers. When his right hon. friend explained that five Cabinets had been committed to Re form he forgot to explain that four of the five were identi fied with the same Ministers. They were introduced no toriously loss to meet the. exigencies of the nation thanthe exigencies of the particular Ministry. (Opposition cheers.) Every one of those bills was opposed to the opinion of Parliament and the sense of the country. That made a very great difference. There was a great difference be tween one individual (Lord Russell) four times insisting for a particular change, and four distinct and separate Mi nisters approaching the question from opposite points of view, and concurring in the same necessity. His right hon. friend had said it was riot the Ministry but Parliament which precipitated the action of the Government, and now he proved it. He said that in 1851 there was a discussion and a division on the bill of his hon. friend the memborfor s urre y. In that Lord Russell was defeated, and it was in consequence of that the House of Commons forced on the Government legislation on the measure ; therefore the House of Commons, and not the Government were respon sible for all that had occurred since. He said that all this legislation originated on the vote on the motion of the member for Surrey, and in which the Government wore defeated, Lord Russell being the only member of the Government who opposed it. If he (the hon. member) cculd show that the foundation of his right hon. friend was rotten, then all the superstructure came tum bling to the ground. In that debate on the motion by the member for Surrey, Lord Russell spoke and pledged him self voluntarily that if the member for East Surrey would withdraw his bill the Government would introduce a Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) There was a thin house, and the division was against the Government—the ayes being 100, and the noes 52 ; there being 156 present altogether. Tho member for East Surrey thus carried the motion against the Government, but upon the second reading the numbers in favour of it were only 83, while the noes were 299. (Hear, heal.) Mr. LOCKE KING rose, but was met with cries of " Order," and sat down. Mr. HORSMAN continued to say that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the House of Commons showed then that they would have a Reform Bill, but it was not so. The house would recol lect that Lord Grey told them with respect to the Reform Bill of 1852, that there was only ono Reformer in the Cabinet ; and he went on to say that Lord Russell in debate had pledged himself to Reform without the smallest consideration for his colleagues, and without their knowledge and assent. They were very angry ; but although they disapproved of it they showed a con sideration for him which he had not shown for them. Consequently the Reform Bill was introduced to the house with a great flourish of Reform truumpets as a fresh proof of the conscientious liberalism of a united Reform Cabinet. (Laughter.) But Lord Grey led them to believe that the bill was introduced when they were in extremis, and there could be no harm as it could not pass. Then they had the subsequent bills, and amongst them that of Lord Derby's Government f 1859, which rather took the Liberal party by surprise, and which bill was nearer to legislation than they had been since. It was only fair to say with re gard to it that it was universally admitted to bo better than any Lord John Russell had brought in. (Cries of " Oh !" and laughter.) Then] there was the bill of 1860. Well, upon this question Lord Palmerston, Lord Derby, Lord John Russell, and the hon. member for Birmingham, were deeply committed. Tho bill passed the second read ing almost without a debate, and the nation was in despair (A laugh.) But that bill was fairly laughed out of the house This history would bo incomplete if he did not refer to what the hon. member for Birmingham had said in a let ter in September, in which he declined au invitation to a Reform banquet at Glasgow. He gave this opinion of Lord Palmerston's colleagues. lie said that "they preferred their places to their honour as public men— (ironical cheers from the Opposition)—and they consented to a great politi cal fraud rather than leave the Treasury benches even for a season." (Cheers.) That was rather strong language. (Laughter.) It was a specimen of what was termed the hou. member for Dirmiugbam'o pure Saxon. (Loud laughter.) On the day when Lord John Russell withdrew his bill, it was understood that the member fur I;irming ham concurred ; and for five years afterwards he gave the Government his undiminished support, and even honoured them with his vote of confidence. Mr. BRIGHT made an observation which was not heard in the gallery. Mr. HORSMAN know that on the question of the vote of confidence the hon. member for Birmingham voted in the majority. Now if the Ministry had committed a great political fraud, was not the hon. member for Birmingham an accomplice to it ? (Opposition cheers.) If they sacri ficed their honour to keep their places, did he not sacrifice his honour in helping to keep them in their places ? (Laughter.) He (the hon. member) asked whether it was seemly to brand in such terms Ministers for whose acts he had made himself responsible. But there was comfort for the members in store. The hon. member for Birmingham could not inflict a wound, but he know how to give a soothing remedy. In November, speaking of the Admi nistration, of which he knew almost every member, he said these dishonourable mon who sacrificed their honour for their places—" it is composed of men most entitled to public confidence"—(Opposition cheers) --and " than any other Administration of their time." (Cheers, and counter-cheers.) But. the wind changed again, and showed how his hon. friend was in the secrets of the Cabinet, because in ono short month he again changed, and he actually proposed to inter them with all symbols of national respect in Westminster Abbey. (Laugh ter and cheers.) There was no other instance in which a question which had been five times so recommended had not passed into an enactment. But the reason was obvious There was no instance of a Minister persisting in pressing five times upon the Sovereign and Parliament an impor tant change that was opposed to the well-entertained feel ings and interests of the nation. One would suppose, with facts before them, that the Government would have been deterred from again taking up the question of reform ; but nevertheless Earl Russell and his colleagues determined to come before Parliament with another Reform Bill without any allegation whatever of new circumstauces. (Cries of Oh, oh, with counter cries of Hear, hear from the Opposi tion.) They were told of a chivalrous determination on the part of the Government to stand or fall by the intended bill. He could see no chivalry in the determination. The country was heartily sick of the insincerities and hypo crisies —(cheers)—and had made the very name of reform a scandal and reproach to the nation, and he was mistaken in the temper of the new House of Commons if they suffered another Ministry to trade on a reform cry, introduce and abandon a bill, and yet remain glued to the seats of office. There wore three great es sentials to the success of any Government attempting at this time to deal with the question of reform. The first was that it should be a strong Government, and that the bill should be introduced for the purpose of being carried. It should be an instrument for legislation, [and not agita tion. The second essential was that the bill should bo for a generation at least a settlement of the question—(hear, hear)—and the third was that the Government introducing the bill in the face of formidable opposition should have the power of appealing to the country by a dissolution. How many of these essentials were to be found on the Trea sury bench? Was the Government strong? Lot them apply a fair test, and compare it in point of strength with the last Government that attempted and failed to carry reform. In that Government there were no less than ten members of the Cabinet with seats in the House of Commons, and of these six only remained. But if the task in such hands was too mighty for the strength of giants, what miracu lous virtue did they expect to find in what were now a notoriously discordant remainder ? (Opposition cheers.) How was it with the second essential ? There was only one mode for a satisfactory settlement of the great ques tion, and that was by founding such settlement on a re cognised and intelligent principle. But there was nothing in the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the bill that they could digyfy with the title of a principle. It was nothing but the re production of the old, stale, and discredited device of the first downward movement in the direction of a Govern ment by numbers. (Opposition cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last man from which we should expect an apology for routine and mediocrity. Let them observe how differently he dealt with a question that he knew and understood. See how ho dealt with finance. See how he was straining his faculties to reduce the na tional debt, not certainly for the benefit of this particular Parliament or generation, but for the benefit and with a regard to the advantage of posterity. But Reform was only a mere hustings' recreation to him. He only began to think seriously of it two years ago. It was a sudden freak, almost like the visit of the celebrated casual to the workhouse. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman saw a muddy pool before him ; he plunged in, and has been soiled and shivering in bad company ever since. (Laughter.) A dissolution had been talked of, but the opinion a the country had been taken on the subject at the last two dissolutions, and it was decidedly unfavourable to the agitation of the question. No member had lost his seat in consequence of voting against the £6 Franchise Bill in troduced by Mr. Baines at the close of the last session ; but many members who had voted for it, including the favou rite aide-de-camp of Mr. Bright, had been rejected. What, then, could the Government want a dissolution for? An other dissolution would be not only unconstitutional but suicidal. (No, no, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) There was one thing more essential than any other to the success of a Reform Bill, and that was a strong public opinion out of doors. Lord Russell had himself said that a Minister must have a popular breeze in his favour, not only to carry the bill through the House of Commons, but to carry it over the bar of the House of Lords. It was idle to pretend that there was anything of the kind at present. When Lord Palmerston died last autumn he left the coun try in a dead calm, contented at home and at peace abroad. If any man had gone to Lord Palmerstonand told him that the country was bursting for reform, he would have been laughed out of the room. He would have got the same answer as Mr. Rowcliffe received from the noble lordwhen he asked him why he and his colleagues had not introduced a reform bill, "Because we were not geese"— (laughter)— was the characteristic reply of the noble lord, and it wont straight to the understanding of every Englishman. Lord Palmerston would never have been weak enough to think that England could be governed from Manchester; but the man who would have been a pigmy in the hands of Lord Palmerston was a giant to his successor. Lord Rus sell fell at once into the toils of the member forßirmingham, and was easily persuaded that he was the idol of an adorn ing nation, and that he had a heavenly mission to fulfil. He girded himself to its fulfilment. The die was cast. The tranquil policy of Lord Palmerston was reversed. The reign of the moderate Liberals behind the Treasury bench was at an end. The true and trusty Liberals from below the gangway, belonging to the minute section which fol lows the leadership of the hon. member for Birmingham, were acknowledged as the future Ministers of England. They had been reminded by the Chancellor of the Exche quer of the advantages of legislating in a calm, but he could not congratulate his right hon. friend upon this having been achieved. His great auxiliary and ally, the member for Birmingham, had gone to the provinces to lash the people into a fury with a recital of imaginary wrongs and fabri cated grievances—(laughter and cheers) - and if they had not now to deplore disturbances at Birmingham, burnings at Nottingham, and riots at Bristol, they had not to thank his forbearance. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Horsman)had treated the bill as a Government measure, but they all knew it was only so by courtesy. Its design was not of Downing-street, but of Birmingham. (Oh, oh, and Opposition cheers.) It was the member for Birming ham who had inspired it. By the spell which he had thrown over Lord Russell, he had succeeded in becoming the ruling spirit of the present movement. It was now, therefore, Lord Russell and the member for Birmingham against the Cabinet and the majority of the country. (Oh, oh, and cheers from the Opposition.) Everybody knew what had been the ascendancy of the member for Birming ham, and the alarming sensation he had created in the country. If a professed reformer, he was a passionate ad mirer of republican institutions. (Oh, oh, and Opposition cheers.) If he openly avowed that their English institu tions were faulty on those points in which they differed from republican institutions, and that the changes he would make were to be after the mode and direction of gradu ally, but inevitably making them republican—if he depre ciated and decried not the defects in their English forms of Government, but the form of Government itself he could not be a sympathiser in the views of those who wished to cherish and preserve what was good in the constitution. (Hear, hoar.). Ho was rather an enemy to the ancient institutions which ho set himself to change. (Opposition cheers.) The house would judge of this from words out of his own mouth. When the Derby Government was in office the advanced Reformers determined to have a Re form Bill of their own. This was proposed at a public meeting, and the member for Birmingham promised to take charge of the bill, and prepare its provisions. In ex plaining these at one of his meetings he made statements which he (Mr. Horsman) would for a few minutes bring under the notice of the house. The right hon. gentleman quoted from speeches of the hon. mernberfor Birmingham, to show that that hon. member only supported the vener able English monarchy so long as it came up to its present almost ideal standard of personal excellence; that in his opi nion a hereditary Legislature like the House of Peers could not bo a permanent institution in a free country; and that universal suffrage was the birthright of Englishmen. The political principles of the hon. member for Birmingham were the principles not of an Englishman but of an alien. He was not a believer in the British Constitution, but he must be as thorough-going a Republican as ;President Johnson himself. He, however, was the confidential ad viser of the head of the Cabinet, the director of his policy, and the dictator and director of that Liberal party which only six months ago followed Lord Palmerston. The lilt tion had had a great escape. Those principles of freedom which had been successfully defended against the encroach ments of monarchs and the passions of the multitudes wero not now to be surrendered at the feet of a more ignoble tyranny. (Opposition cheers.) That policy of peaceful, constitutional progress which had hitherto reflected the growing intelligence of the nation, and which could only be arrested or fatally driven back by the successful machi nations of those who would trade on the ' weakness of Ministers they despise, and on the presumed ignorance of the masses, whose contempt for the abortive agitation of iast four months had proved how deeply sensible they were of the blessings of the institutions under which they lived, and that they had become too enlightened to he deluded, and too distrustful of demagogues to ho be trayed. On the motion of Mr. LOWE, the debate was, at a guar ter to 12 o'clock, adjourned until this day ; Sir John Gray, whose notion on the state of the Irish Church had prece dence, having consented to give way. The report of supply was brought up. The Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed. The Exchequer Bills and Bonds Bill Was read a second time. The other business on the paper was disposed of, and the house adjourned at 10 minutes to one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER-MARCH 10. Our markets continuo to be supplied very moderately with wheat. To-day the small quantity offering found ready buyers at the full prices of last week. The Ripe barley sold at high prices ; thin qualities, if sound, in quired for. Beans and peas the turn dear er ; supplies moderato. Wheat. white 483 58s' Beans, 31azagra.n......Ma 4418 red 40a 50s Middle and small ._36s 34 Barley 3 , s 42s Peas, white. 38s 421 Oats..., ...20a 25s grey ..36s OS NORTHAMP T ON—MARcH 10. The demand for fine qualities of wheat was good, and last week's prices were fully supported. Barley was in improved demand, and fully maintained its value. Oats were not plentiful, and with a fair inquiry top prices were readily obtained. Beans were unchanged in value. New white wheat, 43s to 47s ; new red, 40s to 46s ; old white, 48s to 535; old red, 43s to 48s per 36 stone. Barley for malting, 39s to 41s per qr. ; grinding, 28s to 40s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 34s ; new, 20s to 28s per 24 stone. Beaus, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 39s to 44s per 38 stone. ree. s7 34s to 39s per 36 stone. CIELMSFORD-31AncH 9. With a good supply of wheat the market ruled firm at the prices of last week, although the business transacted in inferior sorts was but limited. Spring corn of all descrip tions was firm at recent quotations. Wheat, old white.... 458 52s Peas, Partridge 363 395 new 438 51s White ...<9S 45 old red. 393 458 BAling 373 415 new. 36s 45s Dun.... ..... 33 3" Barley .. 258 33s dit , o, new —s ~,!, Chevalier 28 8 41s Beans, Tick, 01d......353 l': Urind ng ss 305 new.... 355 39 ' Malt... 585 tOs Harrow I icks.3BB 444 Chevalier 6 s t2a Oats ••• 203 268 Manga n n e w . . ... 3 34 6 : 4,81 GRANTHAM—MARCE 10. Wheat was disposed of at previous currencies. Malting barley met with an active inquiry at advancing rates ; grinding sorts were firm, at late quotations. Old white wheat, 52s to 545; old red, 48s to 50s; net whit©, 50s to 52s ; new red, 44s to 470 per 36 stone. Bar ley for malting, 34s to 40s per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 33s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 28s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s per 21 stone. Beans, old, 47s to 495; new, 43s to 45s per 38 stone• Peas, 38s to 40s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN—MAItcH 9. There was a good attendance at our market to-day, a n . (.! a good many t ransac ti ons t oo k p l ace f or see d s . Otherwls' there was not much doing. Oats may be quoted 6d UPI and here and barley is. White wheat 40s Od to 48s Odi Red wheat 40 s Od t o 45s 0(13 - 621 b 1/ bushel. Potato oats 24s )d to 25s Od t 40th l i l bushel. Common oats 22 s Od t o 22 s 6df Bere 30s Od to 31s Od 3 '3 bushel. Barley 31s Od to 32s 0d) t n " „.. '''' Oatmeal 17s Od to 18s 6d - boll of 14016• Flour, fine 37s Od to 38s Oda sack of 280. KIRKCALDY—Mimi:IIO. Good supplies of all kinds of grain. Wheat and barlol brought the prices of this day week. Oats 6cl per qr dearer. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Fir5t........ 43s 6d ' 33s 6d I 25s Od econd.... 45s Od 1 353 Gd 268 Od Third . 46s Od 37s 6d 278 Gd COAL ItARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. s. d. Efolywell Main l6 0 Walls End Haswell l9 0 Walls End Hetton South Durham l5 9 Wharneliffe l5 3 Shaw's Hartley lB N.S taffordshire .......... 1 7 Hetton Lyons 13 ° 6 Thornley Hastings Hartley ld Ships at market, 50; sold, 30. Foreign Mail Packet List ----A. • MAILS DUE. 0 . Mar . 16 Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton Mar. ~- Ditto, via Marseilles April 6 Brazil and Cape Verde, by British packet Ditto, by French packet Alan 2 Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Mar. 24. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton Mar. -4 ~.. Ditto, via Marseilles Mar. 16' Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton ...... ..... 3lar. 10. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Mar. 2 1 . Ditto, via Marseilles -•••••3far. 16 India (Bombay), via Southampton. mar. ii . Ditto, via Alarseilles .. mar. 10. Mauritius, via Southampton Ditto, via Marseil:e3 mar. I° ' Newfoundland Portugal •••••April 0. Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon ....... United States and British North America, by Bri tish packet Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp ton .. _ _ Ditto, via Ccrk Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry ga r * 9 ' West Indies and Pacific (except Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico Feb. 2S Cuba and Mexico Fe b. 2S. Bahamas, via New York. April ''• Bermuda, ditto 12 West Coabt of Africa. Madeira, and Teneriffe. gar. A NEW JULIET.—A great granddaughter of t llO celebrated Mrs. Siddons made a most successful debut the Edinburgh stage last week as Juliet. Miss Siddops who is described as highly gifted, w ill, it i s sa id, APPe3r _ , , • the London stage in the course of the present season. i d An AWKWARD MEMBER.--When, one of the °' St. James's-street clubs w i s h e d t o ge t r id of a ra env bor, they met, broke up the club, and immediately r e r,; stituted it without him. A proprietary club in Linc°,l if , inn -fields, wishing to get rid of the notorious 0• f• r ford, resorted to this expedient. '• Very well, gen tle/ 3,e er ' was his remark, "you have a ll re ti re d f r om the Pa rtrj o d ship ; I am the sole surviving partne r , a nd the ho ts° si „a furniture belong to me." He turned out legally right; it cost them several thousand pounds to buy Wi ll °ll Fraser's Magazine for Mareh. 'tl [ADVERTISEMENT.]—That the fearful annual inortall 60,0( 0 young children and delicate persons of all ages h , aY e s, arrested, if, instead of flying blindly to pills and raediele is which, though apparently relieving the patients 113 ,.. v 0 iti, reality no other tendency than that of increasing dew - bo or and with it the dangor of life, we were simply to sturl9;ol to increase the vital force by imparting n ew and pure D upon which the harmonious develop men t o f the whole ir7o, depends, has been successfully proved by Du Barry's dittl lids' and Infants' Food, the Revalenta Arabic* a° toll thousands of cures annually. It yields three times a er : for easily assimilated nourishment as the best meat, an pr• children it is the best substitute for human mi l t„ a nd Routh, f 1 178'CI - .11 to the B,.inarltan Hospital for lirota`iofr hildren—the best authority on ouch matters —ill hi. a l e $ll able publication on F oo d , says —A mongs t t h e vegetab 0 00 stances, th it whi c h comes closest to milk i n its C 0,0° ,, C O: is, without d ou bt , D u Barry ' s Revalenta Ara bica Fe e ;ide I aining both ph osp h or i c ac i d i n a b undance a nd cl', l° . 1 , 0,0 1 potassium ;it also includes casein, the same principle' ere is found in milk in its constituent parts. No wonder , s fore, that under its influence many children atrophy (wasting away of the body), and marked deelot have completely recovered. I have given it with the h r „,„, 01 advantage in such cases ; and so far as I may judge try' — or i, tlic own experience, practice fully carries out what it te." from a knowledge of its composition, led us to antic'r 2 41 D, In tins, lib, 2s 9d; 21b, 4s 6.1 ; 51b, 11s; 121 b, 223 i don 10s.—Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-stree t, also Phillips, tea dealers, 8, King William-street' o ' l rgl ite' at 01, Gracechurch-street ;4, Cheapside ; 13 ,t h trati,, (l; street Within ; 63, 150, and 298, Oxford-street ; *°"' .d ; 54, Upper Baker-street; 103, Tottenham-court -ro' cioSe Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, Notting - h ill ;ace, St. Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen's-terr a che" John's-wood, London; and all respectable grocers mists.=Beware of spurious Imitations. affectedb.vilip Births. sotf.,a dt HAVELOCK—On the 10thi the Lady Alice n tr ect, , 1 ,, 84 1° HOLDEN —On the 10th inst., at Bt No tts, ''"" . 4 limcoto, of Captain Henry Holden, of a son. a L ug ow lit e e r r ] . 3og rave.., Wif ° SHARPE—On the 11th inatat Richmond, Surrey the r , of J. C. Sharpe,Esq., • of 19, Fleet-street, of a (I ,' t loler S UDLEY—On the 10th inst., at 23, Charles-street, D°r" square, the Viscountess Sudley, of a daughter. Marriages. Ali` , ; FLETCHEP P loth inst., tit the Pjovi, KERING— 0 n the church •. lc of Hove, Brighton, P. S. Fletcher, of 1 0, , 1 . , to street, Berkeley-square, son of Major-Geu. Flctsstes Lucy, second dauo-hter fJ. Dicke ' c'• s 'l• °f House, cyft ~ 0 o rm o , 7 ~ 1 onville, Brighton. oli t° BishoP i f to JARVIS —SALKWILL—On the 12th inst., at Chapel, London, E. Jarvis, • d P eg° 1 3.1 14- of Kingsbri ge, -,--, S. Elizabeth Hancock, eldest daughter of the late X" will, of Yard; Marlborough, Devon. Deaths. -rr 11 rti V S4I ITELBERT— On the 10th inst , at Bath, L. It .-e, - 1 2,4 of 60, Gloucester-place, Po . rtman-square, age ( ' .. AO/ Mu-0u the 11th inst., at 14, Barnsbury-park, Islipb Samuel Hill, Esq., aged 64. Li wic l, Mounts—On the 10th inst., at Nelson-street, G0.r0(i36/. S. B. Morris, Esq., of 38, Noble-street, City, aged 0r MOORE— On the 11th inst., at Spalding, the W• RAW• D.D., prebendary of Lincoln, aged 82. Colle t MURRAY— On the 9th inst., at Woodside House, Angus, John S. Murray, Esq. R $ 0 41 STACEY—On tho 10th Jan in Quito COI' Janw ., , aged 70. POO' TAYLOR—On the 10th inst., at 51, Brunswick -road, iiiigo, ton, the Rev. T. Taylor, of Brighton, and of li r . bit Worcestershire. --- - i London : Printed and Published by WILLIA3I .N lj . s l 11 2 i of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tar. Sox Oinc e r * 0 - ° V 0 " Strand, in the Precinct of the SavoY + ill ti le tui bliddlepes,—Tuesday, March 13, 1566. RO i urn irt h4 ' ; V re A s l 1 T••i• cei Prize Mec It Yu „Sold "e &Out 8 , GI %sem% Xinahai .....____ . NIUT 11, reehold f ' o , or al tlr ee yea, ,„ 418 eounte 'gado to 13 Years ezveloi:o. ho y blished(ll4 Lo: I\T °ll Is. ad. Th n( th g Corn L. , 1 \ 0 . ot 441,4/1 1 40,156 1'4073 5 075 ti lhe b Atl tho to T he d i 41 ° 05 ,20i 1 .s'or ~, reet, L. liaß C RAIRm TIB A riti h le a 4 08] Dl:p c triay pro, A4SCCiat abl e Qua 27 , Lo; Si ORIS n,OO, tin ot Alsb aEt "Dnrt. tilloN st 1 4 "e ynt Itm can u P11 .41 ,A 11(Iii bi no I dE ti ° 4li t i e 11 , (OP,