The Sun. — London, England, 1865-12-14 00:00:00

Mr, Bright at Birmingham. BIRMINGIIAM, Wednesday. A town's meeting of the inhabitants of Birming ham, convened by the Mayor, was held in the Townhall this evening, for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of Parliamentary Reform. The hall was crowded in every part. _ • Mr. YATES, the Mayor of Birmingham, presided, and he was supported by Mr. Bright, M.P., and numerous local celebrities. Mr. Scholefield, the other representative of the borough, was prevented by ill health from being present. A letter was read from the hon. member apologising for his absence, and declaring his readiness to support any real measure of Parliamentary Reform which may be introduced by the Government in the forthcoming session of Parliament. The proceedings hav;,!--b .- een opened bytheMayor in abrief Alderman LLOYD moved, seconded by Mr. RADFORD, " That in the opinion of this meeting the state of the country is peculiarly favourable for im mediate legislation on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and that the repeatedly expressed opinion and the recorded pledges of the more prominent members of the present Government render it espe cially incumbent upon the existing Ministry to pre pare at once a comprehensive measure of Reform, calculated to satisfy the just expectations of all sections of the Liberal party." Mr. BRIGHT, when the cheering with which he was received had subsided, said—Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen, I lament very much that on this occasion we have not the presence of my hon. col league, Mr. Scholefield. (Hear, hear.) I regret it more because his absence arises from the state of his health. My opinion is that, like a great many men who are in Parliamentary life, he has worked too hard, and is suffering from over-work. I have, as you know, before I was politically connected with this borough, passed through a period of greatphysical weakness, and I can sympathise with anyone suffer ing from the same cause. I may tell you further, that hard work and over-work has been to a large extent given in your service, and therefore I feel that I may ask you to have whatever forbearance may be necessary, and to give to Mr. Scholefield, should it be needful, such a period of relaxation as the state of his health may require. (Cheers.) Since I was permitted on the last occasion to speak from this platform a considerable change has taken place in the condition and prospect of public affairs. Since that day we have had the election of a new Parlia ment completed ; we have also got a new Minister at the helm, and further we have a new policy avowed with regard to the new Parliament. I hope it will be found that there is a larger majority sitting on the Liberal side of the house than has been found in any preceding Parliament of our time excepting that one which was elected immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) With regard to the new Minister, although he is new, yet it must be ad mitted that he is somewhat old. (Laughter.) He is old in the services rendered to his country, and I think, not forgetting any errors in his political career, that he must be considered also in his attachment to freedom. (Cheers.) With regard to the policy which I have described as new, although it is apparently now new, yet after all it is but the illustration of the ancient policy of the Whigs and the Liberal party. (Cheers.) Now, I fancy that in this matter we feel that the prospects of the country—l speak now of its political prospects—are brighter and better than they have been for some time past—l suspect that that is also the opinion of the country ; for I ven ture to say that the sentiments that will be uttered at this meeting to-night, and the resolution to which I believe you will givean almostunanimous consent, will meet with the approbation and consent of the great body of the people of the United Kingdom. (Cheers.) But it seems in almost all mundane affairs that everybody after all is not quite content, and judging from writings in certain portions of the press, and from some recent speeches, I presume our old friends the Tories are by no means in a cheerful mood—(laughter)—they are subjected to what I should call spasmodic apprehension, and whenever any change is about to take place—which a few years afterwards they all admit was a very bene ficent change, and which by and by they begin to support they behave as if they thought the deluge was coming back again, and that there was no ark in which they could find refuge. (Laughter.) We have had very recently a speech from rather a conspicuous member of the Tory party, who represents a very small borough, perhaps twenty or twenty-five miles from this. I speak of the member for the borough of Droitwich. Now I will not depreciate the member for Droitwich, and I do not wish to depreciate the borough which he represents. It is a borough which ought to have been enfranchised by the Reform act. (Laughter.) But instead of that I am told that it was made to include a good many miles of agricultural district, and that the character of the borough was thereby changed. I see from Parliamentary returns that the borough of Droitwich occupies no less than forty-one square miles of ground, which I believe is about three times as much as is occupied by the whole borough of Birmingham. Still Sir John Pakington is member for Droitwich, and he sits in the House of Commons, and he has been Colonial Secretary of State and First Lord of the Admiralty and a member, of course, of the Cabinet of Lord Derby ; being then a conspicuous man, we may judge a little of what is going on from what he says. When I refer to his speech, I see that he positively bemoans the condition and the prospects of his party. He is anxious to get rid of obsolete fancies and old enemies. Well, the Tories have once changed their names to Conservatives, and I suppose that being found out, it will be necessary to have some other name, and Sir John Pakington asks that they shall have a great constitutional party. Now he does not think that the Govern ment will be able to carry a Reform Bill such as we want, because he believes that the House of Com mons will not listen to such propositions. There were many men on the Liberal side of the House who will coalesce with the Tories to prevent any bill of the kind being passed. He then refers to the speeches made on our side of the house, especially to the speeches made last session by Lord Elcho, Mr. Hors man, and Mr. Lowe, which he praises highly. He classes those gentlemen as three of our best statesmen —(laughter)—and evidently, and very naturally, looks to considerable support from that quarter. As to Lord Elcho, I find that he is enthusiastically in favour of the Governor of Jamaica ; therefore I do not believe myself that the Liberal party, or Liberal opinions, or a reform bill of any value, will have the slightest need to regret if Lord Elcho has gone away to his own proper place on the other side of the house. But this idea of a coalition of Si r J . Pakington's is worthy of consideration for a moment. Who are the parties to he got rid of ? I suppose on his own side he must get rid of Mr. Newdegate. Mr. Newdegate is a gentleman who is generally wrong in his views, but who is in the main sturdily inde pendent. I do not know, also, how he will be able to keep such parties as the leader whom he follows, for we all recollect that when the Aberdeen Govern ment was first formed Mr. Disraeli, with an oracular voice, proclaimed that England did not love coali tions. I suppose, therefore, Sir J. Pakington will get rid of Mr. Newdegate on the one hand, and his leader, Mr. Disraeli, on the other. I do not know how many h e expects from our side of the house to join in this coalition, but bear in mind that the con stituencieswill have something to say in this matter ; and if members on our side, elected as Liberal mem bers on our side, elected as Liberal members, and expected to vote for a Liberal Government and in favour of a measure of reform, desert their pledges and violate their promises, their constituencies, I hope, are independent enough and liberal enough to look after their representatives in this matter, and e duty or dismiss them keep them to their f rom their service. Sir J. Pakington proposed to form a great constitutional party, and he said that its cry will be constitutional progr, ess— not the cry of d espair which he is now uttering—a party which i s rea d y to grant all reasonable demands which the real in terests of the country require, and not less firmly disposed to resist all dangerous concessions. All the blessings that we have been rece ivin g for the last 3° Years Sir J. Pakington and his friends were contending ought not to be granted, bnt resisted and they have been resisted with the power and force which that party possesses. But ho says further — and this is rather a remarkable expression—" I think I may sum up the condition of parties in one brief expression. While the Whigs and the Tories are quarrelling, Republicans are advancing." (Cheers and laughter.) Now I suppose, unless we are greatly mistaken, we know what the Whigs are, and what the Tories are ; but up to this moment we have no practical guide as to who are the Re publicans of whom he speaks. (Cheers.) I presume be must mean the Liberals who are Liberal without being bound to the Whig party ; and if so, I am not certain that it would not include a very large portion of this meeting ; and possibly he might fall into the mistake of including me in that list. (Cheers and laughter.) Now I should like to give Sir J. Pakington and a friend of his a little advice. I have to complain very much of the inaccuracy— and I would almost say the untruthfulness—of two right hon. gentlemen of your neighbourhood—Sir John Pakington one, Mr. Adderley the other. (Laughter.) I think since I was here last Mr. Ad derley has made a speech at a dinner within your town, and in that speech he took the liberty of say ing, in reference to me—l speak from memory— that I was one who would wish to substitute a President for the Queen of this realm. Now, I make a good deal of allowance for Mr. Adderley. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Adderley, if he speak to the questions belonging to his party, has not be fore him a - very lively subject, and he never was a very lively speaker ; and although it may be con venient to make personal, and what I call the inso lent and untruthful remarks which he made respecting me, with a view of giving a little spice to his speech, yet I think, considering the position he holds in the county and in the country, and also the position which he has held in the Government, he ought to be a little more careful of what he says. (Cheers) And I would say the same to Sir J. Pakingtou. (Laughter and cheers.) He has no right to say that a political party which includes the vast majority of the people can fairly be styled in this monarchical country as republican. He is doing what, in my opinion, is not a very wise thing ; and what, if he does not know that we are Republicans, is not a very moral thing for him todo. But these men , your Pakingtons and Adderleys, I dare say they have read history—although I would not guarantee it—when they were at Oxford or Cam bridge—(laughter)—hut they appear to have gained no knowledge from what they have read. We have seen republican triumphs ; we have seen monarchies overthrown. But what does history tell us of those events when the English monarchy was overthrown 200 years ago ? Who were the persons really re sponsible for that catastrophe ? Why, every reader of English history must know that Buckingham and Strafford, and Laud, and the duplicity of Charles 1., were responsible for the great catastrophe which happened in English history. And if you come to the close of the last century, and examine into the history of France, and ascertain how it was that one of the oldest and one of the greatest monarchies came to au end, and the King himself to an end equally terrible with that which befel Charles 1., you will find that those evils came from a corrupted Church, from a tyrannous and a profligate Court. (Loud cheers.) And if, coming to our own day, within the last six years, you ask what has destroyed and extinguished the dynasty which ruled over the Neapolitan kingdom, you will find it was the dark ness of the priesthood and the feebleness and cor ruption of the administration. And further, if you ask what it was that convulsed the United States— what it was that spread the horrors of war over a country on that continent equal in extent to half a dozen European kingdoms—you will find that it was not the friends of freedom, but the conserva tive slaveholders. Those are the men who endea voured to destroy the most free Government, and, as has been proved, the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. (Cheers.) But in Birming ham it seems a work of supererogation to talk of these things, for the very stones of your streets could teach us something of these matters. Thirty years ago, or a little more, your streets resounded with the tramp of tens of thousands of men gathered together in favour of reform. The air was full of menaces of war, and the very ground seemed to be trembling beneath their feet. And what happened? The revolutionists of that time—the boroughmongers and the Tory Peers—succumbed. That great crisis passed, and there was no disturbance of the public peace. (Cheers.) Look now at the great changes which have taken place since that stirring event—changes, all of which, vith scarcely any con siderable exception, have been in favour of freedom, and in favour of the rights and true interests of the great masses of our population. But leaving out of view the question of the effect upon the people, what has been the effect of these changes upon the position of the Throne ? Does any man deny that the Queen of England is not more secure upon the throne of England than any monarch who has sat upon that throne during any preceding period of English history?, (Cheers.) There is no man in this island certainly who wishes to wrest the sceptre from her hand. The realm has been tranquil for a longer period than at any time of our recorded history ; and the cause of it is this—that the people feel that the Throne is in no manner the enemy of freedom, nor is its influence lent to that faction of which Sir J. Pakington is the latest spokesman. But now, why is it that these gentlemen either feel or pretend so much alarm ? " Russell and Reform" is a vision of 30 years ago. But, after all, if these men had a little more courage, and would examine the question a little more, they would find that their fears were foolish and childish. The bill of 1860, I suppose, will be the foundation, and probably somewhere very near the bill which will come into Parliament next month. When it was brought into the house in 1860 it passed a second reading without a divi sion. The Tories did not object—they could not, dared not, object to its principle; and I believe it wanted very little to have induced them to allow the bill to pass the House of Commons without a division. They themselves brought in a bill in 1859 --it was not a very honest bill—it was too clever by half. It proposed a £lO qualification for counties, and as a balance to shut out all freeholders in boroughs from voting in counties, the object being to continue the county representation strictly in the hands of the landed proprietors. It did not presume to reduce the rental franchise in boroughs, but it proposed several modes of allowing in a few people who happened not to be in, but who for the most part are not really of those whom it seems a pity to ex clude in bulk, namely, the working classes. But even in regard to that, two very respectable mem bers of that Cabinet, Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley, differed from their colleagues ; they were in favour of reducing the borough franchise from £lO to £.8,• and differing from their colleagues they resigned and left the Government. There does not seem to be such a frightful chasm between certain main propositions of that bill and that of the succeeding year, that a man was to he fri g htened out of his tensesthat a the t if he wereasked to leap ver it. Assuming h Government will bring in a bill—l am not authorised to say anything about it, for really Iknow nothing about it—but assuminn , that the Govern ment will bring in a bill whichwill give the franchise to £lO occupiers in counties, and in to all persons rated to the relief of the poor or to all householders —either of which would be much better than the proposition to give it to the occupiers of £6 houses—whichever of these propositions they offer to Parliament and the country, I should like to know on what authority Sir John Pakington dares to assume that those who are in favour of this measure of emancipation are Republicans and hostile to the constitution and monarchy of this country. (Cheers.) Lord Aberdeen was a Minister of the greatest probity, of great wisdom and mode ration, and he approved of a measure almost pre cisely the same with regard to the borough franchise. But was Lord Aberdeen a Revolutionist or a Re publican ? Was Mr. Sydney Herbert a Republican ? Was the late Duke of Newcastle a Republican? Was the long-experienced Sir James Graham a Republican ? Was one of the most learned states men of our time—the late Sir G. C. Lewis—a Re publican ? Is Mr. Gladstone deserving of that name ? Or Lord Russell himself, politically repre senting one of the wealthiest and most powerful and most honourable aristocraticfamiliesof England, is he one of the party upon whom a ban is to be laid by styling them Republicans, and therefore revolu tionists? (Cheers.) But we may go further. What of the Queen herself ? In 1860 the Queen gave her hearty consent to that measure, and I do not suppose that the Queen does not know what she is doing. The Queen has never been merely a mechanical Sovereign, putting her hand and signature to public documents without understanding them. She has a great responsibility upon her. She studies these questions, and she comprehends them. She gave her support to the bill which was about to be brought in—(cheers)—and not only in 1860 did the Queen do so, but the Prince Consort—he who was then at her side, a wise and loving counsellor, gave his support to that measure. All the persons I have mentioned knew, and all those who are now living know, thoroughly well that the throne is only safe, not when it is based on the privileges or the mono poly of a faction, but on the affections of a trusted and well-governed people. (Cheers.) Sir J. Pakington cries for what he calls the formation of a great constitutional party which shall command in the House of Commons on the broadest and safest principles, and whose cry shall be " Conservative progress." Now I should like to ask Sir J. Paking ton a little bit about constitutional history, but I dare say it is the point that he has not very mi nutely examined. We have been accustomed to understand that the political constitution of this country involves the existence of the Crown, of the peers in their house, and of the commonalty in their house. Now we are commons. In this noble hall there are assembled several thousand persons, and it s would not be possible in any building or hall in the Uniied Kingdom to eollect together more than five or six thousand. Therefore it might be said with accuracy that we are the commons of England. I said at the beginning of my observations that the sentiments uttered here to-night, arftl the resolu tions which will be passed, will meet with the ap probation of the people—(cheers)—and I say again as I said before, that we here assembled are speak ing in the name of the Commons of England. (Cheers.) Now, the history of England—the his tory that is to be relied upon—has not a page of ancient time on which there is not written some account of a system of representation. We have had a representative Government, more or less per fect, from the earliest times. We have a monarch wearing the crown and bearing a sceptre. Does any one dare to affirm that the Crown at this moment is not in all its powers free and unmolested? That branch of the Constitution is still perfect and power ful, although not so powerful as it once was. We come next to the peerage. Within the last 100 years the peerage has been almost or about doubled in numbers. We are not calling into question any of the rights which belong to them under the Consti tution, or their wealth, or their wisdom in their own chamber. But if the Crown be free from molesta tion, and if the privileges of the peers in the main are independent, have not we, the commons of Eng land, an undoubted right to examine whether we are fully and fairly represented—(cheers)--whether the people are fully and fairly representedin that branch of Parliament which we call theirs. They are the nation. These five millions of men, the heads of five millions of families, are entirely unrepresented, and not by any mistake. It was not by any mistake in the Reform Bill of 1832 ; it was an intentional deed which shut the doors at £lO, *hen they knew that -the great body of the people did not live in houses of more than £5 value—shut them out with abso lute purpose of exclusion. They represent 25 million of people —men, women, and children—who, as times go, constitute a considerably large nation and comprise - a very large proportion of this community. I should like to know from this new constitutional party—it is most obsequious to the Crown, it de lights to circle round the throne, it is deferential to the House of Lords—l should like to ask whether they think this question, this demand of five million of men, is a reasonable request to be granted, or a dangerous concession, to be resisted to the utmost ? (Cheers.) If Sir J. Pakington were here he would probably get up after me and try to give an answer to this question. I hope that, when it comes to be discussed in the House of Commons, we shall hear what he has to say in reply to it. Does any man doubt ? Is any man so utterly incompetent to com prehend any question of history as to say that the de mand the people are now making would change the character of the monarchy . , or alter the constitution of the House of Peers? Does any man dare to say that this demand of being represented in the House of Commons is one that is not right and constitu tional for you to make? (Cheers.) If anyone dares to say so, I must refer a little to history again. There is a book recently published by Mr. Forster : it is the life of Sir J. Elliot. He was a great man, a great friend of freedom, and in the first year of the reign of Charles I. he was a great Parliamentary leader. He struggled with that monarch for the rights of Parliament and the rights of freedom. By illegal and tyrannous conduct he was incarcerated in the Tower for a long time, and died during that imprisonment. Mr. Forster's book is a valuable addition to English history, and especially with re spect to the times of Sir J. Elliot. I find that in 1628, on the occasion of a great many petitions being presented in Parliament immediately after a general election, the electors complained that people were shut out from voting by a small clique who had returned the sitting members. There is the case of the neighbouring town of Warwick. The question whether the mayor and corporation, or the Commons should return the members, the decision was in favour of the latter—the Commons in gene ral. It is also a remarkable fact, that a counter petition was got up by the mayor and corpozation, who had induced upwards of 200 persons to sign it and disclaim that right to vote for their members. The committee rejected their petition, and resolved that the right of electing their members rested with the Commons, and with no mayor or town council. The electors of Colchester had 'to petition. The dispute was between the bailiff and the common councilmen, who met in the upper room, and the burgesses who assent to it in the lower room. The power of election was adjudged to be in the common sorts of burgesses exclusively. From the borough of Lewes there was a petition. In that borough neither mayor nor bailiffs existed, and the election had been made by a small number of constables. It was taken from them and given to the inhabitants. At Bridport the question was whether the electors resided in the commonalty in general or in the bailiffs and the thirteen capital burgesses, and the decision was in favour of the commonalty, and the resolution on the journals of the house was that the commonalty ought to have a voice in the election of burgesses for Parliament. At Boston there wasa dis pute between a select number and the commonalty, and it was decided in favour of the latter, and the house declared that nothing should restrict such rights but prescription and constant usage beyond memory. In 1628 Parliament, which made a most magnani mous struggle in favour of therights of the common people, declared that in all cases the right of election in boroughs resided in the commonalty in general ; but coming to a later period I will give you an autho rity no less important, and this authority I recom mend particularly to the notice of the Prime Mi nister. (Hear.) In the time of William lll.—in the year 1702—there was a question discussed relative to the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill. It was a bill of an infamous character passed by a violent Tory majority in the House of Commons. The object was to cut off from the elective franchise every man in the kingdom who was not connected with the Established Church, or who would not take could he take dts e ; t t h e r s e r e t f h o r r o e u g i t h o w u o t u t l h d e k h i a n v g e d o disfranchised all the dissenters throughout the kingdom. At that t the tests th a t on l y members of the Established Church allt time Lord Somers was a very important person in the House of Lords. He was the most distinguished man ever connected with the Whig party in this country. He was not a man of aristocratic birth and connexions, but the son of a solicitor in Wor ' cester or the neighbourhood. But he was a man of extraordinary ability, of great industry, and of re markable knowledge and acquirements. He came to have the greatest authority in this country under the king. He opposed that bill, and there was a conference between the two houses; the Commons determined to pass the bill, and the Lords were determined, if possible, that it should not pass on thatoccasion. The Lords were more liberal than the Commons, and THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1865. they would be much more liberal now if they had not been so greatly increased in numbers during the last 100 years. (Cheers.) Now what did Lord Somers say at this conference ? I hope every person in this room will carry away with him the language of this most distinguished statesman. He was speaking for the Lords in this conference, and he said that " The Lords, allowing that no man can claim a place by birthright, yet conceive that giving a vote for a representative in Parliament is the essential privilege whereby every Englishman pre serves his property, and that whatsoever deprives him of such vote deprives him of his birthright.' (Cheers.) If you want to see more about this mat ter, and will turn to the life of Lord Somers, in Lord Campbell's " Lives of the Chancellors," you will read a very interesting biographical history of one of the most remarkable men who have ever in fluenced public affairs in this country. Yet Lord Somers says distinctly—and it is on record, and can not be unwritten, and no greater authority can ever exist on the question—" The Lords conceive that giving a vote for a representative in Parliament is the essential privilege whereby every Englishman preserves his property, and that whatever deprives him of such vote deprives him of his birthright." (Cheers.) But these men we are discussing now, Sir John Pakington and his fellows, are an inferior race of statesmen altogether. (Laughter and cheers.) If you go back to the opinions of Mr. Pitt you will find that he was not afraid of Parliamentary Re form. If you seek the opinions of Charles James Fox, of Lord Grey, or of the Duke of Richmond of that time, you will find that they were far more in accordance and in unison with ours than with the opinions of the men Sir J. Pakington represents. Go also to the time of the Reform Bill and to the opinions of the late Lord Durham—he was a most eminent and distinguished man, and we owe it to him to a great extent that the Reform Bill was as good as it was—doubtless if he had had his way, and if Lord J. Russell, who was not then in the Cabinet, had also had his way, I believe that the Reform Bill would have been better than it was. I have mentioned other men of Lord Aberdeen's Go vernment, of that of Lord Palmerston's, and who are in the present Cabinet, and I ask you as men of practical sense whether the opinions of all these authorities are not such as to outweigh the dic tum of Sir John Pakington, or the opinions of any of those statesmen with whom he has been associated? (Loud cheers.) I wonder, for my own part, how these men propound any opinions at all. (Laughter.) If you had a lawyer who invariably lost every cause with which he was connected, who always gave opinions which the judges on the bench reversed, you would not then, I should think, have much confidence in his legal knowledge. (Laugh ter.) If you had a doctor, and it was an invariable rule that every house he entered to give advice he entered again to attend his patient to the church yard, you would not have much faith in such a doc tor. (Laughter.) You would say indeed that this lawyer and this doctor would have a marvellous effrontery to dare offer an opinion at all, and still more to take a fee for it. (Laughter and cheers.) I should say that men of this character were audaci ous pretenders. These very statesmen, after having howled and shouted danger to the crown, danger to the constitution, danger to the church, danger to everything, ever since we were little children, even now at this very moment when everything they have cried is falsified by the event, are just as ready to shout danger as they were before. The other day there was a meeting at Maldon. I do not know much of that part of the country, but judging from what we heard from that quarter, I should say that, politically speaking, it is by no means a lively part of the country to live in. Several members of Par liament spoke on that occasion. One of them with a flippancy positively alarming in so young a states man, said that if they gave the working-man the franchise he would not know what to do with it. If any one were to ask the working man this question —I mean any one of the party who does not intend to give it to him—let him turn round and reply— , " What have you done with it ? You have had a vote ever since you were 21 years of age, and what have you done with it ? Have you given a vote in support of any of the government measures over which the country is now rejoicing at this time? You may rely upon it I will make as good a use of my vote as ever you have done of yours." It is just the same as if the debtor is asked to pay a sum of money, and were to reply that lie would not until the creditor gave him a guarantee that he would employ it for the debtor's benefit. (Laughter.) They want a guarantee that the working man, when en franchised, shall do as his employer or landlord wishes him to do with his vote. I hope that the only course the working man will follow with respect to his landlord and his employer will be, to consider the wishes of his landlord and employer, and see whether he considers their example one that is to be followed, and follow it if he does, but not otherwise. If I were to tellthese gentlemen certain things, they would not be so ready to give you a vote. If I told them that in this civilised and Christian country a man would be sent to prison for the sake of preserv ing, and to a great excess, a sport that is absurd in this thickly populated country, they would not be more disposed to give you a vote if they thought that you would provide a remedy for this state of things. Neither would they be if I were to tell them that in the great manufacturing districts the work ing man has no regular education, and that half the children are growing up without anything that is called instruction ; and I should say that if the people had their franchise they would remedy all this, and there would be no danger if you did any thing of the sort. Foolishly underrating and not comprehending even then our Church, they would refuse to give you the vote lest you should do so great a good to your people. (Cheers.) I have just seen a report of a speech delivered last night by Mr. Watkin, who had recently returned from the United States. Speaking of education, he says that taking the nine Northern States to contain 10,500,000 people, he found there were 40„000 scholars, and an average attendance of 2,133,000 children, the total cost of their education being 9,000,000 dollars; in the four Western States, with a population of 6,100,000, there are 37,000 scholars, and an average attendance of nearly 1,500,000 scholars, at a cost of 1,250,000 dollars. Then in a population of 16,000,000 there are 77,000 schools, to which every poor child can go, at a cost of £3,000,000 a year. He thought this highly to the credit of our American cousins; and I perfectly agree with him on that point. (Cheers.) But I venture to say that if the franchise in the United Kingdom were as wide as it is in these Northern and free States, within five years there would be esta blished in this country a system of education as universal as that which produces such admirable re sults amongst our cousins across the Atlantic. (Cheers.) If a man were to turn to Ireland—where, I am sorry to say, things are not so pleasant as they are in this country—what would he say if I were to point out to him that during the lifetime of the oldest person in this room this has been a country in which there has been continual insurrections, or attempts at rebellion ? In that country the principles of the great Constitutional party, that resists all dangerous concessions, have been carried out to their fullest extent. With regard to the land, there have been 200 acts of Parliament passed in favour of the land lord, and not one in favour of the tenant. (Cheers.) Look at their Church. I am always sorry to have to say things m,hich appear injurious to the character of the Church. The Church religious is one thing ; the Church political is another. (Cheers.) Do not let any labourilg, earnest Protestant clergyman in Ireland think lam undervaluing any service he may render to religion. I speak of the Church as a poli tical institutior, set down in that country, not by the opinion of the people, but by the power of the Tory people in England. I say that so long as that Church exists, there never will be, there never can be, in the natu.'e of the human mind, there never ought to be, tontent and tranquillity in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) And this is not all that we suffer. Look at Amerba in connexion with this question. How many Irigamen have emigrated to America ? Myriads have gahered there whom rage or fear drove from their wasted homes; and in America they form a portion of the oeople perpetually hostile to England. The Scotch who emigrate—and the Scotch are a people no moredisposed to put up with insult and wrong than the Irish—but the Scotch who emigrate, ' whether to Canada or the United States, are not there the enemies of this country. They speak of England, of Scotland, of Britain, of the United Kingdom, with respect and affection; and if the Irish had been treated as the Scotch have been treated, the whole of that Irish nation on the American conti nent, instead of being hostile--bitterly and unchan ge - ably hostile to England—would have been, I believe much smaller in its numbers, and just as friendly to us as the emigrants from Scotland are. (Hear, hear.) I should like to ask of this great constitutionalparty —which is to be formed by Lord Elcho, Mr. Hors man, Sir J. Pakington, and anybody else—l should like to ask them, whether it is intended that the Irish Church should be perpetually maintained, or whe ther it should fall—as I am certain before long it must fall—before the advancing intelligence and sense of justice of the people of the United Kingdom ? (Cheers.) What these gentlemen fear is this—a transfer of power. I recollect, in 1860, when the franchise bill was under dismission in Parliament, a noble lord—who sits on the opposite side of the house, and who is very acute and sometimes very candid— rising and saying that it was nothing to him to know that the working people were industrious and frugal, intelligent and independent ; what he objected to was, the transfer of power from the persons who now held it in this country. But in 1688 there was a considerable transfer of power. The monarchy for a time was in great danger. James 11. either ran away or was driven away, and the succeeding mon arch had his power very much limited by the action of Parliament. Does any one believe that the mon arch has been worse off, or that the people have not been better ? In 1832, the aristocracy of the country —the territorial aristocracy which ruled from 1688 to 1832—was shorn of some of its authority ? Does anybody believe that the aristocratic families of this country, or their heads, have really suffered by that change? I hold that as the people grow in wisdom, independence, and intelligence there must be a gra dual transfer of power. The Crown has lost the power which it once had ; but I do not think that any one proposes to diminish its power further. The peers have likewise lost some of the power they once had; but are they any the worse ? The people have more than they had before ; and there is little doubt that the people are all the better for the change. Now, let me refer for a moment to the great and useful changes that have been made during the last 30 years ; but there still remain, as I said, five million heads of families entirely unrepresented. Now confine your attention for a moment to the case of these families. There is among them one million, or rat her more than one million, in the United King dom, who are classed in the unfortunate list of pau pers. There is another million just above pauperism, but always in peril lest they should become paupers. Their condition and prospects are not more favour able than that. Now look to the ignorant and lower strata of this portion of the community. Look to their abject condition, to their poverty, to their suf fering, to their utter hopelessness of any good. Why in the United States, even in the Southern States during the reign of slavery, every negro had an idea that there was a day of jubilee for him. But to these people, to this class of the lowest strata in this coun try, I am here to state that there is neither the belief of anything better, nor scarcely an aspiration after it. Have you read a paragraph which lately appeared in the newspapers about J. Cross, a Dorsetshire la bourer ? He worked six days in the week—he had an excellent character from his employer—for him he had worked 24 years at the rate of Bs. per week. (Cries of "Shame.") John Cross had a family of seven children to provide for out of these wages in his hovel—that is, his castle. For a feeble wife and an infant child he took—legally, 1 believe, he stole— a wooden hurdle, of the value of 6d. For the offence he was tried before the magistrates, and sentenced to 14 or 20 days' imprisonment. I am not defending the stealing of hurdles. (Laughter.) No doubt cer tain English newspapers will say that I am. (Con tinued laughter.) lam not even finding fault with the magistrates who committed the man. I will not speak evil of dignitaries; but I tell you that many thousands of cases like that of John Cross are to be found throughout the country, and especially in the south, and that their condition is such, that hitherto the niost anxious investigation has been unable to solve the mystery as to how they keep body and soul together. (Loud laughter.) Now cast your eyes over the country, and look at these five millions of fami lies, and the desperate condition of this strata of them. Is it not true that this unenfranchised na tion may be said to toil and toil, knowing almost no rest ? (Cheers.) Compare it with the ruling class ; but if I do I shall be charged with communism. (Laughter.) It will be said that I wish to divide the property of the rich and squander it amongst the poor ; that I want to take the lauds of the rich and to divide them amongst 'the poor. (Hear, hear.) But. compare this great toiling and unenfranchised nation with the section which may be considered the governing classes ; look at its wealth, look at its ostentation, look at its luxury, behold its weariness —for there is weariness amongst them, but it is the weariness of satiety—and see how they rush from place to place, as it were to seek some new pleasure. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) But that great nation of whom I have spoken, that great nation who have built up the power of this country, this unenfran chised people without whom England would be no thing but a Power which a division of a Continental army might subdue and annex—that great nation of five millions of families is excluded from any share of political action ; and the small section— containing vast numbers of excellent persons—is potentially the governing power in this realm. (Cheers.) Now let me put to you, before I sit down, a simple preposition—and putting it to you through those gentlemen who sit below me (the reporters), to whom freedom in • this country is so greatly and so constantly indebted, it is put through them to all the people of this kingdom—lf of the five mil lions who are now shut out one million were ad mitted--you will mark the extreme, or, as some will say, the blameable, moderation of that sugges tion ; but if only one million were admitted, would not the cry of the toil-laden and the suffering, which even now ascends to Heaven, reach fur ther and be heard even on the floor of Parlia ment ? For do not forget that the ear of the Supreme is nearer even to the low liest of us than is that of our rulers. But if that voice were heard in Parliament, would it not perchance do something to still the roar of faction, and to bind the powers of statesman ship to the high and the holy purposes of humanity and of justice ? I speak not the language of party. I feel myself above the level of party. (Loud. cheers.) I speak as I have ever endeavoured to speak, on behalf of the unenfranchised, the al most voiceless millions of my countrymen. Their claim is just, and it is constitutional; it will be heard; it cannot be rejected. To the outward eye Monarchs and Parliaments seem to rule with an ab solute and unquestioned sway, and I quote the words which one of our Puritan poets has left for us— " There is on earth a yet auguster thing, Veiled though it be, than Parliament or King." That anguster thing is the tribunal which God has set up in the consciences of men. It is before that tribunal that I am now permitted humbly to plead; and there is something in my heart, a small still voice, which tells me that I shall not plead in vain. Mr. Bright resumed his seat amid great cheering, having spoken for nearly an hour and a half. The resolution was agreed to, and the proceed ings were soon after brought to a close. KILLED IN THE STREET.—Yesterday Mr. Hum phreys, Middlesex coroner, held an inquiry at the London Hospital, relative to the death of a young woman named Jane May Hatley, aged 17. Harriet liatley, a widow, residing in Commercial-street, said that deceased was her daughter, and on Monday week they walked out together to Christian-street, Commercial-road. While crossing the street a butcher's cart, driven by Christian Otter, a German butcher, came along at a sharp rate. Witness jumped back and avoided it, caught hold of deceased to pull her back, but she fell and the cart went right over her, breaking her thigh and inflicting other injuries, from which she died in the hospital. Mr. Christian Otter said that there was plenty of room for him to drive past both women, but the mother was so anxious about her daughter that she, in her nervousness, actually pulled the girl down under the wheels of the cart. The coroner having summed up, the jury re turned a verdict of "Accidental Death." SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TlMES.—There is nothing of which our daily experience more positively and more peremptorily informs us than our inability to foresee future events, and yet the mass of mankind find no em ployment more agreeable than that of predicting them. The misfortunes of some hundreds of weather prophets have not deterred Lord Port arlington from coming forward in the same cha racter, and it somehow is still worth while for the publishers of almanacks to insert in them hazy pre dictions of wars and revolutions. This general propensity to prophesy can only be explained by the existence of a corresponding tendency in the human mind to seek for and believe in such predictions, and to give a favourable hearing to any one who foretells the future, on the simple ground that he would not be so positive in asserting his knowledge of what nobody else knows if he had not also some means of knowledge which nobody else possesses. It would seem that in matters of prophecy at least the maxim of Hudibras holds good, and that " the pleasure is as great in being cheated as to cheat." While, then, we find people delighting in predic tions on subjects entirely past the limits of human knowledge, we cannot wonder at the prevalence of certain political superstitions which seem to have become ingrained in the mind of the present gene ration, more especially as we are at this very moment under the influence of one of them. It has long been a settled conviction in the minds of a large number of people in every country of Europe that the duration of the Belgian Monarchy would be measured by the life of its late Sovereign, and that as soon as death had removed King Leopold from the throne he had filled so ably and so honourably, the Government of Imperial France would revive the claim so often repeated since the death of Charles the Bold, and claim once more for itself the Sovereignty of Belgium. We are not aware that this theory ever rested on any authentic evidence capable of production. It was a guess founded on vague and general views of antecedent probability. —a position which could neither be verified nor dis proved till the event on which it had fixed itself should actually take place. There are not wanting those who argue that the Emperor of the French regards with no very strong dissatisfaction the in roads of large States upon the independence and liberty of their smaller neighbours, and that he treasures up each successive violation of the rights of nations as useful elements of the precedent which it is his ambition to establish. The second Empire, it is said, could establish no more solid claim on the gratitude of France than the annexation to herself of those wealthy provinces on the north-east whose history she has illustrated by so many feats of des perate valour, and whose soil she has fertilized by such torrents of her best and noblest blood. The councils of Germany are divided, the power of England does not penetrate very far beyond high water mark, and Belgium herself might tolerate and even approve a gentle violence which would unite her to the most powerful Empire in the world, which should give to her citizens and commerce the protection of French influence, and open to her talent and energy the vast and brilliant career of French literary, industrial, military, and political life. It is true that Louis Philippe, while his throne was new and his power not yet established, shrunk from an acquisition so brilliant and so perilous. But that which he did not dare to do in the first days of a reign which, after all, was not destined to found a permanent dynasty, might well be risked by the inheritor of the name and title of the Great Napoleon, strong in fourteen years of successful and vigorous administration, and confident in his power to keep down the revolutionary elements that underlie French society. 1V ell, the time has at last come when this prediction is to be submitted to the only test by which it can be finally disposed of—the test of actual events. King Leopold is dead, and the world looks curiously rather than anxiously for any symptom that can justify the apprehension of a coming change. We shall probably be told that it is as yet too early for any such indication to show itself. But, at any rate, we may say, with some confidence, that nothing can look less like the symptoms of approaching revolu tion than all that has happened in the days which have followed the demise of the late Kin g . In Bel gium herself the announcement of the death of Leo pold has been coupled with expressions of the most devoted loyalty to his son and successor, and the feeling of Belgium, so far as we can read it, seems to be, very naturally and reasonably, that the best way to show the true regret of the nation for the loss of the father is to rally with loyalty and -con cord around the throne of his successor. The Bel gians know that in 1848 they had nothing to do but to express their wish, and the King, who had tried either fortune, was ready to leave their throne vneant to he swept away or filled by another Sove reign, as the wishes of the nation might declare themselves. But Belgium knew in 1848, and she knows still better in the 17 years that have suc ceeded, the mighty debt she owed to the Sovereign she has just lost. IVO believe that Leopold I. has not only endeared himself to his people, but has in spired them with a predilection for a form of govern ment which has been in his hands the instrument of conferring upon them ()Teat and continually increas ingprosperity, They have, not - orily enjoyed since 'lB3O a limited monarchy but a limited monarchy on the most favourable terms—a monarchy under a King too wise to be ambitious, and who, without seeking to be his own Minister, was able to establish for himself a character which made it the highest aim of every succeeding Minister to deserve and to obtain his approbation. Such a Government has tended to keep alive and develope in Belgium a national spirit of the best kind, consisting, not in narrow and hostile prejudices against her neighbours, but in a due and just appreciation of the inestimable benefits she has received under the government of her own statesmen, responsible to her own Legis lature, and acting in harmony with the feel ings and wishes of the majority of the Bel gian people. Belgium has so much to lose in all ways by any alteration from her present happy state that she is likely to look with great dissatisfaction on any change in her destiny, how ever brilliant might be its accompaniments, and when union with France is spoken of she can hardly fail to compare the present state of her finances with those of her great but heavily-taxed and deeply-indebted neighbour. On the other hand, it is only just to say that no conduct could be more calculated to remove the apprehension of any change in the relations between France and Belgium than that which has been pursued by the French Em peror. His tone with regard to the loss that Bel gium has sustained by the death of its late King has been that of the deepest regret, and the language in which he has welcomed his son and successor to the throne has been full of cordiality and kindness, in which the most prejudiced mind would fail to de tect the slightest leaven of insincerity. Of course the Emperor of the French, like the rest of the world, is well aware of the predictions which have been so frequently made with regard to the pros pects of Belgium after the death of King Leopold, and he has done everything that lay in his power to tranquillise the public mind of Europe on the sub ject. For ourselves, we are disposed to believe that the Emperor of the French is perfectly sincere in these declarations. We believe that a practical ex perience of peace and war has greatly strengthened in the mind of this remarkable Sovereign the specu lative preference which every reasonable man must have for the former. We believe that five years of free trade have made an impression on the mind of the Emperor which no mere abstract argument could produce. As a man of the present age, we feel sure that he estimates at their due relative value the advantages of the extension of dominion as com pared with the extension of wealth, commerce, and industry. Every year makes it more manifest that States are prosperous and respectable not in pro portion to their area or their population, but to the facilities of their external and internal communica tion, the means of association between their citizens, the soundness of their finances, and the rapidity of their accumulation of wealth. Whatever the Napo leon of 1853 might have thought, we believe that the Napoleon of 1865 estimates all these things at their due worth, and that he will not be turned aside . from the internal development of the prosperity of France by prospects even more brilliant than are afforded by the demise of the Belgian Crown. HERALD.—In suspending Governor Eyre the Go vernment has condemned him. It has passed the severest censure in its power to pass, while confess edly without the requisite materials upon which to form a judgment. It has passed that censure, more over, in direct defiance of its own conviction that he has only done his duty, and in cowardly deference to the outcries of a small clique of its own party. Sir Henry Storks is sent out to Jamaica, not to ascer tain whether there is any justification for the alle gations brotlght against Governor Eyre, but to find a justification for them. His commission is not that of a judge but of a prosecutor. The work required of him is to rake up a case which will justify the sentence pronounced before inquiry was commenced. It is absurd to draw fine distinctions between sus pension and recall. The suspension of a governor of a colony implies in any case a thorough want of confidence in him on the part of the Government. In a case in which the suspension is admittedly made in deference to the clamour of a party which charges him with murder, it implies a belief on the part of the Government that there is at least a prima facie case of murder against him. Does anybody suppose that Governor Eyre, let the wisdom and real mode ration of his conduct be ever so signally vindicated, can resume the post from which he is removed, to await, like any:criminal committed for trial by 5 police magistrate, an investigation which, by cora: mencing with his removal, p resumes his guilt? Could Governor Eyre, with any degree of self re spect—with any hope of exercising power benefi cially —return to the high office from which he has been ejected as. unworthy to hold it? The notion is absurd. For his conduct in the suppression of the outbreak in Jamaica he has been removed from office by the Home Government, which has further directed an inquiry, the object of which is to obtain evidence to justify the removal and to warrant further proceedings against him. 1 13 a , its purpose been merely to inquire in° the circumstances and to obtain the infe r mation necessary to enable it to form a judgmen t it would not have suspended Governor Eyre. Tha t information could have been obtained quite as wel l had he continued to act as governor. His suspen" 6.011 will excite a general alarm throughout the island. All persons concerned in any way in the suppression of the rebellion will regard themselves as threatened, and, with the usual sauce qui Pe nt rush, every man will seek , to extenuate his own conduct by seeking to throw odium upon the Gr°, - vernor. The enemies of Governor Eyre shove" their animus in pressing for his recall. They knee that it would put him to an enormous disadvantag e . , and help them to destroy his reputation with 11 ,,1 5 countrymen after destroying his ca r ee r as a pall servant. That Governor Eyre has been condemne d by the Government, although not in the possession of a particle of evidence to warrant a condemnatio n, we have the evidence of both Earl Russell and Id l Cardwell. That the suspension was extorted from the Government against its own convictions w e have the evidence of the same Ministers. Mr. Card well " hoped" that the deputation of the Anti - Slavery Society " would not press for Mr. Byre recall"—he must, of course , have felt the recall t° , be unjust, or he would not have deprecated it—an" Earl Russell, in announcing the suspension t° another deputation, could not check a lingering honourable impulse, and demonstrated to them the justice of Mr. Eyre's proceedings. It is beyond all doubt that when the inquiry was first resolved upon/ the maintenance of Mr. Eyre in his position was resolved upon too; but upon this point the Govern ment has yielded to the pressure which has been brought to bear upon it. One of the organs of the black faction, expressing its dissatisfaction with Mr. Cardwell's answer, consoled itself with the belief that the language of the deputation would not fail to have an influence upon the Ministry. It was right. The Government has been simply bullied into the suspension of Governor Eyre. Even on TuesdaY newspapers known to enjoy its confidence stoutly protested against the suspension as a gross injustice to Mr. Eyre, and a measure quite unnecessary t° the purpose of a fair inquiry. They did not 10 1 ° w their patrons well enough. Lord Russell takes inn'Y public meetings for an expression of public opinion' When the old machinery of agitation is put w n motion, and half a dozen enthusiastic meetings el' held which do not represent public opinion enono", to return half-a-dozen members of Parliament, an,' he is bored by deputations in which all the old Wes names of men whose opinions count for n othing bristles, he fancies that the country is moved. Wh en ' moreover, he receives a distinct intimation fro m i Mr. Bright that the disgrace of Governor Eyre mus t be the price of his support, the noble lord loses all his wits, and is only too impatient to earn the con. " pliments which the agitators have prepared for W e beforehand. The power of England has been rudelY, shaken by this most unjust and most unwise act. warning has been given to the public servants te, whose vigour the maintenance of so large a part 0 1 . her dominion and the safety of the lives of so mall of her sons is committed, that they must expect ne support from the Government if they bravely meet a great emergency and avert a terrible peril by sharp and determined measures. We shall never more hear—unless it be in the case of some rare man wile prefers his ungrateful country's interest to his own fortunes—that an insurrection has been nipped in the bud, and that the lives and the honour of Eng' lish men and women have been saved by summon' measures against the scoundrels who plotted to take from them both. Who will dare to redress th e inequalities of numbers by sharp and sudden punish; ment if his vigour is to be treated by his Governm en t " as a crime, and he is to be flung defenceless among s i a crowd of ravening sectaries who have con stitute 7 themselves the standing counsel for the crimes e a the black race. Weakness, irresolution, an cowardice are the qualities, it is now officially e, 11 1 : nounced, by which the governor of an Engli sh colony can alone obtain the approbation of the English Government. COUNTRY MARKETS ITULL.—T UESDAY. Since our last a fair business has been done in the whet' t trade, but transactions have been confined chiefly to Eno lisp, the holders of foieign refusing to sell at the preset'?" market prices. At the market English wheat meta sl otr sale at last week's prices. Barley rather dull, but not loWer' English old white wheat, 49sA, 545; old red, 44s to 48+ Barley, English, 34s to 38s. Oats, Russian, 24s to 25 0 ,: Beans, new English, 43s to 445. Peas, English blue, 4° ' to 41s Od ; grinding, 40s to 41s Od per 36 stone. • SALISB URY.—T UESDAY. The following are the quotations :—Wheat realised fr` ln 36s to 525; barley, 35s to 425; oats, 22s to 32s ; beans, ,: g to 51s; and peas, 42s to 50s per qr. Tares, from 6 3 to ,4 3d per bushel ; Best bread, 13d ; household ditto, 1 ' per 81b loaf. Flour, 34s to 40s per sack. MARKET lIARBOROUGII.—TUESDAY. A middling shuw of wheat ; best dry samples were ratl higher in price. Barley unchanged in value. Oats films higher prices. Beans also dearer. 3 0 Old white wheat, 52s to 56s ; new red. 44s to 495 per „ r. stone. Barley, fine, 38s'; other kinds, 26s to 29s per ;i d Oats, new, 20sto 24s ; old, 26s to 30s per qr. Beans, of 40s to 425; new, 34s to 36s per qr. NEWCAS TLE—T UESDAY. At to-day's market there was a small supply of farmer' wheat, but a large arrival coastwise, and a moderate WW; tity from abroad. The trade ruled dull, and the busi nes very limited at about late rates. Barley at former pri ces : beans rather dearer ; peas unaltered; flour slow sale, btu late rates were maintained. LYNN—TUESDAY. At to-day's market the supply of wheat was moderat7 the trade ruled firm at last Tuesday's rates. The sIIPP2 of barley was less than last week, and all descriptions fu"' as dear. Beans and peas unaltered in value. New wheat, 44s to 50s ; new red, 42s to 45s ; old Wili f t e ; 51s to 53s ; old red, 46s to 49s per 36 stone. Barley 119 ' malting, 34s to 365; secondary, 26s to 325. Oats, neY" 18s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, small, 42s to 448 ; larg e ' 40s to 42s per 28 stone. MONMOUTHSHIRE—TUESDAY. There has been a good quantity of all kinds of grain 1 1 the several markets throughout the district. H om e -grow._ wheat realised an advance of from 2d to 3d per bushel 1 the prices of this day week. Oats rather higher for b° sorts. Beans at last week's rates. ss The following are the average quotations :—Whe at, 23 3d to 5s 6d per bushel ; barley, 3s 3d to 3s 8d ; oat s, id to 2s 7d ; beans, 5s 3d to 5s 6d per 601 b. COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. d • s. d. s. 0 Byass's Bebside West Holywell Main ......... 19 9 Hartley l9 6 Heugh Hall ............ 2 -", 3 Walls End Haswell 22 0 Hetton Lyons .........• 2 '" 3 Pittington l9 6 South Kelloe ..... .... 21 9 „, Walker Primrose l5 6 Hartlepool ............ ",!,. 6 New Belmont Caradoc 2l 3 East Hartlepool ...... 2 1 0 Carway and Duffryn Kelloe •2l 6 Malting 24 0 Eden Main ........ 19 3 Braddyell's Hetton 2l 3 Walls End tiosiort h. 20 3 South Hetton Hetton 22 0 South Hartlepool .....• . 0 Hastings Hartley l9 6 Wylam lw 6 21 9 Tees Walls End Riddell ... 20 6 St. Helen's Tee 5......... 19 Tanfield. Moor Butes 16 6 Ships at market, 185 ; sold, 172. Births. BERDWOOD.— On the 11th inst., at Buttville, near I;l,l3esri bridge, Devon, the wife of Major-General Win. u" - Birdwood, of a son. FIEMANTLE.—On the 12th inst., at 22, Chesham-Place' the Lady Augusta Fremantle, of 'a son.' , fl l6 ' JACKSON.—On the 11th inst., at Killinane House, B,. 94 1 ,: 0 001 town, Ireland, the wife of Lieut.-Col. James 4 e 00 01 a daughter. Marriages. KIERNAN—SANDS.—On the 15th ult , at the residence of the l . bride's father, General James Louis Kiernan, aPP °in ir „rrie United States Consul to Chang Kiang, China, to Josepha, eldest daughter of Joseph T. Sands, -0°"'" , Brooklyn, N.Y. To o WINSTON—SOADY.—On the 28th ult Dres den, to William B. Winston, Esq., Columbus, Xissi ssi F P Wil" Grace Marion, second daughter of the late Ro bert _ . Hams Soady, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn. Deaths. Assimv.—On the 10th inst., Charlotte wife of J. T- 11 - 138te5'' Esq., of Lansdown-croscent, Bath. BUTLER.—On the 11th inst., at Barton Hall, stafford6bire' Richard Wynne Fowler Butler, Esq., aged 37. GREAVES —On the 10th inst., John J. Greaves ,of park, Stoke Newiuglon, aged 47. of HALFORD.—On the 9th inst., Charles D. lla lford, West Lodge, East Bergolt. y ..stroc t ' LAURIE.— On the 10th inst h , at 12, Lower Be rkele Portman-square, Joseph Laurie, Esq.,D • TEMPEST.—On the Bth inst., at Stony • hurst College, 5: Charles R. Tempest, Bart., of Brought on Hall, Vt shire, and Coleby, Lincolnshire, aged 71. boo , WARDLE.—On the 10th inst.. at Ivy House , East Surrey, Thomas Wardle, Esq. London : Printed and Pubiished by SVIL Luar ANr-tr —`is, of No. 112, Strand, Punter , at Vi z Sum Offic e % of Strand, in the Precinct of the Sav o y . in the Lio' MP.tdleles..—Thursday, December 14,1565. Jj l 1 Tuts ce Prize Me , It is Pa Bold in the Azen at 8, (,; 1 Observe "Kinaha nui 14, RUSE A:DVA' Freehold Ivo, or a three yea discount( Made tovi 15 years - e •ve lo~,e, TII E lic suite of tureg, E] The I,a,g Da z aar Octfull H brie ;inn flavour the imp( NO: 5, GI w L prices, al 11 - OH] TO Dowder; enamel don the treat G LI IVO' ®RN a •<1 meat of stands. Alabekt Imports, talogist Air. T, ht [NE R of Lyell' the lute and can PRAC ki,f)d INT r _ )4essro m . therhith tally off( Rraduall !natter Properti System, ter mon bottle, o of the h Spectabi Gosnell rfighneg Or Dl e a 4 J. J. 1. XeW de J. J. J. a. J. J. J. 16 an d 3 w It. .--(' 4 Y T Vice-1 This 181 1 tr the de vide. It Rdditi deatiti kW() a L Tile' u (ney ° o,, tai the re con Lima a rum and, N..; , Y „, a y bi