The Sun. — London, England, 1866-06-05 00:00:00

by which he attained to this knowledge, for the motion of my hon. and gallant friend indicates that his amendment was not in concert only with the views of gentlemen sit ting on this side of the house. (Hear.) It is a little hard on us, who have been standing in the nervous condition of those who believe themselves to be contending in a matter oh life and death, to accuse us of want of consistency and earnestness. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant member for Wells, as well as with regard to some of those speeches which proceeded from members represent ing boroughs called grouped, I make no complaint at all. I make no complaint of my lion. and gallant friend for his reference to the advice and authority of Sir W. Hayter. No one who ever came into relations with Sir W. Hayter can hear otherwise than with pleasure the mention of his name. (Laughter.) On this occasion we do not shrink from recur ring to the authority of Sir W. Hayter, because if he objects to the grouping of Wells, and if he exercises his great po litical influence to induce the gallant representative of that cathedral city to object to our grouping s ystem, there is another alternative—not one, I should suppose, more agree able to my hon. and gallant friend, but still one which I am surprised, following as he does so faithfully his father's footsteps in every point, he did not even mention. Sir W. Hayter was the faithful and attached Secretary of the Trea sury in 1834; when a Reform Bill was introduced by the government to which Sir W. Hayter belonged, and to which I was a party, and which contained a schedule enacting, not the grouping, but the disfranchising of Wells. (Laugh ter.) It is perfectly open to my hon. and gallant friend to fulfil all his instincts of filial affection, while performing his duty to his party and the country, to suggest the other alternative placed on record as to Wells. (A laugh.) Ido not think we ought to criticise too severely the votes or the expressions of those who maybe called the grouped members. Theirposition to the towns theyrepresent is, on an occasion of this kind, one, I must admit, of grave and serious diffi culty. It reminds me of a remarkable historical speech of Lord Brougham's in defence of Queen Caroline, in which he speaks of the sacred duty of an advocate to his client. According to that speech an advocate must not hesitate to do all in his power for his client, nor regard the destruction which it might bring upon another, but must go on in his duty to his client reckless of the consequences—even if they should unhappily involve his country in confusion—for his client's protection. (Hear.) So, sir, I find no fault with my hon. and gallant friend. if he is willing to displace the crireernmem,—a mean waiter, perhaps—zo arrest ane course of this great measure, and to plunge us once morein confusion for the purpose of saving the reputation of the ancient, venerable, and respectable city of Wells, he is at liberty to do so. Presently I shall state the views we took in regard to the grouping of Wells and of grouping gene rally. I cannot, however, but think that gentlemen who are in his position would do well to consideronething,viz., that the system of grouping adopted by the Government, even if chargeable with all the faults that have been freely imputed to it, is atleast one that was not adopted in a spirit of hostility to these small boroughs. It was ratherintended to mitigate the severity of the stroke which the public good required them to receive. It may seemharsh in many cases, but it may be well for those concerned to consider that the rejection of that system of grouping might result in a less favoarable,, as well as a more favourable treatment. (Laugh ter.) Probably the extinction proposed is better than the anomalous state which has been so humorously described and which implies a continuance of life though in an en feebled state. I must notice a charge which has come from the opposite side as to precipitancy in this matter. The hon. and learned member for Belfast calculated that it had taken the Government 12 days to prepare this bill. I made an expression of dissent across the table, and at last the hon. and learned gentleman enlarged the time to 24 days. The time occupied by the Government to prepare the mea sure was not a short time. If I mistake not, official notice was given for the introduction of this bill on the 23d March, and the bill was introduced on the 7th May, a period of 45 days--nearly four times a longer period than that mentioned in the first instance by the hon. and learned member for Belfast. I must say that if a Cabinet the mem bers of which had been previously concerned in construct ing two or three bills containing a system of redistribution could not, in 45 days, prepare a bill on the subject, the fault lies deeper than mere want of time. It will, perhaps, narrow the grounds of controversy if I say that it is true that the bill has been deliberately prepared and delibe rately laid on the table. With respect to the general charge of anomalies I deny that the bill creates anomalies. 1 deny that it creates a single anomaly in the true sense of the word. Did the Reform Act create anomalies or not, by disfranchisement and the redistribution of seats ? If you choose to say that a man who destroys a gross anomaly, and reproduces a milder state of things, creates an anomaly, we are open to that charge. If we enfranchised the borough of Frome with one member, and find the borough of Wells close to it with two, I ask, did the Reform Act create an anomaly by that ? Only in a contracted and secondary sense, and far from that natural sense in which we admit that a single anomaly is created by this bill. (Hear.) Let me now consider the turn of the debate. And here it is ne cessary for me to advert to the speech delivered by my right hon. friend the member for Caine. The general strain of the argument of that speech does not., I think, call for any special comment—(ph)—l mean those points of it bearing on this bill—except the spirit of exaggeration in which they were delivered—(oh)—because in this respect they were distinguished fromthe speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, the right hon. gentlemen the members for Belfast and Droitwich,and others. I must protest, however, against one part of the speech of my right hon. friend, in which he treated largely of the honour of the Government, and gave his opinion that the Government need not be particular, for that they were not in a position to be fastidious on that subject. Ho spoke with marked emphasis of their having to lie on a truckle bed. I frankly own that I think all that portion of my right honourable friend's speech was one piece of gross error of taste and judgmett (hear, hear, and oh, oh), because in these matters we must not only look at the sermon, but at the individuality of the preacher. And I want to know what charge can be made against the Government on this score which cannot be made against my right hon. friend (hear, hear, and oh, oh). In that truckle bed there may be a bedfellow. (Laughter.) No doubt my right hon. friend thinks he can defend him self. We think we can defend ourselves. It is just as well to declare a truce between us on this part of the ques tion. We have no objection to a charge against us if it proceeds from a proper quarter. The right hon. gentle man the member for Droitwich, for instance, had on that same evening charged us, in no unbecoming terms, with a long slumber on this question. He was entitled to do so. Those connected with the Government of Lord Derby are perfectly justified in charging this Government and party on the subject of reform. They may charge us that while we are now acting on our convictions, yet for our conve nience we kept this question shut up safely. But can my right hon. friend not see, with one hundredth part of his acuteness, that it is better to avoid this dangerous ground, which is equally applicable to others ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I certainly was astonished at one feat which my right hon. friend performed in that speech. A bill had been laid on the table for a redistribution of seats, and which purported to cut off in round numbers half a hun dred seats from the small boroughs and distribute them among the great and populously-growing communities in the country. A n d m y r i g ht. hon. friend complained of provoca lon in not recei v i ng an ex pl ana ti on o f th e p r i nc ipl e o f th a t bill. He decla re d h e cou ld no t un d ers t an d it -th a t i n th e interval between the first and second reading he had endea voured to puzzle out the bill, and failed to do so. Mr. LOWE—I asked what ' was the principle of the bill. The CHANCELLOR of tb obliged to my right hon. friende for EXCHEQUER—I am principle was his assi s t ance , b u t h e might have spared it. The found in the fact of the bill—in the facts of its enactments. It did not re quire any discussion as to its principle. the (Oh minister rose in his place and s a id , oh.) When • We clear away 49 seatsfrom declining and secondary communities, dis tribute them among the great towns and new aui communities of the country—l say in that single sentence we explai n the principle of the bill. (Ministerial cheers.) When my right hon. friend distinctly said that in a week he could not find out the meaning of that transfer from small coin_ munities to great ones, 1 thought that in that latest freak of his fancy he was endeavouring, to emulate that portion .of the party opposite—l do not think quite so large as was . stated—which has been described in one of th e works of the hon. member for Westminster, and to which au allusion has been made in the course of this debate. (Lghter.) My right hon. friend giveS himself such license that although it is very delightful to listen to his speeches as intellectual exercitations, they are not of practical avail. (Hear, hear.) lle defended the small boroughs through thick and thin — through, thick and thin without the smallest reservation or re,ser,e amendment,ve— and in the very same moment he spoke in favour o 1. ' a in which the house declares that it is ready to consider the general subject of the redistribution of seats. (Rear, hear.) I admit that my right hon. friend was so far consistent with himself that on a former night he made a speech • stall ra duction of the franchise, and he has repeatedly told,„ t would be destructio that a reduction of the franchise time he voted for then na of th ntion e constitution, yet at the same w as ready to consider the Which d ec l are d th a t th e h ouse How are we to have a commauction of the franchise. or to cheiish thesligh test chanc e Or°l-ind on which to meet th those who are pleased to discuss the differences agnitude with such a license. (Che s e l s q .) ues x tions of such lend has a honer of democracy. This housye right hon. n lgarised. This h ouse was to be filled with r w ep as re to be ves of seven - po unders, who were themselves to b:enta little better than the seven -pounders. But only the other night the tone of my right ho n. friend changed.. H e went off in My right hon. friend then stated the , another line of inquiry . and overstated, the exp ense of elections im der the new System, and the consequenc es of it upon house. m y right hon. friend said the hou se was to be filled with mil lionaires—the house-was to be a plutocracy. (Cheers.) It is no wonder, not that my right hon. friend contradicts us, as he has Cright liberty te do, but that he assumes theLeof contradicting But my right hon. friend rt th his s not seem likely to make his speeches at harmony with votes, or even to make his speeches at harmony with one another. (Laughter.) I must say there is a certain advan tage in one respect in the speeches of my right hon. friend. I hear the speeches of the hon. and learned member for Belfast, whom I have been accustomed to look upon as ofie of the most able, and not the least keen, partisans in this house, but I hear the hon. and learned member, and others THE SUN. LONDON. TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5. 1866. who sit upon the benches opposite; argue - patiently and point—and with some nearness—to the facts of the case, the provisions of the bill, and it is perfectly refreshing to hear them, for though wo think they caricature our propo sitions, yet we can discover so much likeness to them that we know what they are meant for. But when we hear my right hon. friend in terms so inflamed on this subject as those which it is his habit and pleasure to employ, describe every proposition of the Government and all the steps taken by them, it becomes hopeless to deal with arguments pre sented in such a form; and it becomes refreshing and stimu lates the spirit of charity, and gives a kindly and philan thropic view of hon. gentlemen opposite when we come to deal with the mitigated and temperate spirit in which they put forward their opposition. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I must say a few words with respect to the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, or, at least, the plan ho proposed, because I think it is generally admitted that schemes for the redistribution of seats involve an almost infinity of details and a vast number of questions on which there may be most naturally and most legitimately differ ences of opinion, which can only be considered as a whole by being compared with other schemes. The right hon. gentleman repudiated my defence of small boroughs as an antiquated affair, and presented one of his own to the house. I believe that my defence differed in this—what I said of the time of the old parliamentary system was strictly true. The nomination boroughs answered a useful purpose in introducing into public life young men of promise, who afterwards became distinguished, and during the six hours in which I listened to my right hon. friend the member of Calne there was one sentiment in which I had the satis faction to agree, and this was when he stated that the in gress to this house was in some degree narrowed by the Reform Act. The enormous benefit of this act threw into the shade the disadvantages incidentally arising from it. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentleman contends that smaller boroughs are necessary to preserve the diversity of tone and character which is to be found in this house. Is this true ? Do small boroughs contribute to this result more than the members of large cities? The point at issue is not to show that small boroughs are at present repre sented by good men, but that the boroughs under 10,000 inhabitants send to Parliament men who in the entire class cannot come to us in any other way. The right hon.-gen tleman quoted the case of Frome, but that is a borough enfranchised under the Reform Act. 1/IbIZA FT,T—T+ _ _ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is not a small borough in the way inwhich this bill proposes to deal with small boroughs. The right bon. gentleman went on to speak of Bridport, Buckingham, and Peterborough. By whom are these boroughs represented ? By the most dis tinguished men of the mercantile profession. But the right hon. gentleman said large constituencies would only return landlords, manufacturers, and merchants; then he i admitted that merchants can find an entrance through the large constituencies. In the next place the right hon. gen tleman said it was important that gentlemen connected with the colonies should find seats in the house. But so they do. There is my hon. friend the member for Salis bury—an ornament to the house, a gentleman of colonial experience (Mr. Marsh), but he sits for Salisbury, a town not included in the category of small boroughs, or of a class which any one proposes to touch. Then there is his colleague (Mr. Hamilton), a gentleman wbo distinguished himself at the university, and who is well qualified to take his part in debates in this house. He is of colonial expe rience, but he has not been returned for a small borough. My right hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury sits for the borough of Pontefract, a constituency of moderate size, not a small borough in the sense of this bill or anybill ever introduced on this subject for restricting representa tion. Lastly, my right hon. friend the member for Caine truly sits for a small borough at this moment, but he did not find his way into this house as the representative of a small borough, but addressed himself to a constituency of considerable size, and succeeded in gaining the confidence of that constituency. But then the right hon. gentleman likewise mentioned persons connected with India, and was it not extraordinary that in order to buttress his argument, and to find an instance of gentleman con nected with India sitting in the house, he went back several sessions to the case of Sir James Hogg, who sat for Honiton some years ago. Who are the men connected with India now sitting in this house, and what are the small boroughs that return them ? We are deal ing wiih a moat important allegation—namely, that whilst the right hon. gentleman repudiates the superannuated defence set up for small boroughs, he sets up a bran new defence of his own. Who are the representatives of In dian affairs and Indian matters in this house ? My noble and gallant friend who sits for Taunton (Lord J. Hay), the hon. gentleman who sits for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smol lett), and lastly, my hon. and gallant friend who sits for the large city of Aberdeen (Col. Sykes). I take the in stances in the order in which they present themselves to me, but I ought not to leave off without mentioning my hon. friend who sits for the city of London, who completes the list of those who may be quoted as representing Indian interests. h will not do for my right hon. friend to say that Pontefract, Salisbury, and Kidderminster are towns of moderate size. No one attacks towns of moderate size. He upholds small boroughs, and I must say that his de ' fence, as depending on particular instances, has entirely failed. As I understand the right hon. gentleman, he has a plan himself for disfranchisements. He says the group ing of represented boroughs is a scheme totally unknown to England, and he said that the grouping of unrepre sented boroughs was certainly unknown to Scotland. As regards the first of these propositions it is nearly true, although there aro two or three boroughs grouped in Eng land where it is not—such as the Cinque Ports, the Mon mouth boroughs, and Penryn, and Falmouth. As co Scot land, the Scotch boroughs were grouped as representative boroughs at the period of the union, and all the argument derivable from the precedent may be drawn from those those Scotch boroughs. The right hon. gentleman objects to the grouping of boroughs, and he gave us a rough outline of his own plan. He would proceed, as I understood, as follows. He would take the smallest possible number of members from the smallest boroughs—probably in the mode of the bill of 1859—say some 15 or 20 members. Having so got them, he would give them to the new towns ; and he would form these new towns in such a way as, to judge by the instances he gave us, would pay off the population of this country at the rate of seventy, eighty, ninety thousand population for each member he gets from the small boroughs. \ As he told us what sort of groups ought to have been taken, he takes five or six large towns —Dewsbury, Botley, Mir field, Cleckheaton, and two other places, six in all, with a population of 91,000, and the othergroups he gave us would have populations of 65,000 and 72,000. If that is the idea of the right hon. gentleman, I well understand that byget- 7 ting 12 or 15 members from the smaller boroughs, he would in that way dispose of a million or a million and a half of the rising towns that aro scattered throughout the country. Next to that he wonld have an extension of boundaries, which, he says, we ought to take out of the counties. All those who do not follow the leading pursuit of the counties —that is agriculture—of course Ido not mean pursuits merely subsidiary to agricultural puSuits, but I mean where a manufacturing hamlet is formed—of all these the counties ought to be weeded andpurged. Besides that the boundaries of towns ought to be extended so as to embrace all inhabitants dwelling in their neighbourhood who pursue their ordinary occupation in those towns. That is the view of the right hon. gentleman so far as I understand. He would, by taking 15 or 20 members, withdraw from the counties something like twu millions of people, and obtain the double object of leaving the small boroughs in posses sion of nearly the whole of their present forces subject to a very small deduction, and reduce the counties to an accu mulation of landlords, tenants, and those dependent upon them. If that be the plan of my right hon. friend, or if it is any plan approaching that, I can perfectly well understand his feeling of suspicion of our schemes for redistribution, because our plan is based on this principle, that their object ought to be, whilst restraining the representation of the small boroughs, and enfranchising large communities, _the test of its excellence, leaving the extension of the franchise as nearly as possible to its full and legitimate operation. But if the redistribution of seats is to be mixed up with a complicated scheme f or d raw i ng b roa d li ne s of sep ara ti on betweenr counties and boroughs, they are entirely unknown to eehi ti s e sn t o ory, h of h a t ud totally alien to the spirit of our constitu tion.lTe scheme us e h m o eo e f redistribution will p opposite te sayreceivevoersi tthheat sanction votes of th e freeh He olders . em within the limits of the boroughs for th e i r counties is an anomaly. They say that , the vote for the co unty of the freeholders whose property lies within the limit s o f the boroughre anomaly.sainnourcotat aitilitick fit ol is an . most ancientlthe Ref orm Bi ll ? A man ( al H e a a n r o .) m Di y it i s ait one of the before not prevail re y all had his vote for the borough for the very same property that qualified him for the county. Could ,there beraPerty more d i st i nc t recognition of the principle of the double represen tation for the county and the borough ? It was not a mat ter of agriculture on the one hand andmanufactures on the other ; but it was the representation of occupation in the towns and of property in the counties. I do not now go into the question of the representation of leaseholds. When the hon. member for Northamptonshire has produced his statistics they will be matters which we can consider. What we ask of the house at p resent is, that we go into commit tee on the bill. charges, (Hear.) I now come to the consideration of the charges, the particular made by various hon. and right hon. members thaegaaimnsetndomurenbtilol.f t l h h e a h rd on ly . m kn e o m w whether I am to regard - ber for Wells as one with which we are in actual conflict ; but I contend that the grounds of opposition to the bill are not good grounds, and if they were good they are totally insufficient to justify the refusal to go into committee. There has been no objection taken to the root of the bill ; there hasbeen no objection taken which, if admitted to be serious, the reprelste would be a committee. It has hasgroundutatb ihof objected r not going into wetmakecommittee n o provision onthebfiollr. th a t than give three matter for committe counties into part been objected that we ought to divide minorities. Well, this is a matter for s,and give a representation to each rather r epresentatives l to a county. That is a representation been objected that members to Scotland. That is matter n a f tion of England, and given are taken from the re r committee. But then an objection has been taken by theehon.a and learned member itbnthilantdathria7is "onienofatnhennmsoatsitsdrainffitncurYlt s fo ta r ta ß . elfas l ftrtehelayt admit parts of the subject, and one for the attainment of which - the most detailed discussion in the committee would be re quisite. There are other matters for consideration in com mittee, all important, all open to discussion ; and those, in number seven or eight, might be multiplied, and it is the character of the bill that we should discuss them in a con ciliatory spirit—(hear, and laughter) - and endeavour to settle them, not upon the basis . of any foregone conclusion of our own, but with a view to general equity and general satisfaction. (Hear.) Ido not mean satisfaction to the gentlemen who cheer in that peculiar manner; but in order to show how inconsiderate has been the objection taken to our groups in general, I would state that objection has been admitted not to be applicable to Scotland. Then it is said there is no such identity of interest in regard to Wales and England. But what identity of interest is there in counties and boroughs ? What identity of interest between the Isle of Wight and the West-end ? What interest be tween the towns on the Thames and those in the hop dis trict ? Well, I regard identity of interest with regard to representation as important. What is the case in Wales ? There are grouped boroughs 30 and 35 miles distant from each other. In Scotland there are four groups of boroughs —the Ayr boroughs: the average distance from each other is 47i miles, the maximum distance being 74 miles ; the Dumfries average 25-} miles, the maximum distance 38 ; the Elgin boroughs, the average distance of which is 21 miles, and the maximum 28; the Wick boroughs, with an average of 49 miles, and a maximum of 108. It is some what fastidious to produce particular instances of places 28 or 30 miles apart, and treat them not as matters for consideration, with a view to a more precise arrangement in detail, but to treat them with sweeping denunciations. There is one plan which has been proposed by the hon mem ber for Wells, to which, as a general rule, I must say I have the strongest objection, and that is the plan, considered as a system, of taking in, to make up and supplement small boroughs, still smaller places in their neighbourhood. (Hear.) It is said you have in the neighbourhood of these places towns of 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 inhabitants, and if you add these you will have constituencies of 17,000 or 20,000, and it is stated that the principle of dealing with small boroughs ought to be taken in other small boroughs in their immediate neighbourhood. Now, from that pro position I for one entirely dissent. It seems to me a most extravagant proposition. There is in this country an enormous regard for vested interests. Vested interests in the long run are found to carry the day against everything .1-4._ xi-4.--a, Icka r me ms livrelbo ire tke,4l. roseasci. Low vested interests. You may say when we are dealing with boroughs which have been long in possession of the parlia mentary representation, deal tenderly with them, do not extinguish them ; give them a modified share of the privi leges which they have so long possessed, where they have not been grossly abused. But it is going too far to contend that these privileges, if they are a monopoly adverse to the community, should be held to contain in them such an essence of diffusive virtues that they should spread around them on all sides, and consecrate the hamlets, villages, and country towns in their neighbourhood. There was a time, when after the civil wars of Augustus, the Emperor settled his soldiers on land in the territory of Cremona, but find ing the territory insufficient for the purpose, it became necessary to take some of the territory of Mantua, and the peet said— " Mantua, vm miserte nimium vicina Cremonm." But it is an inversion of that sentiment if we are to pick out some insignificant place, in the neighbourhood of Honiton or Wells, and congratulate them, not on having been the means of preserving,but of giving parliamentary representation,and withholding it from the towns scattered over the land. Whether there may be instances in which, by deviating from the general rule on particular grounds such a thing may be done or not I express no opinion. That is one of the points of detail to be settled in committee. But as a general rule I consider that it would be unwise to endeavour to induce Parliament to accede to a system which should bring in these small insignificant places for the purpose of fasten ing a Parliamentary representation to these particular spots (Cheers.) No declaration has been made that grouping is an evil. We have recommended it on grounds which we thought sufficient. We thought it not likely to cause an increase of expense ; and I believe that if hon. gentlemen will investigate the actual cause of the expenditure in grouped boroughs at contested elections there will be some ground for that anticipation. We considered it a mild pro ceeding, and that it would linewiso possess great possible advantages, and that Parliament might sit for a time greater or less, after the Redistribution of Seats Bill should have passed. There would undoubtedly have been great inconsistency in the retaining in the house the representa tives of constituencies which had been absolutely disfran chised. But, however that may be, no word has everbeen spoken to show that we regard grouping as one of the vital or essential principles of the bill. (Cheers.) I would just remind the house what has been stated to be the leading principles of the bill. lam bound to say there are many kinds of grouping to which we could notaccede. We could not accede to the kind of grouping proposed by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire. We could not accede to the grouping of small villages and towns around small vil lages or towns already in possession of the franchise— " Strawberries grow underneath the nettle, And wholesome barrios thrive and ripen best, Neighbour'd by fruit of baser qyality.' We don't believe there is that electric communication be tween places of this description and the general system of grouping. But the leading principles of the bill in its two parts have been before stated to the house, and it will not take one minute to repeat them. The leading principles of the franchise bill are to complete in the first place the pro visions of the law which enfranchise voters of £lO annual value and upwards—to extend the borough franchise downwards, and also to extend the county franchise down wards. These are the principles of the bill so far as regards that part which relates to simple enfranchisement. The Redistribution Bill curtails the borough representation ; it does not extinguish it, but it leaves it'its fair proportion- It curtails the small borough representation by the removal' in whatever manner it might be thoughtbest, some 50 seats more or less—it is not necessary that we should adhere to that particular figure - (hear, hear, and laughter)—and dis tribute those seats among great and growing and new con stituencies. And lastly, to secure for Scotland from what ever source we can—(cheers and laughter)—that increase to her representation to which we contend that her num bers and wealth entitled her. (Cheers.) This I believe to be the principle of the bill, and I believe the claim of Scot land is so strong and clear, that on investigation of her case I think it will be almost impossible to resist it. But from whence these seats are to be had is another matter. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) I am not going to propose that they shall be taken from Ireland. (Laughter.) But in regard to the claim itself I confess I can see no rea son why Scotland, with one-sixth of the population in round numbers of the United Kingdom, shOuld be content or can be expected to be content, with a little more than' one-tenth part of the representation of the country. , (Cheers.) I think some honour a bl e gentlemen opposite said there was something questionable or inconsistent on the part of the Government in thus throwing open the discussion of a great number of points with regard to the redistribution of seats. I cannot escape from whatever imputation might be cast upon me or the Government on that score. That was one of the difficulties, and I confess in my own mind - one of the greatest of all the difficulties and one of the greatest objections to the combination of the two subjects, for deal with re-distribution as you will it opens so many 'different views—it touches such a multitude of local and class interests—all requiring that their own particular - cases shall be stated and heard, and patiently worked out, that it is the mere matter of business, and not any difficulty of principle with which it clothes a measure of reform that has always appeared to me to be a strong practical argu ment for the separation of the two subjects. (Cheers.) I am not urging it again as raising the question. We have placed ourselves in the hands of the house, and by the union of the bills it is for the house to determine what shall bo done on the subject, as we abide by the resolution that has been adopted. (Hear, hear.) I, therefore, have explained that there need be no surprise from the opposite side that we are retreating from that which had been con templated. On the contrary I had hoped there would have been a disposition on the part of all to express satisfaction — a greater approximation of mind and opinion might have been supposed—when I stated on the part of her Majesty's Government that apart of the subject necessarily consists of matters which must be left open for settlement, as it could not be settled by any forgone conclusion or on any fixed and rigid political principles. I confess it has always ap peared to me that after all the great subject is the enfran chisement of our fellow-countrymen—(cheers)—and on another occasion I might be open to the charge of incon sistency, for I was a party to that large measure of Lord Aberdeen's and the smaller one of Lord Palmerston's Go vernment, but I look upon the whole subject of redistribution as controlled by certain leadingprinciples; and, as to its de tails, I look upon it as a part of the subject which we ought to approach in a spirit of conciliation, with a view of settling the question in a manner which will give the greatest gene ral satisfaction. It 10 to enfranchise our fellow-creatures that we have a most serious and solemn duty to perform. (Hear, hear.) These are the principles of the bill which we submit; and what we ask of the house is its fair consideration of them. I am boundto say that I donot think this amend mento r e fa:raealinysr di regardsiw s ms s c eeu o nme n t p cgo a ol ti t rnth i a b dei le:emod object_wn admit — we ; i ibt t u h_ i tuo a wwft f eeh a mr i i r dlyl o c shi o tpon n enr a s or. i f d ae e cu r td a l yt gallanti o e n x p o I f i thec ifriend,t t b h i e l . s yf S hs te s m of gr ou pi ng proposed by the Government, and that is e that, and still fairly say, t, ise b s ut th w e e iss m u i e gh pe t r a fe d c m tl i y t "We will go into committee on this bill, and you are free to deal with the question there." (Hear, hear.) But as to the words, " the scheme is not suf ficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory mea sure," I say there is, even grammatically, the utmost diffi culty in understanding what is meant by them. (Hear.) The amendment appears to have been framed with a view to condemn the bill and yet to save those who support the amendment from the charge of having rejected the bill on account of any particular provisions it contains, and pre vent their being called up in consequence to account for I w s h h a o t u t l h d e why eha veryv e done b if y t a h s teoirrmc of s t t h i t o u s e e n t“sn. o n( Hr,naes,awhich hear so frequently from the other side would meet me intTenhtaiohnuno.f and p n w art o e w y , w op h p e o n si l te saj o s l u a p m p highortaf afraid d s a i m t w en a d s m t e h n e t. admira tion of the amendment, and I am afraid it was the of inten tion of his party to support it, but I protest in the name learned member for Belfast spoke in terms of the Government, and I protest in the name of the character and conduct of Parliament, and I protest on behalf of my countrymen, against this dealing with great measures in this house, and especially with measures of such grave and solemn importance as this. (Hear, hear.) I protest, I say, against dealing with such measures, not in the good old English manner of plain " ayes" and " noes"—(cheers) —but with vague declarations whichnobody can meet, and which nobody can understand—(loud cheers)—declarations such as this, " that the scheme of her Majesty's Govern ment is not sufficiently matured—(Opposition cheers)—to form the basis of a satisfactory settlement of the question." (Renewed cheers fromthe Opposition benches.) Any one who wanted to escape from a controversy would use just such language. (Ministerial cheers.) It is to thislan guage that ambition resorts for the prosecution of its wicked purpose. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, and cries of "Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Do not let any gentleman suppose that I am speaking of the movementsof political parties—l am speaking rather of the movements, those frightful and bloody collisions produced between great powers by the lust of ambition, which I was describing, and which to make good its cause, resorts to vague gene ralities of that kind. What is the effect of those gene ralities ? Why, to efface all the distinct linesbetween jus tice and injustice—between truth and falsehood: to pre vent the merits of any question being carried to a fair issue, and to provide a place of refuge to which any man afraid to combat any argument may resort for shelter. (Cheers.) - That was a fair claim, and I had hoped I should have had some sympathy from hon. gentlemen opposite when I put it forward. (Hear.) But at at any rate I will say that we had a right to expect that. It was promised to us ; it was gratuitously promised to us; it was ostentatiously promised to us. On the 6th of February, 1866, Lord Derbyused these words—" I promise the noble earl another thing, that his bill shall have fair play—(cheers and counter cheers) —that it will not be thrust aside by any underhand method— (re newed cheers)—that there should be no factious movement --(hear)—or combination against it—(cheers from the Mi nisterial benches)—on the part of those who can combine for nothing else, but that it will be dealt with on its merits." (Cheers from the Opposition side of the house.) Is it dealing with a measure on its merits to say that it is not sufficiently mature ? (Hear, hear.) When, in the long course of Parliamentary warfare, was that course adopted ? What motive—what precedent is there for a great party resort-ins to that mode of warfare ? (Opposition eries of "1859.") Eighteen hundred and fifty-nine ! In 1859 a bill was cordemnad because it did not reduce the borough franchise. (Cheers.) Act as my noble friend acted in 1859, and my complaint falls to the ground. Condemn the bill because it does reduce the borough franchise. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the house.) You stated your objections to that proposal in your speeches. My right hon. friend the member for Caine objected to it in his speech ; my hon. friend the member for North Devon ob jected to it in his speech ; the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire objected to it in his speech. Let the right hon. gentleman embody his opinion in a motion. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Or if he does not chose to embody his opinion in a motion— for I admit that he is not bound to do that if he pleases— let him take the usual, the known, the established course of opposing the bill, and the country will know what he means—(cheers);—but it is useless to fall back on those large, vague, unmeaning words. (Hoar.) You may use big, unmeaning, and vague words, but you cannot build on the use of words the fame of a party. You may embarrass a Government ; you may impede the course of a measure ; you may injure those who for the moment are politically opposed to you, but you can lay no solid foundation by such a course as this for the fortunes of yourselves and your friends. (Cheers.) Do not let us be drawn into these vague, these broad, these almost wild denunciations about the constitution. Every time my right honourable friend addresses the house he makes a speech in the form of a prophecy about the constitution. In the first speech, drawing from the words of Mr. Canning, though I am quite sure it was not from the poverty of his own imagination, he prophesied the destruction of the constitution. And every speech that has come from him since, though he has no longer foraged amongst the speeches of Mr. Canning—every speech presented a new form, but with darker and darker features, predicting the ruin and downfall of the constitution. (Hear, hear.) "Don't," said the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, " let us discard the rules and maxims that have never failed for dogmas and theories that have never succeeded." What are the rules and maxims which have never failed ? It is the £lO franchise. What are the doctrines and theories whichlhave never suc ceeded ? It is the £7 borough franchise. (Laughter.) Well, but that has not succeeded because it has never been tried. (Hear, hear.) And the £lO franchise, before it was tried, was open to the same objection, and was met with the same re proach and loaded with the same denunciations, delivered with not less earnestness and ability than those of the right hon. member for Caine. My noble friend the member for Leicestershire, in his speech to-night, tempted me to go on ground which if I had not heard the words of Tennyson put in his mouth, I should not have ventured to tread, be cause it seems to claim something of us to which we may not yet be entitled—to which I admit we are hardly yet in a condition to prove ourselves entitled. My noble friend described England truly—the United Kingdom is a "Land of old and just renown, Where freedom broadens slowly down From precedent to precedent"— lines taken from that noble dedication addressed by the Poet Laureate to the Queen. But my noble friend stopped with these lines:— " Where freedom broadens slowly down From precedent to precedent." But Tennyson goes on to add these lines— "Statesmen - at her council meet Who know the seasons when to take occasion by the hand, And make the bounds of freedom wider yet, By sharing some august decree • Which kept her throne unshaken still, Broad based upon the people's will, Aud compassed by the inviolate sea." (Ministerial cheers.) Sir, we claim to love the constitution, we claim to value the constitution, we claim to revere the constitution—(ironical cheers)—as sincerely and earnestly as any of those who site opposite. My right hon. friend the member for Calne looks back with something like contempt on those who opposed the Reform Bill of 1831. We have heard him denounce in terms of the extremest severity the parliamentary system which prevailed before the date of that great measure. (Hear, hear.) It has been contended that the course pursued by the Duke of Wellington and by Sir R. Peel in 1831 is to be again pursued in the opposition that is now offered to a similar proposal now made. I must say that the very converse of that view appears to me to be far more just. Those who opposed the Reform Bill of 1 1831, though I now see that they were wrong, had much to say for the course which they pursued. They had to deal with a system which was the most complicated in the world, Its bearings were so manifold that they were hardly trace able by the common, or even by the philosophic eye, it was like some wonderful creation thathad descended from above of the utmost delicacy of conformation, so that you might well fear to touch it lest by deranging its springs you should mar its effects. And so long had this state of things pre vailed that the wise man and the brave man shrunk from the responsibility of attempting such a task as that. How different is our case. We have seen the risk of improvement run. We have seen the dangers, if such there were, of en croachment; we have heard prophecies uttered in all solem nity, and collapsing almost as soon as they were delivered ; we have witnessed the happy and blessed fruits of that con stitutional change. We have found ourselves launched on a career where everything before us is comparatively plain and open ; we have to deal not with alterations so much as with the growth of circumstances, the growth of numbers, the growth of wealth, the growth of intelligence, the growth of loyalty to the throne, the growth of confidence in Parliament and of attachment and of love that has operated amongst all classes of the community—(cheers) —and our view is this—that in these circumstances we say now again has the time arrived to apply with circumspec tion, yet with firmness and decision, those principles from the operation of which we have reaped such blessed fruits. And it is in the posecution of that wekrk that we are con fronted with the hostility that has met us in the various stages of this bill; hostility that may be formidable indeed, which I will not even now predict whether it may not achieve a momentary success; but with regard to which any triumph achieved will recoil with tenfold force on the heads of those who may bring it about. (Laughter, and cheers.) And if we suffer in such a cause as that we have in hand, it is indeed to be preferred to success achieved in any ordinary cause ; for we are well convinced that in the discharge of our duty and in redeeming our pledges we are consulting alike at once the honour and the dignity of the house, the stability . of the throne on which her Majesty sits, the contentment and happiness of the people, and the strength, stability, and endurance of our institutions. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI, who was greeted with loud cheers, said —I am sure, sir, I quite agree in one sentence of the right hon. gentleman's speech—that it is the duty of the two parties in this hou se t o approach th i s su bj ec t i n a spirit of conciliation and cons c i en ti ousness —(hear) —and I was rather - surprised, co ns id er i ng the general tone of the speech of the right hon. gentl eman an d the vo l un t ar y e xpressions of opinion on his part th a t we s h ould b e prepare d to meet him in that spirit upon th e mer i ts of the case b e f or e us, that he should, according to his habit, assume that the peroration of a parliamentary speech must necessarily consist in scold ing your opponents. (Laughter and cheers.) Why, the facts of the case are all against the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) Of what does he complain ? He read an extract from a speech delivered by Lord Derby It was uttered at the commencement of Parliament, and certainly, as I fol lowed it, it appeared to me that we had exactly and severely, and rigidly fulfilled that promise. (Loud cheers.) Why, did not Lord Derby say that he would give the mea sure of the Government fair play ? and have we not con sented to the second reading of the bills ? (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Have we interposed any cunning resolu tion for the purpose of defeating the measure by a side wind ? (Renewed cheers.) I admit that in the course of these proceedings there have been two motions which have arrested the progress of the Government measures. One was offered by the noble lord the member for Chester, and he received from the right hon. gentlemen opposite, in due course, the same invective to which we have just been ex posed. (Hear.) But the house and the country soon dis covered the wisdom and acknowledged the propriety of the course recommended by the noble lord, and the right hon. gentleman in 24 hours adopted it. (Cheers and laughter.) What is there then to complain of that we should have voted for the measure suggested by the noble lord, and which the Government subsequently recognised ? (Hear.) Well, then, again with regard to the other amendment which is now before us. This also has been proposed by an habi tual supporter of the Government, and it might perhaps have given rise to great controversy had not the right hon. gentleman opposite risen and expressed the sentiments that we have heard from him. The motion might have been described as an insiduous, a sinister, a vexatious amend ment ; as one that ought not by any means to have been proposed, and as damaging unfairly the propositions of the Ministry. (Hear.) But what has the right hon. gentle man done in the main portion of the speech which he has addressed to the house ? Why, he has acknowledged the justice of the amendment, has thrown over the whole sys tem of grouping (the Chancellor of the Exchequer signi fied dissent) as a scheme the difficulty of which all acknow ledged to be one that it was impossible to deal with in committee, and has frankly informed the house that ho had no doubt that the Government, on reflection, did not deem their system of grouping either indispensable to the measure, or perhaps on the whole the most convenient so lution of the difficulty. (Cheers, and laughter.) Now these are the two factious amendments that have been brought forward and been denounced by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and with one exception they are the only amendments that have been offered for the conside ration of the house. There is one member to whom refe rence was specially made—the hon. member for North amptonshire (Sir R. Knightley). The right hon. gentleman availed himself of his considerable command of epithets to attempt to describe the character of the motion made by that hon. gentleman ; but not satisfied with that the right hon. gentleman resorted to the language of Lord Derby— it seems he has his pocket always full of such extracts (hear, hear) - and the indignation of Liberal members seemed to show that he had made a palpable hit, which was acceptable among a portion of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Northamptonshire (Sir R. Knight ley) proposed a resolution against bribery. The right hon. gentleman said that it was unwarrantable. But it so happened that the same proposition was made by the honourable gentleman who was then member for Norfolk, and was accepted by Lord John Rneeell, then the leader of the house, and the instruction was inserted in the bill. (Cheers.) So much for the events that have happened in the House of Commons within the last three months. The Government have not only followed the plan which they previously denounced, but respect ing the course upon which we so recently determined, and which was followed by Lord John Russell in the last bill of the same character which came before us,!the right hon. gentleman will probably, upon reflection, feel that he pitched.his note a little too high for the subject, and that he was rather thinking of the days of 1832—0 f which he may have read, though, perhaps, he did not witness them —when he referred to the menacing results of which he spoke, though they are not yet ascertained. (Laughter.) Far from there being any ground for such a charge, the house has acted in so temperate and sagacious a manner that I think it would have been well if other persons had imitated the House of Commons in the good sense and temper they have shown in the course of this discussion. And now, as the right hon. gentleman adverted to some observations of mine, I will refer to them, not because they merely affect myself, but because if the false impression be not removed, it may lead to injurious consequences. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the small boroughs, but after 12 o'clock I shall not go into a vindication of them but I must say that it is impossible to discuss thisquestion without reference to individual instances. This contro versy might last for ever if we were to refer to the many eminent men who have been returned by these boroughs. With regard to persons connected with India, I beg to re mind the house that Mr. Wilson sat for Westbury, and Mr. Massey for Newport, and I believe at this moment an In dian judge sits for Liskeard. It is my opinion, if you put an end to these small boroughs, you will find landowners merchants, and manufacturers coming in greater numbers into this house. There is a popular element in these small boroughs which admits not only persons other than those I have just alluded to, but even demagogues, although de magogues do not stay here. (A laugh). It is the men who have carved out their own fortunes that find their way into the house chiefly through these smaller boroughs. The small borough which I mentioned has a population of 8000 ; but what security have we that it will not be in the next bill ? (Hear, hear.) There is a most important point connected with our borough system. I am not now speaking of the smaller boroughs, which ought not to be disturbed or changed before the house has given it their k fullest consideration. We know that eleven millions and a half of the population are represented by 162 ;nem bers—county members—and nine and a half millions by 334 members—borough members. On the first blush one would say that such a system was a monstrous anomaly— an injustice. But that is the great problem which we have to solve. We have always had a general understanding in this House that it was some indirect mode. by which this arrangement was brought about, and that there was some counteracting influence by which the system of a majority of the people was represented by a minority of members was adjusted. It is of vast importance when the House is called upon to disturb and to destroy a great portion of popular rights, to consider what the effect will be on the eleven and a half millions of the population I have referred to. I admit it is not easy to ascertain what the number is of the supplementary votes they contributed in a system which has been represented as working favourably. You cannot take a pen and piece of paper and tick off those which are landed and those which aro urban interests. The considerations are complicated. It does n;. - 4 follow that a small rural borough is under the landed influence, or that i t would at all represent the landed interest. There are small boroughs in rural districts of a very independent character. There are some in which the Dissenting interest predo minates ; and, next to the landowners, the result of my researches is that Dissenters and religious interests are predominant in small boroughs. Again, there are boroughs with large constituencies and of a superficially urban character, yet which, on a fair analysis, returns one of its members by territorial influence. Again, you will find a country gentleman, a large acred man,sitting for a borough, but who does not represent the sentiments in his votes of interest of what is called the land. It requires considerable analysis to arrive at a precise result. I have endeavoured to perform this analysis, not as a partisan or even as a politician, but as if I were preparing a paper for the Social Congress. (A laugh.) I have go'ne through the supple mentary rights that the landed interest acquire —that is to say, these eleven millions and a half not represented, ex cept by the 162 members and the 84 supplementary votes. If you deduct 84 from 334, the amount of the borough members, you get 250, and if you add these 84 to 162, the result is 246-246 to 250. The machinery by which our political system has gone on has worked as well as could be expected in an old constitutional country, and we have attained a fair approximation to electoral justice. But what are the conditions of this bill ? Of these 84 borough mem bers, supplementary to the fair representation of the county and their populations, 42 are disfranchised for the purposes of her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) That is a serious considEtration. (Hear.) You have of course a very imperfect county representation. It is true you have 16 new county members, but you institute 14 new boroughs. Where the adjustment was imperfect before, it is more so since the diminution of 30 members. This is a very serious circumstance, as you must be convinced that unless you establish something like an approximation to justice in the representation of this house, according to the claims of the property and population of the country, the system cannot work. It has worked before with these supplementary means, but if you impair - and almost destroy these supple mentary means it is impossible you can go on very long with representation so imperfect. But, then, the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, when I talked of the landed interest, and suggested to the house the means by which a lower representation of that interest might take place—neces sary before, but doubly necessary since the introduction of this bill—(cheers)—denounced my plan as one by which the counties would be weeded and purged, and that I wished to reduce the counties to mere assemblages of landlords and tenants. This has been said by her Majesty's Government throughout the debate. The Secre tary of State said the other day that the right hon. mem ber forßucks, by enfranchising the unenfranchised towns, would eliminate the urban element from counties. The Solicitor-General said the right hon. member for Bucks wants county members for farm labourers and farmers, and wishes to eliminate from the counties the independent and intelligent class. The Attorney-General and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the right hon. member for Bucks—it is unfortunate to be the member for Bucks— (laughter)—wished to reduce the county franchise to one class, which is against the spirit of the constitution. An other right hon. gentleman said the right hon. member for Bucks wishes to eliminate the intelligence and indepen dence of the counties. It is very important that we should have a distinct idea of the views of the Government, and the right hon. ;gentleman entered into such details that there can be no doubt upon the subject. He says, I want to enfranchise all boroughs with over 5,000 inhabitants, and to eliminate thereby from the counties their intelli gence and independence. In the first place, but I will not dwell on that, there never was a man yet so silly, not even one of us celebrated gentlemen who, according to the hon. member for Westminster, have a peculiar intellectual for mation, who propose to give representation to all the Small towns, from Burnley with its 30,000 to little Ware with its 5,000. No one can for a moment believe I proposed it. (Cheers.) But I will assume, for argument sake, that that was my policy, and that I an going to solve the difficulty and become the representative of the landed interest by enfranchising all the unrepresented towns above 5,000. We have a return on the table of the number and popula tion of the unrepresented towns in England; there are 1,117,000 ; if you deduct that from 10,500,000, you still leave for the county population half of the English people. But I want to know what is to become of the surplus of the farmers and farm labourers. We have also a return on the table of the number of farmers and farm labourers and their families, and of all the persons other wise connected with the cultivation of the soil, whether pasture or woodland, and those connected with horticulture, and they amounted to 2,000,000. Deduct that from the 10,500,000, and you have still 8,500,000 unaccounted for. What I complain of is this, that those gentlemen who charge me with eliminating the people of England from the counties appear to have based their calculations so that they do not account for eight and a half millions, and eliminate eight and a half millions from the counties. Besides the towns ranging between Burnley and Ware, there are 500 towns with a population under 5,000. The village population of the counties amount to upwards of 9,000,000, as numerous as the whole population of the unrepresented counties. There are, too, as many manufactures in the counties as in the towns. These may be very special, industrious, and great aggregates of wealth on the scale you will find at Manches ter and Leeds, but you will find in the rural district similar establishments neither less nor fewer than in the great cities ; and as there is an equal amount of active in dustry in the counties, so there are a greater number of the professional classes of the country in counties than in the towns—there are more lawyers, more dissenting ministers, more of the clergy of the country who, apart from their high calling, are the most powerful class in the country. It. is in the counties that they mainly prevail, and it is only by the county members that they . are represented, and yet we have a party that comes forward and says that my plan is to represent the unrepresented towns, by which the county population will be eliminated from the counties; yet those who suppose that the county population simply con sists of farmers and farm labourers eliminate 8,000,000 out of 10,000,000 of the county population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "It is all very well ; you are going on very well with your representation of towns with new members." But you forget the boundaries. All that I have heard of the boundaries shows that the boundaries will tell against the landed interest. It is perfectly monstrous that half the town of Halifax would be county voters. The difficulty of the subject I admit ; but the injurious effect to the landed interest is exactly in proportion to the difficulty. If you were to give representatives to large towns in your redistribution of seats you might reduce the population of the counties by about 1,500,000. But eves then you would have a population of 10,000,000, county population, represented by only 162 members. The landed interest— which hon. gentlemen opposite call the agricultural interest but call it so improperly—is bound up with others, and they would be represented by 162 members, plus the number about to be added by the bill before the house. That ad dition would give them more power, but there are other things besides. There are other Considerations -- a wish to avoid too much change—to avoid dallying with hallowed associations ; but if you wish to tamper with the institutions of your country you must offer a substitute by which the landed interest would be better represented. You cannot get off by that view which night after night and week after week has been expressed by the Government describing the population of counties after justice has been done by arranging boundaries and enfranchising some unrepresented towns—by describing one half the English nation as a mere collection of farmers and farm labourers. (Cheers.) Your own statistics—your own authentic records on the table, confute the superficiality and error of such views and such statements. (Cheers.) And it must be met. And when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down and rises in his place and informs us that unless we adopt the measures of the Government we must take the consequences and may rue the consequences of our conduct, it is our duty to come forward and moderate his anger, and put our case before him, and ask him to deal with those statements—those facts the accuracy of which no one can impugn, and instead of hurrying on a piece of legislation, which everyone must feel, after such a statement as I have just made, is en tirely immature, is wanting in every respect in prescience and preparation—(cheers)—l think, instead of doing that he ought to have availed himself of the friendly counsel of the nal° lord the member for Chester, and have taken the earliest opportunity of reconsidering and re constructing his measure. .(Cheers.) I see myself no ob jection whatever to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant member for Wells. But so far as I could follow the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amendment is conceded. I understand that the Chan _ cellor of the Exchequer does not for a moment insist on the system of grouping —(hear, hear)—which the universal opinion of the house and the general sentiment of the country have criticised and condemned. The noble lord the member for Chester has thought proper to express an opinion upon the bill of the Government. lam far from differing from him in opinion. I perhaps should not have ventured to express it in so uncompromising a manner. An expression of that kind coming from me might be misinterpreted, but coming from the noble lord it will break with the force of truth upon the conviction of the house and the conscience of the country. (Cheers.) But what surprised me most was the reason which the noble lord the member for Chester urged for not at once terminating‘the course of a measure so per nicious as the one which the Government, according to his account, have brought in for improving the representation of the people. The noble lord says it is the critical state of foreign affairs that influences him, and that he cannot take upon himself the responsibility of dislodging Lord Clarendon from the Foreign Office. (Hear, and laughter.) Now, I much regret that the name of Lord Clarendon was introduced into this debate. Certainly, I should not have introduced it, and should have been willing to havelimited my observations to the subject of the borough representa tion and its influence upon the county representation, which is much more congenial to my mind at this moment. But I cannot allow an observation on a man like Lord Cla rendon to pass unacknowledged. When that is brought for ward the noble lord the member for Chester has a reason why he should not oppose on every occasion—it was only on a subsequent occasion—a bill which he deems improper, nay, so pernicious, as the measure introduced by her Ma jesty's Government. Any man who occupies the position of Lord Clarendon—that of Secretary of State, and entrusted with the management of our Foreign Affairs—often finds himself no doubt in very difficult positions, and these diffi culties may be described under two heads --viz., experience in his own Cabinet and experience in conferences and con gresses. A Minister for Foreign Affairs may often find him self in the painful and difficult position of being unable to prevent war. That is a great occasion which must summon up all the resources and energies of the man ; and if he is the Minister of a country not prepared to go to war I do not think he can be blamed if he fails in preventing war taking place—(hear) —but if he be the Minister of a first-rate country like England, and he wishes to prevent war and fails in it, then I think he has shown a great want of re source and those qualities which a man in his position ought to possess—(cries of " No, no," and cheers)—and that certainly was the position of Lord Clarendon during the Crimean war. (Hear, hear.) He had the power of England at his back, and he failed to prevent war, though; I think, he might have succeeded in preventing it. His whole course before war broke out was a scene of great disaster. Let us look to the time when Lord Clarendon was in conference and in congress —(hear, hear, and question)—because we are told by one of the principal members of the house by one who has taken a leading part in this discussion and on whose speech the night much depends—that his course is entirely influenced by the conviction that it is his duty to maintain Lord Clarendon in power. (Cheers.) I say again, as I would say of a Minister in Lord Clarendon's position trying to prevent war as the Minister of a country not pre pared to go to war, we cannot impugn his conduct on details. So in a congress. If a Minister of a country not prepared to enforce its decrees, a generous country cannot blame him even if he fails in the object of his negociations— (hear, hear) - but Lord Clarendon has been the Minister of a triumphant and victorious country at a congress, and what did he do there ? Why, he consented to an arrangement with regard to the boundaries of the Turkish empire after our triumph and struggles so ignorninous thatit required all the energies and exertions of Lord Palmerston to prevent its being carried into execution. (Cheers.) Lord Clarendon, as the Minister of a triumphant country, at a congress forfeited all the maritime rights of England, and he consented at a congress to enter into a conspiracy to put down the free press of Europe. (Cheers.) At the congress ho deserted Circassia, who had every claim upon us, and whose case was afterwards brought before this house by my noble friend near me. Circassia has ceased to exist as a nation in consequence of the conduct of Lord Clarendon. And therefore when Lord Clarendon's name is brought forward as the reason why the noble lord the member for Chester is prepared "to vote in favour of a measure which he de nounces as pernicious, I must doubt the discretion of the noble lord in that respect. (Hear.) The right hon. gentle man opposite ended his speech by a solemn protest to us against our conduct. It seemed to me that as he went on he could not stand when he enforced with the fire of his eloquence charges against us which had no foundation. The right hon. gentleman knows that the reason why this measure has not advanced as he expected, and as ho fondly hoped it would, originates in the essential character of the measure which ho has introduced. It was ill-advised, it was ill-prepared—(cheers)—and when first introduced no one was more of that opinion, I believe, than the right hon. gentleman himself. He spoke with bated breath—he looked with a downcast glance. (Cheers and laughter). But he took up the case and did justice to it. Gerard Hamilton, once a member of this house—" Single -speech Hamilton "—said of Burke, who was his private secretary, that there was this peculiarity in Mr. Burke, that when ever he took up an opinion, whatever it might be, he had so ductile an imagination that before he had talked long about it he firmly believed it. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman will not be offended with me if I compare him, at least, in that respect, to Mr. Burke. (Laughter.) There is this advantage with such minds, however, t hat there is also a facility of forgetfulness about them. I hope the good sense of the House of Commons will allow this question to be adjourned. (Ministerial cries of " No, no," and Opposition cheers)—and that her Majesty's Go vernment will make themselves masters of the question before it comes forward again —(cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches), and that they will not believe that the landed interests, when the unrepresented towns are enfranchised, do consist only of farmers and farm labourers. They must recollect that they will have to deal even then with half the people of England, and they should be prepared to come forward on a subsequent oc casion with a measure which would be more adequate to the occasion, and more calculated-to give content and satisfaction to the people of this country. (Loud and con tinued cheering.) Captain HAYTER—I rise to ask a question of her Ma jesty's Government after the direct appeal made to me by the noble earl the member for Chester —an appeal deserv ing of the more attention from me, inasmuch as it was con tamed in a speech which, as far as I understand it, was much more condemnatory of the Government scheme than my amendment. As matters now stand the amendment I had the honour to move has been entirely robbed of its in tention by the concession of the whole point at issue• (Cries of "No, no.") Now, whether there have been any grounds for it or not there is a rumour abroad, beyond the walls of this house, and I believe that it has also got within walls of this house, that we would alter the result of this division. Ido not say that her Majesty's Government have given the slightest reason for it. I appeal most to the speech of the noble lord the member for Chester ill con firmation of that fact, and I appeal to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the real intentions of the Government. I feel it so certain that this measure will not be pressed in its present form during the present ses sion that I venture to ask leave to withdraw the amendment I have moved. (Loud cries of "No, no," "Divide, divide.") The SPEAKER then put the question, " That the amendment be withdrawn," amid immense cries of "N °l uo." Lord ELCHO then rose and said—Sir, I shall not tres pass long upon your patience ; but as one of the aborigina l Adullamites, I claim the indulgence of the house for a fe lt ' , moments. (Loud cries of "Divide, divide," and ether in' terruptions from the Ministerial side of the house.) I e l l; I claim the indulgence of the house. (Cheers and cries al 'Bar, bar," "Adjourn," and "Divide.") The SPEAKER having interposed in favour of order, Lord ELCHO resumed—Sir, I claim this indulgence, an d I hope that the honourable members sitting below the gangway—for the interruption comes exclusively from them—from their sense of fairness, will allow me to say 6 few words. (Renewed cries of "Divide divide.") I asig the indulgence of the house, because my position as a ll , aboriginal Adullamite is somew h a t pecu li ar . (Cheers) Our David has left our cave and has made friends Wit h Saul. (Cheers and cries of "Divide" repeated.) Any one who listened, as I did, with great pleasure to the speech my noble friend—a most able speech and effectively de livered—must have perceived this, that though, if we go to a division the body of my noble friend will be in th e lobby with the Government his heart still remains With the opponents of the measure ; for he denounced both the bill and the Government in every possible way. (Cheerei My noble friend objected to the provisions of the bill and even went the length of prophesying not only the ultimate fate of the bill, but the Government also. (Cheers an d • expressions of impatience.) My noble friend said this, that the bill is so ill constructed and so ill-matured that it will not and it cannot pass. And with respect to his own . duct in reference to this bill, he said that he would °We e it tooth and nail in committee. That was my noble friend! expression. (Cheers.) Th e on ly reason my no bl e fries': gave for voting with the Government was, that he did no t to bring about a change o f G overnmen t a t this parti cular time. My noble friend, however, said that he had no confidence whatever in the Government upon this question of reform. (Cheers.) My noble friend said that as regard s this measure he had no confid ence i n th e G overnm ent, h ill, that he rested his support of them on his confidence in Lord Clarendon. Now I feel that a division taken unde r these circumstances would practically be a division on a false issue —(hear, hear)—and that it would be 11 ° test of the real feeling of th e h ouse -o. n d cries Hear,hear,' and calls for a division)—as far as regards question whether the bills of the Government a'" well-considered, or whether their proceedings upon O i l subject, as a whole, are such as t o mer it th e con fidence this house. I rejoice, therefore, that my hon. and P . ' lant friend the member for Wells proposes to withdraw h i '? amendment. (Hear, and no, no.) I have no wish to a l : barrass her Majesty's Government—(oh, oh, and hear,hear) —and it is not from any hostility to them that I ain op posed to their policy in this instance ; but it is because disapprove of hasty legislation upon this vital question. (Hear.) I hope, therefore, that the Government will 8 7 cept the recommendation of my noble friend, and that the/ will withdraw their measure for the present session. (ge ar ' hear, and no, no.) The SPEAKER put the question—" Is it your pleasur ° that the amendment be withdrawn ;" and this having been replied to by a loud shout o f "No!" front the Minister ig ' benches, he proceeded to put the amendment ; but be w ag for some time interrupted in doing so by most of the OW servative members, together with Mr. Lowe, Lord Kie h , () ; and a number of other gentl emen , l eav i ng t h e h ouse auliu s vociferous cheering from those Liberal members who re mained. When at length the question was put almost all those present shouted " Aye," but one or two Liberal members' cried "No." The house was consequently cleared for division ; but the amendment was negatived without sel division taking place, and in a similar way the that the Speaker should l eave th e c h a i r was carr i e d. , The house then went to a di v i s i on upon th e qu estion 0 ' reporting progress, and ther e were — question For reporting progress 403 Against it Majority _4ol The announcement of the numbers was of course re ceived with a burst of laughter. Mr. LOWE said he wished to call the attention of the 11 011 1 ° to the manner in whi c h it s proceed i ngs had been conclude': He had left the house alongwith others, beingunwilling L.° force a division on the amendment. On endeavouring t° return he found it impossible to force his way i nap t the house. What had passed he was unable to say, when ho did get into the house there was no oppertu ll 7, of discussing the q ues ti on . Th e preamble had been post poned. He wished to know whether it was to be tolerated that hon. members should be debarred by physical violenc! (cries of " oh, eh,")— from discharging their duties e* members of that house. Ile thought it a great herds" ) that a person without any fault of his own should be de barred from entering the house. (Hear, hear.) • Mr. B. HOPE corro b orated the statement of the rightr hon. gentlema n . Wh en he tried ' along with many oth:3 members to r e t urn th ey were met by a rush like tha t at 0 minor theatre— a rus h t h at would have been disgraceut even at such a place. (Laughter and cheers). Mr. HADFIELD said that if hon. members had left the house it was their own fault. There was a chance 0f 16 division, and they ran away. Mr. ONSLOW protested against the manner in whi ch members were running out, for they actually carried backwards with them. After a few rbmaris from Mr. Difomr, Sir J. FERGUSSON said that a large portion of bonamembers had left the house to avoid being forced into false issue. The unseem l y scene had been described "01 members whom h e cou ld not name. (Cries of °6 Nam name.") Mr. D. GRIFFITH bore testimony to the extreme ijj ; convenience which had o ccurre d on thi s occasion. (gear, He had had an i m p or t an t amendment on the paper f r o m the earliest moment, which would occupy as much time as 11/1 1 . 1 of the di scuss i on th a t h a d already taken place. Po% hear.) He was now d e p r i ve d o f th at opportunity. 0. could name, but he would refrain from doing so, those 11° , 0 members who had f a l se ly g i ven th e i r vo i ces i n o rder " 0 force on a division. (No, no, and name.) He should deli° doing so. (Oh, oh). The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had not lost " - D i opportunity of bringing forward his amendment, becauS e 0 the rules of the hou se h e wou ld h ave b een precluded Ir°3o doing so after the motion for going into committee W ,TO agreed to. (H ear , h ear .) H e m i ght, however , ig raised the question on th e mo ti on f or a dj ournmen t. 1 ' hon. friend the m em b er f or C a i ne h a d described i n str° „ terms a discreditable scene that he said had taken P l4°° , l o (hear, hear)—and it would l ea d t o t h e inference that 0 physical difficulty whi c h h e an d other hon. members 011"-' rienced had arisen designedly. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LOWE—No, no. i t •The CHANCELLOR o f th e EXCHEQUER said would appear so, b u t h e now qu i te understoo d the 1.1%,21 hon. gentleman's meaning. No doubt, what he comPle l / I ,, it of was what th e y had all, more or less, to experience ii " s t particular occasions. The grea t es t care was t a ken t o the question, instead of being taken as a mere adjoo ct o the motion, should be rea d w ith grea t d e lib erat i on 11 " se Speaker, and he noti ce d th a t th ere rema i ned in the h°lo a considerable number of hon. gentleman on the o ther D' io whom he thought might have been fairly trusted to to objection to the mai n ques ti on o f the Speaker leavingto chair. At Sir M. RIDLEY a l so b ore testimony to the obst ructl'7,to the entrance to th e h ouse. He had been unable to get aid the house in consequence of the obstruction, and he not know that any motion had been made. boa' The SPEAKER exp l a i ne d t h at the motion o f the bAt'• member for Deviz e s, if th ere had been no disturbatle e ,', v- o ot ever, and everyb o dy h a d rema i ne d i n h is place, c ould have been put. Th e on l y way i n w hi ch it coac t ' t oo been moved would have been, in the first instance, ° t o proposal of the hon. member for Kilmarnock that the o , bills should bo referred t o th e same committee, au ci „ t h 6 10' if any objection had been made to the course, tho to tribution Bill would have had to have been postP °ne „ r olecl the next day, and the hon. member would have bad a',..r"A"-fter to him an opportunity f or mov i ng hi s amendment. 'OOl, the house had agreed t o re f er t h e two bills to the sar ee .. e , the mittee, and the inst ruc ti on o f the right hon. gentlema n le ft member for Kilmarnock agreed to, there was no r ote li e fit for more than th e amendment of the hon. cod g n a f th‘' member for W e ll s . I n respect to the question 100 right hon. gentleman the member for Caine he (the SP e 1 ,00 was unable to speak to anything but what took P within the walls of that house. It was decided'," anus parliam en t ary and irregular proceeding for any gently tbee to give hi s vo i ce w i t h t h e ayes, and afterwards, ioo purpose of forcing a division, to challenge the d eeis _ re bor the chair by saying that the noes had it. If such 7 7 vo te were observed ho might be compelled to register hs'ios(f with the "Noes." He (the Speaker) put the questionusie vre o and repeatedly, and so far as the counting of the ho concerned, nothing could be more orderly. trope ° The Oyster Fisheries Bill, and the Pi er a nd Orders Confirmation Bill were read a second time. / sit!" The Indian Prize-money Bill and the Marriage monton) Bill were read a third time. The house adjourned at 25 minutes to three. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM . 7 k l 4/ No. li nt of No. 112, Strand, ranter, at Tim „ SuN o ty v Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the " I° Bliddleses.—Tuesday, June 5, 1866. si ft . ,: 14 fa, _ ~t