The Sun. — London, England, 1866-05-15 00:00:00

statement he had made the other night with respect to lotteries. He then stated that the common informer had power to initiate a prosecution. He found that the Act of 1845 had taken away that power ; therefore his statement on that point was incorrect. REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the VC CHEQUER that this bill be read a second time, Mr. DISRAELI, who was received with loud cheers, said—Sir, when the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this bill to the notice of the house, he favoured us with the views of her Majesty's Government with respect to the subject of small boroughs. According to the views of her Majesty's Government those boroughs are not really liable to the charge that has so fre quently been made against them, while, on the other hand, one of the merits that has usually been alleged in their favour was, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not deserved. With regard to the first point —namely, the imputation of bribery, her Majesty's Government are of opinion, and I entirely agree with them, that no ch arge can be made against the small boroughs particular ly on that head. Unfortunately, it is not only the small boroughs the country that are open to the imputation of venality election matters. On the contrary, we know very well that in the large proportion of small boroughs the elections are conducted in a manner very creditable to their reputa tion. No doubt there are some small boroughs in which a portion of the constituency are affected by the same im proper influences that prevail in some of the larger boroughs. But that is an exercise of bribery which, how ever it be deprecated and deplored, is an evidence of a con flict of opinion. There are, unquestionably, cases of small boroughs in which it has been proved to the satisfaction of this house that venality has been organised and has been generally exercised, but the house has never met with any difficulty in dealing with such cases. Long before the reform of the House of Commons, the instance of Grampound, among others, showed that our predecessors were perfectly able to deal with such cases, and St. Al bans and Sudbury in our own time have furnished similar examples. I shall not refer to the conduct of constituen cies now under judicial inquiry, beyond expressing a hope that in the case of any constituency, where the charges made against it before a committee of the House of Com mons aro salisfactorlly proved before the tribunal ap pointed to investigate them, the precedents of Grammies, St. Albans, and Sudbury will not be forgotten, and that we shall not see placed at the head of one of these new groups of boroughs a town which ought to be provided for in a very different and in a less honourable manner. (Cheers.) With regard to th e e second point— t h e a ll eged merits of the small boroughs, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes they are not entitled -I well re collect the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1859 on the subject of small boroughs, a speech which we, of course, all listened to with gratification, but which, I mast say for myself, I heard with some degree of amaze ment. It appeared to me, indeed, to be the echo, very elo quently expressed, of the debates of 1832, which upon that subject were merely traditions of the 18th century. I would not attempt in any way to vindicate the small borough system,because these small boroughs have been the means of introducing into the House of Commons a Pitt, a Fox, and a Canning.. In a free country and under a popular constitution such men as Pitt, Fox, and Canning will always, I believe, find a place in this assembly. (Cheers.) But I cannot help thinking that the view which her Ma jesty's Government have taken of the system of small boroughs is one of too contracted and meagre a character, and, as I believe that in a right appreciation of the ques tion very important consequences are involved, I would take this opportunity, without trespassing too long upon the house, of begging the house most deliberately and se riously to reflect upon the subject and the consequences involved. Now I apprehend, or will at all events accept, that the real cause of all these Reform Bills which have been introduced since the passing of the great measure of 1832 has been to render this house a more complete repre sentation of the country and of its various attributes. It is not difficult, it requires no profound or adroit statesmanship to secure for the great conflicting interests of this country an ample and a satisfactory representation. The counties of= England offer to the land with its various products and with its accumulated capital a natural and an easy mode of being represented in Parliament. The chief seats of in dustry furnish distinguished men in more than sufficient numbers to represent the wealth, the ingenuity, and the skill of the great seats of our manufactures. Perhaps the mode by which a merchant may get into this house is not altogether so easy and obvious. But still we know that there are and that there must always be influential constitu encies connected with the commerce and navigation of the country to whom a merchant of eminence may appeal with confidence for support. But there aro a variety of interests in England and connected with England, not only various but very important and even material interests, which can not be ranged under either of the three heads of land, manufactures, or commerce. There are a variety of very important trading interests of that character, there are also classes which are considerable in point of education and en lightenment, and of their influence on that public opinion which ultimately regulates the affairs of this country—l mean the professional classes, and in employing that term I do not refer merely to the learned prbfessions, one of which cannot sit in this house and another won't—and al though I should deplore the time when we had not in our active legislation a sufficient number of gentlemen of the long robe, and should regret oar ever having an indoctura Parliarnerttam, I mean there are, besides the interests I have referred to, other classes who in the present day carve out their own fortunes and obtain their incomis by . the appli cation of science to affairs of every day life, like the great body of civil engineers and others, by whom I mean men of letters, men who pursue the liberal arts as a profession. But besides all these, we are to recollect that England is the metropolis of a great colonial empire, that she is at the head of a vast number of colonies, the majority of which are yearly increasing in wealth, and that every year these colo nies send back to these shores their capital and their intelli gence in the persons of distinguished men who are naturally anxious that those interests should be represented in the House of Commons. And last, and perhaps the greatest above all, there is our great Indian empire. It was always the boast of this country that that distant, extensive, and gorgeous appanage was always represented in the House of Commons, and that no question could arise without the house, from the very bosom of its members, and not merely from official sources, being able to command the assistance and information of men who enjoy the means of obtaining accurate knowledge, and of forming the soundest j udg ments upon the matter. While we are, therefore, upon the second reading of the Bill for the Redistribution of Seats, I wish to ask in what way these various interests and indi viduals are to be represented in the House of Commons if you have not the small borough system, or some substitute for it. (Hear.) Let the house observe how the present system practically operates. A county member, as a gene ral rule, must be a resident. It is not merely that it is the custom of the country, but it is a practice which arises from the necessities of the case. The representative duties of a county member are not confined to this house. They are also local and continuous, and therefore it is most natural that men for such offices will elect their neighbours and those who live among them. The same feeling has of late years been equally characteristic of our great towns and cities. They have increased so much in population, in wealth, in education, and in intelligence, and they are able tofindin their o wn community men capable of representing them knowledge and education but the still rarer gift which be fore they could n o t command—leisure. This feelin g is be coming so strong g enera ll y that you will find it lto a great extent in all our con s id era b le towns and cities. I always watch with inter es t th e proceedings of general. elections, and during the last th ree general elections I have observed this characteristic —that the local feeling is perpetually developing itself, and that in gr ea t num b ers of constituencies where it was previously influential it has now become entirely predominant. (Cheers.) What is the practical consequence of all this ? The House of Commons is really shut out from all the consider able materials which are not ranged under the heads from all th e of .land, manufactures, and co mm erce, professional classes now growi n g daily more influential than they were, and from the due representation of our colonial interests. These are very serious considera tions, and they must be well weighed by the house before they consent to destroy or greatly change t he machinery by which so desirable a result has hitherto been attain ed without, a t a ll even t s ,- su bstituting some method equa lly efficacious. Now the house must remember that this is not a question as to whether the pride, the vanity, ambition, or even the interests of particular classes and parti cular indi viduals sh ou l d be gratified. The presence of these men in this house may confer importance upon them, but their presence is equally important tothe house itself. (Hear, see hear.) What I d esire is to these interests and these views adequat e l y re P r esented,for depend upon it we shall lose our influ ence i f we are only represented by landlords and merchants. T hea o nestto . n s is one, therefore, which con cerns the House of Commons asmuch or even mo r e than the interests of the particular classe s whom I have referred. (Cheers.) No w l and individuals to w a small fora boroughs moment to put this question as to the influence of ma practically before the house. I won' tindalge in the old ro utine about Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Canning. I will bring you to the world in which we live, and ask y etl f o rm your opinions from instances and examples draw n from daily life. For exam p le, I see before me a gaih: t gentleman, a man acknowledged to p ossess brilliant tic complishments and att ainments, but who u p on ono subject his knowledge of th e East— . , isperfectly u nr i va l led. It t o - mor row the affairs of Persiaany question c onnected • or with Central Asia, came under discussion he is precisely the man to whom the house wo'ild look for advice and it is most advisable, therefore, that he should have a seat in this house, although, unfortunately' he sits on the other side. But why is he here? Because he has been sect by the small borough of Frome, which you are going to disfran- chive. do The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —fie not propose to touch Frome. Mr. DISRAELI—I beg your pardon; it was touched in the first list which came into my posses sion ; but, at any rate, the correction will not invalidate my argument —for to what place were we first indebted for sending the hon. and gallant gentleman among us ? It was the small borough of Reigate, which you propose to disfranchise. (Cheers.) But our attention has been di rec ted to a question which at this moment is even more interesting than even Parliamentary eins ourtary reform or the question of peace or war, and monetary state. It is a subject which will probably be h of men under our discussion very shortly, and thwe opinions with very of great experience will be received bythe house great interest upon the matter. I sae before me a gentleman who, if he is not at this moment , was the Bank of England. He wa s, I believe I formerly m Governor of may say, one of the best Governors that the Bank ever had, and to what place do we owe his presen ce in this house ? Th e small b orou gh of Bridport, which you certainly propose to dis franchise. Bnt I will not take my instances entirely from ite side. I have below the gangway a friend wh om the ev opposite e r yo o n s e acknowledges should have a seat in this house, and he is looked upon as one admirably fitted for a place in this assembly—not on account of his great wealth, although we recognise him as the prince of British merchants, but on account of his character, integrity, and intelligence. He owes his presence in this house to the small borough of Huntingdon, which you propose to disfranchise. lam of opinion that men in the position of the Governor of the Bank of England should always be members of the House of Commons. I have had some experience of the advantage of communication with Governors and Deputy-Governors of the Bank, to whom I owe much. Then we have another considerable colony at this moment, whose fortunes may be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons at any time ; and how important it is that we should have a representative here who, commandingrespectful attention from his local experience, would rise in his place and advise the house on any matters of importance. Such represen tatives are invariably returned by small boroughs. Iwould now call your attention to one of the most important points in the subject, viz., the representation of India. One cause of the present deficiency in this respect is the loss of a Mi nister whose absence I think we must all deplore. He had not, perhaps, all those qualities which enable a man to control a popular assembly ; but every man must acknow ledge that for administrative capacity and experience few men are equal to Lord Halifax. He was perfect master of the business of the great departments of the State, and I have rarely met any man who was his equal in quickness of perception. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately, we have lost him ; but when he was here the advice he gave us showed that he was completely master of his subject. And how desirable it is that we should have men in this house as to whom, whether we look to theirinformation or judgment, we know the moment they rise to enter into an Indian debate that their infoimation is accurate and their judgment sound. I remember some who have been very much looked up to in this respect—Sir James Hogg, Sir John Willoughby, and Mr. Prinsep. Sir James Hogg was member for Honiton, which you propose to disfranchise ; Sir James Willoughby was member for - Leominster, which you propose to dis franchise ; and Mr. Prinsep was member for Harwich, which you propose to disfranchise. (Hear.) These are very important facts, and the house should consider them seriously. I have, perhaps, less interest in the matter than any other member of this house. Ido not owe my outset in public life to small boroughs, nor is there any probable prospect of my seeking refuge in them in the future. (Laughter.) Nor do I think the county with which I have the honour to be connected has any special interest in this particular system of small boroughs. But I wish to offer one point to the house for its consideration. When we find that the complete representation of this country in its va rious attributes appears to have greatly depended upon this system of small boroughs, should we not very care fully consider the steps which are taken in regard to it ? Thus, if you either destroy or greatly qualify their privilege we should at least supply some adequate substitute. That is the only point which I wish to impress upon you. (Hear.) Well, by this bill it is proposed to deal very ex tensively with this small borough system. The measure proposes to disfranchise 71 seats. The assertion that the disfranchisement is not complete is simply a quibble ; it is a disfranchisement in disguise. (Haar, hear.) Virtually you are reducing small boroughs by one moiety, for I take it that small boroughs may be set down as be tween 150 and 160. The reasons given for taking these seats are two. The first is that representation should be given to communities that have developed their strength since the Reform Bill was passed. I entirely concur with her Majesty's Government in that. I acknowledge that since 1832 we have had come into existence communities which in population, character, and property are worthy of direct _ _ representation in this house ; and it is wise to give it to them. We have a list of such boroughs in the bill before us ; it is not very considerable in extent, and does not vary much from ono which I recommended to your consideration seven years' ago. I only regret that they have been denied that seven years' representation in Parliament. But how is that representation to be effected ? Should it be effected, in the first instance, by adding to the number of members of this house ? I decline, Sir, upon this occasion, to give any definite opinion upon that point, because it is a complicated question. It has never been properly dis cussed in this house, and it would lead us into discussions foreign to the general subject of this debate. It is a moot point, and it is desirable that we should leave it et present. But there is a way by which representation can be given to those boroughs without increasing the number of the mem bers of this house, and that is by decreasing the represen tative powers of existing boroughs. Ido not mean to say that that can be done upon any principle. It can only be done up)n grounds which the Venetians described as "rea sons of State;" and actions from reasons of State should be had recourse to with reserve, and only in order to effect an end universally acknowledged to be beneficial. I think we are perfectly justified under the circumstances in following the course which, by-the-by, we ourselves were prepared to pursue in 183'J, and curtail what we may call the redundant representation of some boroughs in order to complete and perfect the representation of others. The first object for which this great revolution is proposed is to secure represen tation for those communities the propriety of whose appear ance in this house no one questions. I entirely concur in that proceeding, and in saying that I believe I express the feeling of the house. But the Government propose this great change for another object. It is not merely to give representatives to those places which are not represented, but to add representatives to places which are already re presented. Many of the great towns and cities are to re ceive another member. For example, three members are to be given to Leeds, three to Manchester, and three each to a considerable number of other towns and counties. Well, this involves a new principle in the management of our re presentation, and that principle is plurality of representa tion. I think, however, it is to be looked upon with some doubt and suspicion. I do not see how it is consistent with our electoral system, for it recoils from plurality of voting. That a man should have only one vote is, I think, a right principle. If our constituencies, for example, were founded upon the rights of man, or upon the rights of numbers, I could easily understand that you must immediately defend the minority; And .1. do not know that there is any more obvious or easy method of doing so than to establish plu rality of voting. In fact, I have always held that if you went as far as universal suffrage, or if you submitted to any very considerable extension of the franchise, plurality of voting would be a necessary consequence. But, if you establish your constituencies on the principles that hitherto have been accepted and connected with the Constitution of this country, if you look upon your constituency as a poli- tical body or order, numerous and various, very numerous and very various, I hope, but select, then Ido not think you can have plurality of voting. Thenmensh ha o v ul e d h be is equal. The elector with £30,000 a year should vote, just as the elector of the West Riding who lives upon his 30s. a week. The law of England recognises, and I hold nobly recognise; equality not of the man but of the political citizen, who is invested with duties and responsibilities for the public good. I know it will be said that an elector with £50,000 a year has a great deal more influence than the elector who lives upon 30s. it week; he has the influence which results from his good fortune and from his social positions. Ido not deny that he possesses that influence, and I say that he ought to have it. But does not the city of Manchester, when compared with one of the small boroughs represented in this house, also possess the extraordinary influence which the man of .£50,000 a year has ? The city of Manchester has only two members, and the borough of Har wich has only two members. If, however, the interest of the city of Manchester is assailed, or is in danger, it is not the two members who rise to support it, it is a score, it is a hundred members, who are directly or indirectly interested in or connected with Manchester. (Hear, hear.) If the in terest of the borough of Harwich is assailed, what hap pens ? We all know that a little before public business commence; one of the members for Harwich rises, with representations from that borough ; and though his argu ments be perfectly irrefutable and his statements as per spicuous as a mountain lake, yet you know how they are met by loud cries of " Divide," and an immense shout of "Ques tion." (Cheers and laughter.) This is the way these un fortunate men, while vindicating the rights and interests of their constituents, are assailed ; and then we are told that in the House of Commons Manchester and Harwich have only the same degree of influence. (Cheers.) Why, mem bersnenott nlimbearre sent s.(Er e t a o r, th h is ear h .) our s i t t o a r t ep a r l l e s n e e n c t es o sa p i r n y i o t n o s re a p n r d e s f en ad rese ca nt te ati y ve o s ur ? in T t e h r e e r s e t tahat consti tuency o s y h o o u u f ld op h i :v io e n a s tarnodopeve is advocate division, and with a pop its boroughs have been de ducted—the quite as great as at lation of South Lancashire whe n nosfcathreceWlyelsetssiltihdianngthseilipocepiuts yt sincerely, there any constituency in this house than the Tower Hamlet Tower Hamlets ; platerand one of the most valuable and indefatigable attendants in our and I hon. gen tl eman i s a l ways i n hi s m as o k re m a o b s l in committees ;by one man ? (Chee rs. ) That d and nu merous, he i s always present discharging his duty, w and whe n any quest i ons co n nected w i t h th e interests of his consti tuents are r a ised, w hi c h a re most complicate hi while in general d e b ates on subjects both interesting and importan t he gives his opinions and enunciates his arguments in a manner which commands respect. (Hear, hear.) It is quite ridiculous to ask for numbers to guard the interests 'a s of an y ccirnin nuitY, for as lour , the pesent arrangement continues they are perfectly safe. Y ( o H u ea must h st ea necessarily i si you once adopt saril the consequen ce if you were to He) What would be (Hear.) pursue the principles which you are layi ng d own? monotony in thi s h ouse. the principle that th e p opulation and P y have great ro e P(!r e ty rs of places are only to be consid ere d i n apportioning ulmb stop at three, and th e small constituencies ma ' y y be ou cbaynntloti! TilE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 15, 1866. grees entirely absorbed. You will have trains and troops of members coming from _one county and one place to this house. It is absurd to see six members for South Lanca shire walking into this house, six members for only one Riding of Yorkshire, and three members for this town, and three for another. By this system the members will be so increased that, instead of this Wing a classic Senate it will have something of the turbulent character of a Polish diet. (Laughter and hear, hear.) I know it may be said, though I do not think it will be, that plurality of voting is no new arrangement, because originally in the time of the Planta genets it was adopted. But that is a mere quibble, and no one will have recourse to it. We know very well that while two members were originally decided upon it was not with reference to any political principle or organisation of politi cal parties which did not exist in those days. They were days when men really never acted alone. First of all, they had to travel to town together, for they were afraid of rob bers. (Laughter.) They had to put up at an inn, and were obliged to sleep in a double-bedded room because they were afraid of ghosts. (Laughter.) They were afraid of taxes and benevolences being voted; but with two members one was sure to be present; and on the whole it was considered a very convenient arrangement. As stated in the Poston Letters, two burgesses going to town from Norfolk would be good counsel for each other in the difficult task they had to perform, which was only to vote away the money of their fellow citizens. (Laughter.) It may be said with some reason that the Reform Bill of 1832 did admit the principle of plurality of representatives. That is a graver answer; but although I think it is most wise as far as we can to adhere to the arrangement of that bill, it is not im maculate ; and the giving of three members to half adozen counties was not an acceptance of the Government of the day of the doctrine of plurality of members, but a rough mode by which Lord Althorp settled the balance between the counties and the boroughs. It was thought absolutely necessary that there should be a certain number of county members and a certain number of borough members ; but the original plan was to divide the counties with regard to the whole of England, and the whole thing was settled. But there still was wanting a certain number of county members, and Lord Althorp threw them to half a dozen— I think seven—counties, which he did not think were large enough to divide. But he did not do it for the sake of plurality of members. The evil precedent which has al ways been inconvenient, and neverpopular, appears to have been followed in the case of South Lancashire. Had, how ever, the suggestion of 1859 been accepted, the house need not have been in the situation to have followed that prece dent. We proposed in 1859 that South Lancashire should be divided into two divisions, and to give it two additional members, but now you will be embarrassed by six. It may be said that the view I am now pressing upon the conside ration of the house is inconsistent with those views which I have so long and so frequently urged as to the claims of the counties for increased representation. I think the house, if it will deign to reflect for a moment, will find no incon sistency as far as lam concerned in the matter. In the year 1847, in answer to Mr. Hume, when he brought for ward his motion for Parliamentary Reform, I first in detail laid before the house the claims of the counties. Mr. Hume's argument was this—he said the population was the only principle upon which this question of representation ought to be settled. If admonished that property had something to do with the matter, he said, " Therefore, you must dis franchise small boroughs, and give their representatives to the great towns." In general outline that was the scheme and the theory of Mr. Hume. Well, in 1847, it was my duty to reply to Mr. Hume's admirable motion. I then, for the sake of argument, accepted his premises ; but I arrived at a different conclusion—viz., that you must give the representatives taken from the small boroughs, not to the towns, but to the counties. Mr. Hume was an excel- lent, a most indefatigable member of Parliament, but in dealing with reform he did not bring to its consideration adequate knowledge, and could not clearly discern the right conclusion to be drawn from his own premises. We went on then for several years, and when Lord John Russell, in 1852, in his Reform Bill, proposed a considerable disfran chisement of the smaller boroughs, he proposed that all their members, to the number of 45, should be given to counties, and he then said publioly that he did so in conse quence of the views which I had placed before this house, feeling it impossible to resist the conclusion at which they pointed. But, although Lord John Russell accepted my premises, I never ad 4 ted his conclusions ; I never proposed that all those members should be given to the counties, because I knew that by this extraordinary system of small boroughs the counties did find a counteracting and compen satory influence, which, though it did not fully satisfy their just claims, did afford, in a certain degree, if not a complete, an ample representation of the landed interests. I did not counsel a violent change, such as the destruction of the small borough system would involve, buuud up as it is with so many other important interests. lam for keeping things as they are, for I have always felt that the partial repre sentation of the landed interests by means of these small boroughs gives some variety, some valuable variety, to the elements which are represented, some additional indepen dence of character, and, on the whole, I think, has acted beneficially upon the constitution of this house. Having shown that what I have now stated is not inconsistent with the views which I mentioned before, I come to tho general scheme of .his bill. how are all these new seats to be ob tained? By what arrangement aro we to have counties sending in theirsix members and cities their three n:eml. era giving so much uniformity of elements and character to the representation in this house ? It is to be effected by what is called a system of grouping. This must be considered under two heads. In the first place, I would remind the house that grouping is altogether foreign to this 'country (cheers); in the second place, that grouping of represen tative boroughs is altogether foreign to this kingdom. (Cheers.) The house is well acquainted by this time with the grouping of boroughs proposed by the Govornmentand with its consequences upon the representation. My objec tion to this system of grouping is, that it aggravates ano malies, and that by a process of wanton injustice. (Hear.) It succeeds only in producing an incomplete and imperfect local representation. In the first place, view it with regard to expenditure—a most important consideration. When you come to grouprepresentative boroughs, you are group ing societies, all of which have organised parties, have tra ditionary politics, have committees and agents that for a cen tury and more have managed the political interests of the society in which they live. When you address these grouped societies, this group of boroughs, you are, in fact, involved in a treble expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Instead of curtailing the vast expenditure which entrance into Parlia- meat unfortunately entails upon a member, you are legis lating in a mode that must greatly increase it. (Hear.) Hence you not only pursue a system which must greatly in crease expenditure, but you aggravate anomalies, and that by a process of what I would call unnecessary and wanton injustice. I will take a case, because, after all, there is nothing like an illustration ; and I will take a borough which is represented on both sides of the house. Dor chester returns two members to Parliament, and it is to be grouped with the borough of Wareham return ing one member. Dorchester and Wareham, now re presented by three members, are to be represented by only one. The united population of those places will be 14,500, represented by one member and losing two. But close by them only look at Poole, being just above the magical num ber of 8,000, and it is represented by two members. (Loud cheers.) Take again the case of Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme. These three boroughs are represented now by five members, and their united population will amount to 15,000. Instead of five members they are to be represented by one; and close to them will be the borough of Tiverton, which being also above the magical number will be represented by two members. (Cheers.) This is indiscreet and wanton injustice. (Loud cheers.) I can understand your taking away one member or two members from these three boroughs, and to attain a great public object I can under stand your taking away three oe even four members ; but what I cannot understand is why the boroughs called on to make such immense sacrifices should find their united population of 15,000 represented only by one member, when a borough close by with 8,000 inhabitants has two. (Loud cheers.) A small borough may be considered - what is called an anomaly, and an ancient Constitution will be always full of anomalies. But, at any rate, this must be said for the small boroughs, that they are ancient, and that they are convenient; but these groups are neitherprescrip tive nor convenient. (Hear, hear.) The only result is that you create great jealousies, that you aggravate anoma lies, and that you produce a constituency which is not homogeneous,and which can be only appealed to by the most costly and complicated means, partly of corruption. Be cause, though corruption, unfortunately, prevails in too many of our existing constituencies, what will result from grouping them bat the caucus system of America ? Some able manwill devote his energies—and this will become a profession —to securing a majority in two of the boroughs, he will then make his arrangements with the candidate, and the third borough will be neither consulted nor repre sented. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this question was immensely influenced by the example of the Scotch burghs, whore this system of grouping is successful. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed an error—which I shall have to ad vert to on another subject—he reasoned, I think, from false analogy. There is no analogy between the grouped boroughs of Scotland and of England, as proposed by this bill. In the first place, our boroughs to be grouped are re- presented boroughs—(hear, hear) —and in the case of Scot land they were unrepresented boroughs. (Cheers.) Andthe difference is very considerable. One of the great mischiefs in England will be the great distances at which some of these boroughs thus united are placed. No doubt, in Scot land, the distances are as great, or greater; but observe this difference between the two countries. Between the boroughs grouped in Scotland there is nothing but the country, but between the boroughs grouped in England there are flourishing and rising towns—(loud cheers)—while many of them far exceed in wealth and importance the boroughs that are thus grouped. All those towns may have submitted for a considerable time, and may yet submit, to what they deem to be the ancient Constitution of the country. B u t if you choose to chango that Constitution—(hear)—they naturally say, "Do not have recourse to so violent and fantastic a scheme as this, the combining of represented towns 30 miles apart, while we, in the interval, are left utterly unrepresented, being all the time persons who, in point of population, of property, and of the future that awaits us, are the persons that ought to enjoy representa- tion." I come then to the conclusion that any system of grouping founded on the grouping of represented towns must prove a complete failure, will disappoint all expecta tions, and is one that this house ought not to sanction. (Cheers.) As a general rule, I should say, in periodically, but not too often, reviewing our representative system and making our borough representation more complete and safe the true principle is in moderation and discretion to reduce the representation of the old bo;oughs, and to apply that redundancy to representation of new boroughs, so that no place shall be perfectly disfranchised. It has always been our custom in this country, and one which I trust we shall not depart from, to treat with kindness pre scriptive rights, and I am quite certain that any Minister who dealt in that spirit with the old boroughs would re ceive a more sincere support than he possibly can attain by anything so violent and fanciful as the soheme of grouping represented boroughs which is placed before us. But am I therefore an opponent of the system of grouping? Far from it. I think it is one that well deserves the earnest consideration of the house ; it is a powerful and an efficient instrument, if used with vigour and discretion. But where I think it may be of great advantage would be if we were to leave the present boroughs alone, and yet avail ourselves of their redundant representation, applying the principle of grouping to our unrepresented boroughs. (Hear.) Now, I am quite certain if that were done, as I say, with vigour and discretion, you would add considerably to the effi ciency of the constituencies, and at the same time you would go a great way towards the solution of those im mense difficulties connected with the county franchise which beset every Ministry who attempt to deal with this question, and which the present Ministry have not at tempted to encounter. (Cheers.) Let me give a striking illustration of what would be the effect of adopting the system of grouping our unrepresented towns. I don't know that the advantage of the system could be put in a more striking manner than by reference to some places with which the house is familiar. Now, take the first of the new boroughs to be enfranchised —and I willingly and cordially approve the proposition to enfranchise them. Let me take the town of Middlesborough, in Yorkshire--a town which has very recently risen into existence, principally from the ironstone of the Cleveland hills. In 1859 it was impossible we could give a representative to Middles borough ; but it is now a town of 19,000 inhabitants, and no doubt it is increasing rapidly. That population is not so very large and extensive that its claim to a representa tive, if there was not a convenient opportunity for enter taining it, would disturb the country by the agitation of a measure of Reform. (A laugh.) I don't, however, find fault with the Government for their proposal to enfran chise it, because I have great confidence in its future ; but close to Middlesborough is that important and most flourish ing town, Stockton-on-Tees, with its population of 13,300. I would join the two, which would make up an electoral population of 32,300. Tbat is the way in which I would treat Middlesborough. (Cheers.) Will the house now allow me to call attention to Dewsbury 2 I mention it be cause it is the only one of those places—with exception of Middlesborough, which did not exist—that I, as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, did not propose to enfran chise. I was peidectly well aware of its claims, but its population did not warrant such a proposal then. Even now it is only 18,100. There, again, you would not agitate the country by a measure of Parliamentary Reform to give a member to Dewsbury ; but you will find that it is the centre of a cluster of towns, engaged in the same indus trial pursuits, and distinguished by the same energy. I would take all these towns, the furthest of which is not, I believe, more than five or six miles from Dewsbury. They are almost conterminous—Batley, with a population of 7,200 ; Birstall, 43,505 ; Cleckheaton, 4,721; Heckmond wike, 8,600; Merfield, 9,263 ; making in all a population of 73,289. Joining these w ith D ews b ur y you would have a population of 91,389. (Cheers.) Why, that is what I call grouping. You would do more by such a system to improve the representation of the people than you can possibly do by those fantastic arrangements through which you are attacking ancient prescription. (Hear, hear.) Let us come then to Burnley. It is our old friend ; it was introduced by us in the Bill of 1852 ; and every one has been trying to enfranchise Burnley ever since. Burnley had only about 20,000 inhabitants when Lord Russell commenced with it. It has now 28,700 —no doubt a very respectable population, but nothing very extraordinary. You have near it Cilne, with a population of 6,300 ; Padiham, 5,600 ; Accrington, 13,800 ; Todmor den, 11,800-37,500. Add th ese t o Burnley, and you will have a population of 65,200. (Cheers.) That is the way to group. (Hear, hear.) Take a fourth borough, one which we have all proposed to give a member to. The population of Staleybridge has increased during the last seven years ; but the population of towns near it—which were of im portance in 1859, but not of sufficient importance to justify us in dealing with them—has also increased. There are three towns intimatedly connected with Staleybridge— Glossop, with a population of 19,000; Hyde, with 13,700 ; and Duldiafield, with 15,000, or with a united population of 47,700. If you join these towns to Staleybridge you will have a population of 72,700. (Cheers.) I will Sat nothing about Hartlepool, because I believe that it is pro posed to unite the two Hartlepools, and I am sure that such a constituency will send us good men. Then I would add Dartford to Gravesend, and, the population of the former being 5,300 and that of the latter 18,800, you would bave a population of 24,100. (Cheers.) By grouping in this way I think you would obtain a very considerable accession to the constituency; and I believe that if you dealt with the question in such a manner you would have the fi iendly co-operation of the oal boroughs themselves. Having touched on the question of grouping, and. on the manner in which, if this bill should be carried, additional members are to be furnished, what I want to imp r e ss on th e h ouse at this moment is the important effect which, dealing with the subject in this manner—if the Government would adopt it, would have on the vexed question of the county franchises, which I do recommend to the earnest considers tiou of the house. (Hear, hear.) Don't lot us look on this as a mere party measure, or as a motion such as that of the hon. member for Surrey, which may be carried or not this year, and for which, if it be carried and should fail, a remedy may be found next year. Let us feel that our legislation on this question of Parliamentary Reform will affect the future of this country. Generations after us will feel the consequences of what we are doing at this moment ; and, for my part, I should be very sorry that when I have left the scene my name should be recalled as that of one who supported a measure which affected in a considerable degree the character of the Constitution of this country—a Constitution to which we are all so attached. (Cheers.) On a former occasion, though I did not evade the other portions of the proposal of the Government, I touched particularly on the question of the county consituencies, because I thought it had not been so directly treated. Tasked the house to consider what the effect would be on our county constituencies of a great re duction of the franchise when, at the same time, causes were in operation which were continually changing the character of those consitituencies, so that they were fast losing their distinctive character. Though I was ready, as I always have been ready and am ready now, to treat this question in a large and liberal spirit, what I contended for —not in the interests of party, not in the interests of this side of the house, but in the interests of the-country— was that you should maintain the distinctive character of the county constituencies. If that be true which was said by a great master of politics—" It is wise that the energy and enterprise of the cities should be tempered by the re pose and steadfastness of the country"—if that be true, it is the interest of every one in this house —except we have some few eccentric persons among us—that we- should, if possible, make the character of the county constituencies really what it appears to be. Unquestionably one of the means by which the character of the county constituencies is so perverted is this—that in the counties there are a great number of cities or towns which have distinctive in terests of their own, and which ought to be represented, but are not represented. There can bo no doubt that these towns very much change the character which otherwise would be peculiar to the constituencies of the counties (hear, hear)—but if you were to group on the system which I have pointed out you might do much to get rid of that perversion of the character of the county consti tuencies. There is another way of doing it which I placed before the house at great length on a former occasion, and which I will now merely allude to—that is, the revision of the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs. (Hear, hear.) I was told at the time that when this bill was brought forward we should fiud an arrangement which would meet objections of the kind. But I must say I have been entirely disappointed in that expectation. The argu ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point has been utterly unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) I stated that the Parliamentary boundaries is the second great cause why the character of the county constituency is perverted. It is difficult to contendagainst that with a high occupation franchise. But when you lower the franchise you aggra vate all the sources of the injury, and at the same time you offer no remedy whatever for the evils which exist. Now, what do I find? The Government repudiates altogether a general revision of the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs. But it says, on the other hand, " We have a great scheme, and that is that the boundaries of Parlia mentary and municipal boroughs should be identical." [Sir G. Grey was understood to express dissent.] I read in tho bill -that the municipal and Parliamentary bounda ries were to be identical. (Hear, hear.) It is a slight matter, but, at all events, having gone through all the clauses—l won't trouble the house with details, for I have taken up too much of its time already— I must say, if the remedy is,as I fancy, the result must practically be that the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries are to be identi cal. These questions, however, arc so rare that they won't at all affect the main issue, nor will they remedy the grievance of which we complain. According to the rest of the scheme connected with municipal boundaries, you propose to call the extra municipal population into the centre of the Parliamentary borough, if that population desired it. But that they would desire it, that the extra municipal population would become Parliamentary, ap pears to me very doubtful, because the reason why people build their mills and their houses without the municipal boundary is that they should not, be subject to municipal rates. (Hear, hear.) As the desire of the extra municipal population is to be the centre-point of the arrangement, I believe that very little will 5e done. (Hear, hear.) Now, these are the two heads under which the great evil of which we complain is aggravated. That great evil is that since the boundaries have been settled there has been an increase of 3,500,000 in the urban population, and with that population the county electors are to be qualified by this new bill. (Hear, hear.) It is no an swer to the case I have put to say that that is to be done only with the towns where the majority of the population is beyond the Parliamentary borough. But thero was au extraordinary argument used by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and I allude to it because it is another instance of the false analogy in which he indulged. The Chancel lor of the Exchequer said— " Take care how you revise the boundaries of Parlia mentary boroughs. Take care not to press the matter too far. If we revise the boundaries of Birmingham and the great northern towns, we must revise the Parliamentary boundaries of other boroughs in England to which the ag ricultural districts have been appended." Sir, that is no answer whatever. What I say is this, "Sup port the settlement made by the Reform Bill." The "ba lance of power," as I may call it, the balance of influence that was settled by the Reform Bill, is what we want you to maintain. (Hear, hear.) That settlement was not made in favour of the Conservative party. It was made by a Li beral Government—a Liberal Government supportedby an immense Liberal majority, and therefore we have a right to conclude that very little favour was shown to us. (Hear, hear.) We find that the boundaries in 1832 have in the large towns practically been entirely violated, and violated to the injury of the legitimate influence of the county po pulation. (Hear.) And what is your answer ? Where the population has.not increased, because in that part of the country in which the boroughs to which I allude are situ ated the population has not increased, in answer to us, who are seeking to maintain the settlement of 1832, and to save ourselves from the violation of our boundaries, you reply, " Oh ! we must examine the boundaries of the other parts of England where those boundaries have not been violated." (Hear.) Well, sir, I have asked the House to consider these questions, which are particular points in the Bill we are asked to read a second time, and which refer principally to the borough franchise, but upon the right understand ing of which the county franchise particularly depends. We are called upon greatly to reduce the borough fran chise. We complain that as the franchise is now ar ranged there are certain evils which call for a remedy. There is a large mass of the population to whom we don't grudge the franchise, but to whom we say, "Exercise it where your industry, capital, and interests are placed." (Hear, hear.) We complain that with the present occupa tion franchise the legitimate influence of the counties is in terfered with. You do nothing in this bill, whether by the grouping of boroughs or the settlement of b oundaries, to give us relief in any way for that most anomalous griev ance by which the freeholder of a borough votes not for the place in which his freehold is contained, but for a place with which he has no connexion. (Hear.) That evil you immensely aggravate by the present bill, because all those boroughs which we are going to enfranchise now possess a great number of freeholders, and there again you obtain a great increase of the county voters. In addition to this, you burrow into the country for legions of lease holders. (Hear.) How are we to deal with the Govern ment when they meet us in such a spirit? How are we to meet them ? If the Government came forward and said, " This is a great occasion, and we are perfectly aware of the justice of your claims. In our judgment you may take an extreme view on this point. But we feel there is some propriety in your requisition. At any rate, you may depend upon our anxiety to meet in a legitimate manner tho diffe rent wants and wishes of all classes in the community." But the position in which we have long been placed, and which is an unjust position, is now to be aggravated. You have additional sources of injury to turn against us. (Hear, hear.) Now, let me remind the house of the circumstances under which these measures have been introduced to us. What I say is known to every gentleman on this side, and I believe to the vast majority on the other. If, when Par liament met, a measure for the improvement of the repre sentation of the people, temperate, well-digested, and tolerably fair, had been breught forward, it would have been my duty, with the entire advice and concurrence of all with whom I act, to have agreed to the second reading. (Hear.) No secret was made of that. It was unneces sary to intimate it. It was the course we have invariably pursued. In 1860, when Lord J. Russell introduced his measure, that was the line of action which we followed. W e immediately consented to the second reading, and that measure, though defeated, was not defeated by the Conser vative party. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. Russell himself ad mitted that. He has left it on record, and I shall repeat his words. In his own terse language he says : "I was defeated by the Liberal party—and not only by the Liberal party, but by those members of the Liberal party who represented great constituencies." (Cheers.) I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State impute to us in 18G0 that we loaded the paper with amend ments. But what is more natural? And is it not always understood that you are to exert yourselves to the utmost to make a measure of the kind advantageous to the coun try ? (Hear, hear.) What an extraordinary_ charge to make ! We had agreed to the second reading ; and is it not a singular proof of the hostility of the Opposition that we should absolutely have put amendments 'on the paper? (Cheers.) I say, then, that the extraordinary cause of de lay as regards this measure is not to be attributed to us. It is difficult to know to whom it is to be attributed—l won't say it is difficult, but I won't point out who it is. (A laugh.) My object to-night is to touch upon things of another kind. I will nct advert to the unfortunate conduct of the Government in the management of their Bills. A great deal of time has undoubtedly been lost; but to whom cover the fault may be attributed this I will say, it is not want of time that will prevent this Bill being fairly con sidered, and, if a good measure, being passed. (Cheers.) We can all of us make a great effort if time bo the only thing wanting. We can sit in the morning and in the even ing. (A laugh.) We could cheerfully devote ourselves to a task which was necessary, which the country required, the,object of which was clearly understood by us, and which was clearly understood by its projectors. The House of Commons would soon make up for lost time ; but, Sir, the cause of the Bill not advancin g , th e cause o f t h e uncom fortable position in which the country, the House of Com mons, and the Government are placed with regard to this measure is other than loss of time. I am sure I do not at this moment wish to say anything which could injure the self-complacency of any individual in this house—(laugh ter)—but there are moments when one must be frank. When there is so much at stake—when there is so much at stake as the future of a great empire, one must be frank; though so far from wishing to offend any one, I say that, to use an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I do offend any one, 1 apologise for it beforehand. (Laugh ter.) But it is not time, it is not want of time, thatprevents our legislating in the matter. It is something else - I say it sincerely, and I wish to speak temperately—it is the want of maturity both in design and preparation which has at tended the measures of the Government in this matter. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, permit me very briefly to prove that statement, for it is of the utmost importance when we aro called upon to read a bill of this magnitude for the second time after only a week's consideration. (Cheers.) Talk of wasting time ! At any rate, that was a course that was compensatory for such ladies. (Laughter.) When Parlia went met we were promised information—papers upon the position of the borough franchise. They were not given to us for a considerable period. I wish to speak my own opinion sincerely with regard to these papers. " I think them very valuable papers, and though they may have been, and unquestionably it was proved that they were, hurriedly prepared in some cases, I believe they were bona fide, and prepared with great ability and sincerity. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, those papers were placed before us; though the house will recollect the almost despairing expressions of the Secretary of State when he pressed him for those papers, which conveyed to the house little prospect of their ever appearing, only a few days or hours before the intro duction of the bill, when wet from the press, and confes sedly, I think, not read by the Chancellor of the Exche quor, they were placed upon the table. They were, as I say, very important papers, and I, for one, received them with that respect which was due to the source from which they originated. Let it be remembered, however, that not only were they hurriedly prepared, but that the principal organ of the Government, the highest authority on the sub ject, after having examined them, rose in his place and in formed the house that they were utterly untrustworthy. (Cheers.) Well, sir, there is another branch of information which was required upon this important subject, and that was information respecting the condition of the county franchise. None was given to us, to the great disappoint ment and surprise of the house. But, although no infor mation, no statistics, no papers respecting the county franchise were given, it would be unfair in me if I did not admit we were amply and frankly informed of the views of her Majesty's Government on that important subject, espe cially with reference to the point which is the origin of this legislation— viz., the position which the working classes occupy in the constituencies. The papers which the Go vernment hurriedly placed before us with regard to the borough franchise produced a considerable sensation in the house, because they proved, and proved, I think, conclusively, that the working classes already possessed a considerable status in the borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) But her Majesty's Government, though they gave us no papers respecting the county franchise, did frankly and ex plicitly give us the result of their deliberations on that subject, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief organ of the Government in this house, and especially on this subject, informed us that in the county franchise the working classes were an infinitesimal quantity ; and, in fact, that no papers were produced as to their position with regard to the county franchise because, in their opinion, they possessed no share in that franchise. You romeniber the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, in an unhappy moment, not wishing to give any offence, made an observation across the table—l will never make one again —(laughter)--and on account of that observation I was violently denounced by the right hon. gentleman, and, in fact,l was almost afraid of my life.(Cheers andlaughter.) " There may," he said, " be some few working men in your county who have votes, but in county constituencies the working man is as the fly in a pot of ointment." Those were his words, and I never shall for get his look. (Laughter.) Well, sir, from that moment 1 have been engaged with the assistance of some gentlemen who are most.practised in such mutters, in en deavouring to obtain information upon this subject. entirely foreign to my habit ever to offer to the house any information which as a private member I may obtain. I think that in our debates, as a general rule, nothing is more salutary than that we should argue, - and certainly that we should legislate, only from authentic and official statistics furnished by the Government. But these are cases, when the Government makes statements which you doubt—when they do not furnish you with information—when they de cline to furnish you with information—when they scoff at you for asking for information—(cheers)—there are cases when you are thrown upon your own resources, and I should be grateful to any man who had been long sitting in this house, and who had been not altogether unaccus tomed to the management of such affairs, if, with the be coming modesty which such a situation would require, he offered—not for the adoption of the house, but for its con sideration—such results as he may have arrived at. What, therefore, I am going to say I do not want the house to accept with any unreasoning credulity, but in that spirit in which I would accept them when in Parliamentary life I received such communications. We did—l won't say thoroughly, but we investigated the subject, and we had communications from many parts of the kingdom. We re ceived them from men in official positions who could give us authentic information, and I am bound to say we have re ceived that information from gentlemen of Liberal opinions as freely and as numerously as from gentlemen of Con servative opinions. We have only had one object, which was to arrive at the result; and the result at which we have arrived at is this—of course the details aro in some respects imperfect, but in others they are very ample—the result is this, and I believe it will eventually be demonstrated if the Government, as I hope, will give orders for an official verifi cation orinvestigation into these matters—that the working men of England have a larger share of the county consti tuency than they have even of the borough constituency, and by which the Government were so startled. (Cheers.) I ask the house, then, is not this another evidence of the immaturity in which all these matters have been dealt with ? (Cheers) Let me sincerely say that in dealing with this portion of the subject—viz., the county franchise—a Go vernment who really believed that the working classes had no share whatever in the constituencies were scarcely qualified to address the house in the manner in which we have been addressed, and told that if we did not pass these measures instantly Parliament should never be prorogued. (Loud cheers.) And now I pass to the third subject, on which I venture to say the same immaturity has been ex emplified, and that is the subject of Parliamentary bounda ries. It is quite clear that when the bill was first brought forward in this house this subject was one which had hardly occurred to the Government, and had occurred to them only as ono of comparative insignificance. It is no answer to me to say, "You did not vigorously deal with it in 1859." We did something, but the years that have suc oeeded 1859 have immenselyaggravated the circumstances; and what the house has to decide is not upon the compara tive lathes of one Ministry and another, but upon what ought to be done for the public good. (Cheers) I say, then, that the manner in which that subject has been treated, and now hurriedly dealt with by the Government, is a third proof of the immaturity of their proceedings in this matter. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, the fourth proof, I think, is the bill before the house. If there be a subject which will most tax the profundity and the discretion of a Minis try, it is the distribution of Parliamentary seats, which is, in fact, the distribution of political power in this country-- (hear, hear) —and I say that it was impossible to have pro duced a scheme upon the subject more troublesome, more vexatious,iand which, at the same time, produced less satis factory results. But are we to be surprised at such conse quences ? Is it not notorious that when the Franchise Bill was introduced the Minister who introduced it never even contemplated a bill for the redistribution of seats— (cheers)—and that this vast subject, which required so much thought, so much research, such temper, such forbear ance, and such firmness alike, was never considered except in the few hasty days—or hours rather—which they snatched from other engrossing labours during the agitated fort night between which it was promised and Produced ? Is this, or is it not, anotherproof of the immaturity with which all these measures have been prepared ? (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, I am told as I walk down to the House of Commons every day—l am told by men in the street as I come down Parliament-street, " Awn forte vie sacra"—(a laugh)— somebody tells me, " I hope you are going to settle the question." Sir, ignorance never settles a question. Ques tions must be settled by knowledge, and it is not the vexa tion of an opposition, from which ever side of the house it may come, that prevents this bill from advancing. It is that we none of us see our way—l say it with a frankness that I trust will be pardoned. I don't believe the question of Parliamentary reform is thoroughly understood by the country— (hear, hear)—is thoroughly understood by this house—(hear, hear) ; and, although I dare only utter it in a whisper, I don't believe that it is thoroughly understood by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers and laughter.) I recollect a pass age in the clasLic Plato where the great sage descants upon what he calls "double ignorance," and that is where a man is ignorant that he is ignorant. (Cheers and laughter.) But, sir, in legislating there is another kind of double ignorance that is fatal to proper legislation. There is, in the first place, an ignorance of principles, and in the second, an ignorance of the facts upon which those principles are based. And that is our position in dealing with this important question. There is not a majority in this house that can decide upon the principles upon which we ought to legislate in regard to this matter ; there is not a man in this house who has at his command any reliable facts upon which he can decide those principles. (Hear.) Bet then the question arises—What are we to do? I admit the difficulty. I do not shut my eyes to the position in which we are placed. The country, the House of Com mons are—it is a clsssical, although it may seem an idiomatic phrase, as it was used by Dean Swift -in a scrape. (Cheers and laughter.) And I should despair of escaping from this perplexity and this predicament had I not unlimited confidence in the good nature and the good sense of the House of Commons. We must help the Government. (Cheers and laughter. We must forget the last two months. The right honourable gen tleman must recross the Rubicon, he must build up his bridges, and we will supply him with vessels. The right hon. gentleman is in a position in which he can retire from this question of reform for the moment with dignity .to himself and to his colleagues. He must not sacrifice his country, his party, or his own great name to a feeling of pique. (Hear, hear.) He is still supported by a majority; he is not in the position of a Minister whose reputation and the fortune of whose Cabinet aro staked upon indivi-• dual measures in a house wherein it is known that he is in a minority. That has been the unfortunate position of others, but it is not his. He occupies a far different posi tion, in deference to what I believe to be the wish of the country and the desire di the House of Commons. Now, what hag he to do ? It seems to mo that the most advan tageous and the most dignified conduct for him to adopt would be this :—Let him at once give instructions that complete and accurate statistics shall be prepared with re gard to the borough franchise—not hurriedly, but with time and with attention, and in an impartial manner, so that no person shall be able to rise and say that we are called on to legislate upon this question upon facts which are utterly untrustworthy. Let him, recognising the un fortunate admissions which the Government under the mis taken views which they adopted with reference to the county constituencies, give immediate orders that the most ample information should be acquired as to the share which the working classes of this country possess in the county franchise ; let him direct that such information should be provided with care and discrimination. I think such in quiries may be trusted with safety and security to those persons who have provided us with the information we now have relating to boroughs, and which are imperfect merely because of the hurried manner in which it was pro duced. Let the right hon. gentleman, then, to-morrow, after consulting his colleagues, give orders that sub-com missioners, acting under the Enclosure Commissioners, should visit all the Parliamentary boroughs of England and report upon their boundaries. Let the right hon, gen tleman give up this scheme of grouping represented boroughs, which he must see is repudiated by both sides of the house ; let him boldly acknowledge that the pro per way of dealing with t subject is to appeal to the spirit of justice of the represented boroughs to spare him a few members from their superfluity; let him prepare a well-digested and complete scheme, which will give repro s entation where required upon the principle of grouping the unrepresented towns of the country ; and, having done all these things, let him consider the results with his col leagues, and when Parliament meets again he will have the opportunity—which I am willing to give him every credit for—of submitting to our consideration a measure which will command the sympathies of the country, and which will obtain the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheers. Mr. CA.RDWELL, on the part of the Government, de clined to follow the advice of Mr. Disraeli, and contended that the measure was one of sound and constitutional Re form, while the views enunciated by Mr. Disraeli were altogether opposed to the spirit of the Reform Act. He defended the propositions of the Government, especially with reference to the grouping of boroughs, and said that if they wished to throw the question of Reform over alto gether, they could adopt no more effectual means than sending out a commission and endeavouring, upon their report, to group in various parts of the country a variety of places which were now unrepresented. The bill had been introduced, not with the view of benefiting any par ticular class, but with the view of benefiting every branch of the community. He trusted that by the moderation of party faction, and the exercise of the good sense and judg ment of the house, parliament would bo able, during the present session, to bring to a satisfactory conclusion this lung -agitated question. Mr. A. WALSH remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his own showing, had been dazzled by the splendour of Canning and caught by the glitter of Birmingham. But was there any reason for believing that his viows and opinions were entirely settled ? The present bill affected 79 seats, 48 of which were Conservative and 31 Liberal. He had been somewhat astonished to find 8,000 selected as the limit above which the seats should not be interfered with, but on turning to " Dod's Parliamentary Companion" ho found that of the 17 additional seats which would have been affected if the limit had been raised to 1 10,000 16 were L iberal seats and only one Conservative , so that his astonish ment at once vanished. Mr. ARKWRLGHT strongly condemned the bill. The Gor -ernment app'aared to him to have actsd on " The good old rule—the simple plan - That they shall take who have the power, AL :d they shall keep who can." His own opimslo was that the Government would have done more credit to themselves if they had been just be fore being generous. After some observe tions from Mr. J. HARDY and Mr. DUTTON, Sir S. NORTH COTE, referring to a notice given by Mr Bouverie, of his intention to move that the Redistribution of Seats bill should he , referred to the same committee as the Representation of the People Bill, in order that the committee should mak e both bills into one, asked what the Government proposed to do in the matter. The CHANCIELLOV , of the EXCHEQUER said the Go vernment intended to h' ecede to the suggestion of Mr. Bouverie. The bill was then r.c:ad a second time, and the committee fixed for Monday, the 'z'Bth inst. The orders of the day _for the second reading of the Re presentation of the People (Scotland) Bill and the Repre sentation of the People (Ireland) )3111, which stood next on the paper, were then passed over. The Crown Lands Bill was read a third time and passed* The Companies Act (1862) Amendment Bill, and the Pior and Harbour Orders Confirmation Bill, and the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill were read a second time. The Convicts' Property Bill was read a third time and passed. The Life Insurance (Ireland) Bill, the Landed PropertY Improvement (Ireland) Bill, and the' Grand Juries Present ment (Ireland) Bill were read a third time and passed. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND obtained leave to bring in a bill to authorise thie Town Council of Belfast to levy and pay charges in respect of extra con stabulary. Sir S. NORTHCOTE, in the absenct) of Col. T a y lor, moved for a now writ for the borough of Davenport in the room of Mr. Fleming and Mr. Ferran. d, unseated o n petition. Agreed to. The house then adjourned. COUNTRY MARKETS. NORTHAMPTON—MAY 12. New white wheat, 45s to 49s ; new red, 40s to 48s ; old white, 488 to 535; old red, 448 to 49s per 36 stone. Bale)" for malting, 38s to 40s per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 38 s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 34s ' • new, 28s to 32s per 24 s tone. Beans, old, 46s to 50s ; new, 42s to 45s per 88 stone. Pea`' 36s to 40s per 36 stone. RD—MAY 11. lerate supply of wheat. The t sorts were is per qr dearer s. Beans met with a fa ir sale tired for. Peas, Partridge ...... 36 as 34a 0 398 White ..' B. fling ........ 370 41s Dun........... 4 CI dit'o, new.... --0 Beaus, Tick, old 40s new....35s 39! Harrow ficks.3Bo 4.' new.... 350 0,0 3fazsgan . ..... 340 100 CHELMSFO Here to-day we had a mode trade was very dull, and best Oats firm, and made late rates at late rates. Peas were inqu Whekst, old white....44s 52s new .4ze 51s old red 3is 45s new. 35s 45s Barley . 2ss 33s Chevalier.. 388 42a Grinding ' , Ps 34s Malt sBs Os Chevalier 60s 82a Oats GRANTHAM—MAY 12. Old white wheat, 52s to 545; old red, 49s to 52s ; white, 49s to 52s ; new red, 44s to 47s per 36 stone. i' d '`; ley for malting, 36s to 42s per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 33 P e 4 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s pe r stone. Beans, old, 48s to 51s; new, 44s to 46s per 38 stone' Peas, 36s to 40s per 36 stone. COLCHESTER—MAY 12. hich A very small supply of wheat, all descriptions of w , sold at is to 2s per qr more money. Barley nomin t " price. Beans and peas were the turn dearer. Wheat, white. 46s 56s Beans 370 41. , Mazagan....••„,, 40. red .4:48 :Aim Middle and small.-0.• Barley .... ... ....... 303 433 Peas, white 38.9 4 i r s Oats grey ...363 ABERDEEN—MAY 11. There was a moderate a tt en d ance o f d e alers &- t the market to-day, but little business done. White wheat 40s Od to 45s Od bushel Red wheat t . 40s Od to 45s Od 25s Od to 25e 6d I f Potato oats 62lb 1 1 40Th 113 bush el. Common oats 24s Od to 24s 64 Bere 30s Od to 31s Od , T s bus— hel. Barley Oatmeal 32s Od to 32s 6d)` 531 b 19s 6d to 20s Od ¶ boll of Orb Flour, fine 36s Od to 37s Od sac k of 280Ik KIRKCALDY—MAY 12. - a Small supplies of wheat, barley, and oats, with a lim its business. Wheat is up on recent prices. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First...— 450 Od l6s Od I 288 61 it mond-- 46s 61- 1 36s 6,1 30s od Third 4BB 6 I 3 s Od 318 Od COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. U ~ 5 s. d. . i R g Walls End Hetton lB 6 S ou th H e tt on ......... .- 6 Hartlepool 6 9 "Lawn Lyons ... ... 16 3 Ed en M a i n 1 g Tunstall West Hartley a - Walls End Haswell... 18 ' 6 Hastings Hartley 7 1 6 ' Cassop 16 3 Braddyell's Hetton.... 17 6 Fran i w e ll ga t e Walker Primros , l3 9 Harton Ships at market, 87; sold, 75. THE TUG OF WAR.—According to a weekly c°"; temporary,_ the general opinion seems to be that th e figil will turn on the ch ange of the £7 borough franchise to one of £B,—on which the Government are pretty sure to b e defeated, and the only question is whether they wi ll disgracec pt the i d t e s f e e l f a t. by w hich len ds aWbaendtnionsitugnotlit.e only change w rro to effect the purpos e f or w hi c h Reform is deman ded. -- to cling to power at s uc h a sacr i fice would be ultimately lose both power and character. .4DVERTISEMENT.]-110110Way'S Ointment and rg l tre, A ord of Promise.—All sufferers from sores, n, Le „ - t ly scorbutic affection; and other diseases, may confl a w e " . o.l commence the treatment of their several infirmitie s these healing and cleansing remedies. trader Solloway well-tried ind m ly ri k e dedicaments the worst cases will soon assu tbe a m aspect; and in the progress of the cu re d's. a illit r ed will neith er b e em b arrassed by d i f fi cu lties nor do_ h eartened by fail ures, an d a littl e perseverance and r t ch rate attention to the " directions for use" en veloping . ,id to packet of ointm en t an d p ill s w ill ena bl e every in vi ' cs . fal cure himself, an d t o con d uc t hi s comp l a i n t t o a sune e- ihis issue ; and he may feel assured that by following d, simple but searchi ng t rea t men t hi s s ki n w ill b e wade 5- - severe suffering spared, and health restored. tliA" [ADVERTISEMENT.] Dyspepsia (indigestion), -- es . lion, debility, c onsum pti on , an d a ll nervous, bili o us. Itt , „,sea 7 0 1 and liver complaints in every stag e , are on ly aggral lit r, our acceleraced by drugs of every description, but perfect' , bl ot able by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Ara ri rood, as proved by thousands of oases which had been b u' oo, sidered hopeless, such as—cough, asthma, also morrhoids, liver complaints, flatulency, aell t°l/ . o — so, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria, Catarr ils '; na' influenza, noses in the head and ca', iheumatisM, g o ". 1 0- parities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, fret:, nese, acidity, palpitation. heartburn, headache, L`",,reg dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in : 13 , Of nancj , or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tigli f t the the chest, pains in the pit of the stomach and between °5 shoulders, dm. We quote a few :—Cure No. 46,276- S r- e Roberts, timber merchant, of Friml e y, Surrey, of 30 car oar" diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangements , ' t o ,. tial deafness.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Eli z abeth .4° 6°3 l ° and treme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings ; low BPi7,-:11orfl nervous fancies. —Cure No. 1,771. Lo r d St u art de Deca'' 9,B 32. lieut. of atertord, of many years' dyspepsia-1-N°' 4 eBS, ?if ty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, n er " usn itud asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms,alek ne t r aeo vomiting—Maria July.—Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. id T. Campbell, Fakenham. Norfolk, of indigestion and t 0111....„ ity of the liver, which had resisted all medical treatrael_!4. In tins, 11b, 2s 9d; 21b, 4s 63 ; 51b, 11s; 12113, 225; 408.—Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, Lono_7oo also Phillips, tea ebalers, 8, King William-street; Ilke at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, BishOpso . street Within ; 63, 150, and 298, Oxford-street ; 330, Straps 4, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-court-road; Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, Notting-hill; Cl 4 Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen's-terrace. 1 1; John's-wood. London; and all respectable grocers and C°` mists.—Beware of spurious imitations. , 4 4 } I~ Births. DUNDAS —On the 12th i ns t., a t Bl aenpan t , Cardigans birel the wife of Adam D. Dundas, Esq., of a daughter. .-C n .to of FeussErr—On the 12th i ns t„ at Groat Marlow, th e W Lieutolonel Faussett, 44th Regiment, of a sou. TERRY—On the 13th i ns t., a t W e yb r id ge , the wife °f F. Terry, Esq., 60th Rifles, of a son. TATum--On the 14th inst., at 2, Carton-place, We st bou s ru to r e ; park, the wif e o f H enry T atum, E sq ., Military Staff, of a son. Marriages. he% MUMFORD—NEWPOR—On the 12th inst., at Sto ° dee Hackney, Charles M umford, Esq., of New Forest L° Blackheath, to Mary Ann, only daughter of the late Newport, Esq., of Loose, near Maidstone. mural RYAN—SumNER—On the 12th inst., at the Italia n — ln's of St. Peter, Lond on , A r th ur C . Ryan, of 1 0 , L ine° g hter inn -fields, solicitor, to Mary Sumner, adopted d eu- deu• of Domenico Brucci an i, o f R usse ll- s t ree t, Covent-ger o B A A \ vETBs go/N.:lca- og O a etn n odrt, t 7h l sK .1 the 11th cl l .l 2 Bt t i h . 1, i D if ins t., at 6, Eaton-place, DYMOND g• —On the 11th ' tat Mount Radford, Exeter, ms ~ Dymond, aged 65. DRUMMOND—On the 10th inst. in Portman-square, sir J• W. Drummond,' of Hawthornden, N. 8., aged 53. d or DOUGLAS—On the 11th inst ,at Lower Ward, 'ffin,, s o. Castle, Capt. J. Douglas, M:K., late 45th Regt., uge l , sus- FRY— On the 11th inst., at The W 1 h Rotherfield ou' a s es, sex, Robert B. Fry, Esq. aged 50. t eaths. h.ll GAencsSen' HICKMAN—On the 12th ins ' t , at Cardington, near Bedford, Mr. J. Hickman, aged 66. • county PERCEVAL —On the Bth hist , at Temple House, Sligo, Alex. Perceval, Esq., 44. -----......... aignesdt"B2a.t HighburY- 1 ' ' 2, London : Printed and Published by WILL IAII .00 of No. 112, Strand, Pithier at TfiZ SUN Od, o f Strand, in the Precinct of the gsvoy .in the Co ln "' Kiddleses.—Tucticlay, May 15, 1866. .