The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-27 00:00:00

tit does not remove the real solid objection to the mea sure. (Hear.) Then the noble lord the mem ber for Lynn argued with great fo rce that the question of redistri bution must comebefore the present constituency, or before the constituency that it was proposed to create. In the first instance the house would be really legislating with a "halter round its neck," while in the other case the ques tion would be decided by an entire constituency. But the Government profess no confidence in the body so pro posed to be created, because if this bill passes, they pro pose to make an alteration. The hon. member for West minster (Mr. Mill) tries to meet this by saying, " we should be satisfied with the bill as it stands." But how does that matter stand ? The question is whether the Government is content. According to the mode in which it is proposed to deal with this question it is evident that the matter would fall into the hands of an eminently transitional con stituency. This is an argument ad homines, and the argu ment of the hon. member for Westminster is worth nothing at all. This, then, is the great obstacle in the way of any one who wants to get to the bottom of the subject. It seems to me that, on the clearest grounds of self-respect and dignity, and with proper regard to the honour of this house, we ought not to allow any Govern ment to attempt anything of this kind. (Ilea; hear .) But there is another motive in this matter besides the hope of the pleasure of a victory over the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Goschen) told us that the Government have chosen the course of conduct they have followed because by it they might be able to give something which ot herwise they would not be able to con cede. That is a. statement that lays open large grounds for conjecture, but the convictions of a Government must be very strong when they are prepared to risk their existence upon them. A member who sits for any borough likely t o be disfranchised has a right to put the worst construc tion upon such a statement. I have dealt with several arguments adduced in this debate, but I must say a few more words upon the subject of the franchise, lest it should be said that I have not addressed myself sufficiently to the state of things now proposed to be established. The arith metical effect of the admission of 144,000 new householders in the boroughs would be to make this change —you would have 95, in which the working classes would have the ma jority, you would have 93 in which they w ould have al m ost a majority, and you would have 85 in which they would show a considerable proportion. (Cheers.) Then the rating is lower than the rental, and in 30 boroughs th e Assessment Act never came into operation at all, these comprising a population amounting to one-half of the boroughs. There is also a constant tendency for the rental to rise above the rating, and in any calculations on this subject considerable allowance must be made for this fact. The number of electors that would be added would also be considerable, if you bear in mind that many houses now of lower rental would be raised to £7, and the result of all would be that about 334 borough seats would be brought under the influence of the working classes. The argument upon this point has been put very ably by Mr. Baxter—l do not allude to the hon. member for Montrose—(laughter) who has discussed the subject in a very able pamphlet. Ac cording to the statements there contained it appears that, in the three decades since theßeforrußill the increase of voters has been 43 per cent. in the first decade, 23 per cent. in the second, and 20 per cent. in the third. If such has been the increase of the £lO householders during this period, how much greater will be the increase if you come to in clude houses of £9, of £B, and of £7 rental ? That lode has been pretty well worked out; go to a new one and the same process will go on. The £7 franchise will eat up the £6 and the £5. The £7 franchise is about 2s. 9d. a week, and £6 lOs is about 2s. 6d. a week. See how easy it is to advance by a few pence a week that can be very often made up in some way. (Hear, hear.) However, that is my honest conviction in the matter, but I cannot pretend to give it to the house with any confidence, for I have not the materials for demonstrating what I say any thing more thati the result of the Government figures as to its immediate effects. But the Government having supplied the matter, it should be taken in the strongest way against them. Now, I come to the treatment of this house by the Government. Before the house came into existence in its corporate capacity the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment set to work to devise a plan of reform, and when we came together we were treated much more like con demned criminals than "friends in council." (Cheers). The right hon. gentleman forebore, in his opening speech, to give anyreasons for bringing in the bill at all ; he in fact did not think it necessary to give any ground for the sen tence they had passed. He was challenged pretty warmly by some of us, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reply ; and in his discretion—which it was quite open for him to do—he reserved his statement for the second reading. Now what was the next course. The noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), to whom the Government owe the suggestion of the statistics, took the opportunity of asking, and not unreasonably, for a little more information of some kind. It was thought, not unnatu rally, that as we knew all about the franchise above £lO, we should also know a little of it below that sum, and that after knowing all about the boroughs we should have some information about the counties. (Opposition cheers.) This was pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an interlocutory debate, but what did he do upon that? He said, "You shall have no more statistics; throw figures to the dogs; I'll none of them." (Laughter and cheers.) He said, " In speaking of the measure, you are measuring and calcu lating as if the working classes were an invading army; are they not fellow Christians, fellow taxpayers, our own flesh and blood, and why do you capitulate and palter with them in this manner ? We will give you no more statistics ; here are principles enough for you, take that and go your way." (Opposition cheers.) There, again, Ido not think he was very polite to my noble friend, and I do not think he was very respectful to the house. If the Government undertook to give us statistical information they should be ready to listen to us when we ask for more—(hear,, hear) — as long as it is in their power to give it. There is no possible reason why the same machinery that gave us the statistics above £lO should not give us the statistics below £lO and £7. I come now to the principle of the bill. It seems to me to show a foregone conclusion, that the thing • was to be done at any rate, and that the result was of no consequence whatever. (Cheers.) I will even go a little further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give us the benefit of his first impressions on this question ; but he went down to Liverpool, and to an audience of his own friends he gave the reasons for bringing in this bill which ought to have been laid before us upon the first reading in his reply ; but he reserved them for the second reading. I think it was due from the leader of the house that he should have given us that information when he first brought forward the bill, and not have kept it for a select circle of his friends, and in the most inappropriately named place for the purpose, the Philharmonic Hall. (Laughter and cheers.) Then, after that the right hon. gen tleman and other members of the Government commenced a sort of scientific agitation throughout the country about this matter. They got up meetings between the first and second reading of the bill, before they could possibly know what the house would do with it, and they put in force their influence throughout the country wherever it could be exercised—the influence of agitation—(cheers) ; and it was not their fault if it had not in some instances amounted to the influence of terrorism. (Opposition cheers.) After these things were over the Chancellor of the Exchequer came back to the house, and then I admit that he gave us a l anguid rechauffee of the arguments that he had used at Liverpool —the Liverpool ba ked-meats did coldly furnish forth the tabl e of the House of Commons. (Opposition cheers.) I maintain 'that from first to last—from the in troduction of the measure t we stand—the wh o l e of this ° the present position in whi c h treatmento amounts to a syste matic attempt to degrade and l o wer er the H ouse o f C ommons (Opposition cheers.) No doubt s gentlemen do not think so (hear, hear); th e y are accustomedcirneeh to m easures m uch more drastic and stringent. Nevertheless, indignity does touch gentlemen and rnev:roteless, a littl e of h tens of even small consequence. (Oh, oh, an d irsn7at admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not written letters asking 'people to come down to the Reuse ofcemons, and fill the streets and hoot memb ers on their Wt here (laughter)— I admit that he has not done a great m an ; things, and therefore I would say, with the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Mill)— " Habes pretium— Non paces in truce corvos," which I much prefer to "cruse non figeris." Now, let us turn to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am so unfortunate that I am quite unable to argue the case with the Ch ancellor of the Exc h equer, because I seek for commo n ground when I attemp t to argue any case with a man ; but w i th the Chancellor of the Exchequer I can find n de o m ne a . d e to h know ar gae the matter in this way. Some people committed that t he ft fault the House of Commons has away and destroyed state of things should be swept produce a bill of indictment he says that he is not bound to make us better, and to i that all that he wants is to strengthend our institutions. But he entirely omits to show, h e this bill would do this. (R ear, ii o e t attempt to show, that hear. I drew out for him on a small scale a humble estimate the House of Com mons, its good and bad qualities, °f challenged him to di m e in u i a sp ien t g h e e , evil and show how his proposed measure wnotli not put it and increase the good. No one acceptedd the right hon. gentleman did not answerthei npon that ground. I put it on this : that I the believ e is de liberately set upon averting his eyes from determined to look at the question, as the hon. me and Birmingham says, merely as one of justice, wi e t m h ber for expediency, the good of the State, the destiny of thisNvcchnlich try for future ages, has nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says, "I am not bound to produce an indictment to people who say that a fault should b e f ound before a remedy is applied ; assume that the franchise is an evil, whilst I assume that the franchise is a good i n itself." You will find the same argument running through the speech. He says, "I wish to give the franchise to 204 , 00 0 persons, because they are our fellow Christians." Is that an argument for admitting the 204,000 persons? Who is there in tbis country who does not profess to be a Christian ? It is an argument for admitting the whole male and perhaps the female population —(great laughter and cheers)—but it is no argument for admitting the 204,000 more than anybody else. So, again, in the same speech, be spoke of " fathers of families," but th at is not peculiar to the British race, and also " tax - Payers," or, as I sho u ld p re f er t o call them, consumers of taxable commodities, which is a very different thing. 1 But this includes criminals, idiots, paupers, children, and everybody. Well, then, "flesh and blood"—(laughter) — that applies not only to the whole human race, but also to the animal kingdom. (Loud cheers, and laughter). I sus pect that we shall next have a proposition for a beasts' par liament after the pattern of that assem,ibTlyheinwtuhreh .o n l g d c e l p as ic se o s f tr have ou £ s 2t that , O t o h o e , yOooofshould income, h e x a c n l d u , therefore,ded ffrom uni is i the f t r n a n o t u h m i s o o n ? s ,-, But who are the 204,000 ? If it is to go amongst them— ifsthaeuma them — they about the £2 1 5 ,2 0 0 , 0000a,00 yearis to e a e g o h amongst (ehe e r would disqualify them for the sympathy of the right hon. gentleman, because they would hardly belong to the work ing classes. Of course he means to say that the whole of the working classes have this income; but he does not propose to admit the whole of the working classes by this bill. I say the argument of the right hon. gentleman is good for nothing at all, or it is good for admitting the whole of them. (Cheers.) In the same way he says that the working classes contribute more than one-third of the revenue. But who contributes it? The whole working classes ; and it is made up principally from the taxes on tea and sugar, and on stimulants—beer, spirits, and tobacco— the revenue from which has reached the enormous sum of £20,000,000. It is not the 204,000 that contribute this sum. The thing comes round again to this. It may be quite true that the class that spends only £1,260,000 in £lO houses and can spend nearly £20,000,000 in exciseable articles shoulcrhave the franchise, but that is an argument for the whole class, and not for a small instalment of it. What I mean is this; I want to show that this measure is not founded upon any calculation of result; but on a broad sweeping principle, having its foundation on th e assume d rights of man or some other figments of that kind, which tend to prove not that the measure before us is a good one, but that there should be universal suffrage. And that is the point of view in which, being denied infor mation by the Government, we are bound, in duty to ourselves and the country, to look at it. The right hon. gentleman says, "Can it be believed that the political limit of £lO will exist for ever ?" Might not the same thing be said of £7 —one figure is as good as another? Have we not a specimen in the hon. member for Birmingham of the er roneouslogic with which these things aro accomplished. He tookliis stand with a right hon. gentleman opposite who was in favour of £B, and said, " This is only a £7 franchise; there is only £1 between us, you will not fall out with me for £l," and thus the constitution is knocked down to the lowest bidder. (Loud cheers.) I would not fall out with the hon. member for Birmingham for £l. I would give him a pound out of mypocket rather, if that were all (a laugh)— but his pound is no joke, it means 100,000 men, of whom he may know a great deal himself, but of whom we know nothing except from public documents before the house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"ls it to be tolerated that in this country we are to have a narrow precinct called the constitution, within which there are 1,200,000 or 1,300,000 people, and without the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of fathers of families." I want to know if you admit the 204,000 within the precincts will the proportion of members be influenced in any appreciable degree ? Is it not clear that the argu ment goes not for the 204,000 but for the whole number. The arguments of the right hon. gentleman in support of the bill,are the most dangerous, sweeping, and anarchical ever uttered by any minister of state in this house--(0h, oh, and cheers)—not to work upon our minds, for I believe very few gentlemen of education would be influenced by it, but to work upon the people at large who have not the advantages of education, culture, and communication with each other, that we are so happy as to have. We have for the last few years been doing something for the working classes : we have done a great deal for education, something for reli gion, something for police, something for sanitary mat ters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says—" Is it not necessary after all this has been dene to lower the fran chise?" He does not put any tangible result before us—he does not show us any reason upon the point of fitness for lowering the franchise, he only agrees in this way, " You have done all these things, you must have some results, and you should lower the franchise accordingly." Even if he could prove his results it would have been no argument, unless he could show that the lowering of the franchise would be for the good of the whole society of which we form a part. He does not prove this—he does not satisfy his own condition when he asks us to admit persons of whom he knows nothing, except that they contribute largely to the revenue, and that a great deal of money has been spent on them to improve their condition. His argu ment is, " We have done a great deal for them, therefore we should take them for masters." He says that if demo cracy be liberty there is reason to be offered for it, but if it be vice and ignorance then the Government is not for de mocracy." Who said it was? The question is not whether the Government is democratic ; but whether a sweeping measure of this nature is not democratic ? Does he not know what democracy means ? Whatever else we learned at Oxford we learned that democracy was a form of Go vernment in which the poor, being the many, governed the rich,who were fewer, for the benefit of the poor. (Cheers.) Is that not the form of Government which the right hon. gentleman is seeking to introduce? It is neither liberty nor vice; it is the government of the rich by the poor, and why cannot we call things by their right names at once? (Hear, hear.) That is a very short but sufficient analysis of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ido not profess in the least to answer it, but I protest against a measure being founded upon the notion that you are bound to avert your eyes from what you do, my theory being that you are bound to look most strictly and care fully (hear,hear), and I have no common ground with him. 1 cannot refute him to minds to which he is not refuted already. I infer from the nature:of the bill, and from the arguments with which it is supported, that it is foimded on two principles—that the franchise is a debt due to every one whom you cannot prove disqualified; and that you are bound to pay this debt just as you are an ordinary debt, without inquiring whether, when paid, the creditor will make a proper use of it. Anything more dangerous or utterly subversive I cannot conceive. My hon. friend the member for Westminster came out in this debate in a new character. lam not surprised at his eloquent speech, for having known him for many years I was quite sure that when he gave the house his best thoughts, instead of hasty impromptus, he would produce an impression proportioned to his great ability and knowledge. But my hon. friend has taken up a new character, he has come forward as the ad vocate of the clais theory ; he says that the working classes have not sufficient representation, and that we ought to give it. I have frequently insisted in this house that if the working classes have only 128,000 electors in the present constituencies, it is very much their own doing; they have the mean; if they choose to use it, of living in £lO houses, and, therefore, if they have not the vote the fault is not so much that of the law as their own. I will mention the case of the Smethwick Glass Works, which is a type of many others. In this large establishment there are men earning £4 and £5 a week, and a communication to a newspaper has been sent to me complaining that not one of these men had the franchise. But whose fault is it? It is the fault of these men, some of whom are earning £250 a year, or the fault of the law ? Of course I must not say whose fault, because, according to the rule upon which this debate has been con ducted, everybody may say anything that is pleasant and complimentary to the working classes ; but anybody who says anything in the slightest degree not pleasant to them is considered to have grossly misconducted himself. (Laughter.) My hon friend having adopted the theory of classes he cannot escape from it so easily as he has tried to do. lie must follow his argument to its conclusion ; he is bound to show that what he claims can be given to the working classes without injury to the other classes. He must take up the theory not for the working classes only, but for all classes. He has accepted the Govern ment proposition in block : he has not shown that these persons have any peculiar fitness or knowledge, nor how their having the franchise would influence the other classes. Now, I am going to cite to my hon. friend some of his own opinions, in order to show that he was bound to look a little more of into this question. I am c iti ng f rom th e pre face ot the third edition of his "Political Economy," pub lishedwp rheiscehn it any l 8 editionsg. great in which he says tg The only objection to ea ist importanceth eunprepared will ral, and of the labouring • treme unfitness at would make a in tellect or their virtue. did my hon. friend say ' five governreent ? inad missible that any per so without being able t state t f e oun of d ma to uk a i t u ta d c i t in the classes in particular; their ex n y considerable Present demand any order o n e o i f th t e h r in th g e s ir that Now that was in 1852. But what n Should participate in the suffrage o read, write form the common operation s o f ing must precede universal and hear, hear, from Mr. Mill. whom an a priori theory Heay in 1861 6 , 14 in regard dw it t rk a s o n whully represents_, and I will add to per has silencen; :xcept those in enfranchisement.athmetic. Universal teach il:renon sense— )Noo (Cheers, (laughter) will maintain that power over OT who the _ sites f_ r whole community—should be given to peoplers— not acquired the commonest and most essential relio• have taking care of themselves" (cheers, and hear, h ear, from Mr. Mill.) My hon. friend cheers those remarks. I h ope that he will take some opportunity of telling us what is the process of investigation that he has entered into with regard to the electors so as to define the relative merits of a £7 and £lO householder, and I hope that be will tell us what evidence he is going to produce to establish their in tellect and their virtue. (Cheers.) I hope ho will satisfy us that they can read and write and that they can perform all the common operations of arithmetic, including, though he does not state it in the passage 1 have quoted, the rule of three. fhope that he will tell us that he has satisfied himself that universal instruction has preceded universal inte rests of others tfienfranchisement.is I hope that he will show us how he has ow Satisfied himself th a t th ose persons w h om he proposes to enfran chise are about an a persons who are fit to be trusted with the else h ats of he and the interests of the community; or priorei hrteconcile his proposal with his statement cannot do au present my h on _ that h All orYa ? I do not sa y th a t m y h on . friend that. ile ghter.) I say i s , can do m os t thi ngs, and perhaps h e can do that. (L. not done it, an d th a t hi s very writings a re di stinctly a s that as things stand at mends. My h on . friend far t t o the course which he recom threw out, to p o i n t out iii whatok up the challen g e which I this Parliament, which has only just come into existewncaey,for its N d o u l t v i , es i and he referred to our old friend the unfit gain, but my hon. t a g the represen einfhatiofffiffhethathaaat battlerarliamoeveelart farimenndotsagyo tatives of the working classes in it we should not have compensated the farmers twice over. I cannot persuade him, but I think I could persuade a working man of this—that supposing I were a farmer with 100 head of cattle, and that those cattle were killed for public purposes in order to pre vent the spread of the disease, and that I am compensated for my losses at a less value than they were worth, and then supposing thatlit is necessary for agricultural purposes that I should get 100 more cattle,in that case I should have to add not only the difference between the money I received for my former cattle and their value, but an enhanced price created by the disease in question, and enhanced still further by the slaughter which the Government had ordered. Ido think that, although I cannot persuade my hon. friend, be cause he is a philosopher, I could make a working man see that so far from being paid twice over, I was never paid over the value of my cattle, nor anything like it. Of course, you can put a case where a man would be paid twice overif he had a large herd, and is compensated for very few cattle, and the value of the remainder increases much ; but what I complain of is the narrowness and illiberality of saying in a case of this kind, which clearly admits of these two aspects and a great many more, not only that those who differ from my hon. friend are wrong, but that they are wil fully and perversely wrong, and that it is the faulty con stitution of this house, and the class from which we come which prevents us seeing things in the same light. (Cheers.) Mr. J. S. MILL—The right hon. gentleman has greatly misrepresented my argument in the last statement he has made. I never imputed to gentlemen opposite that they were wilfully wrong. (Cries of " Order, order.") Mr. LOWE—WeII, I pass from that. I have very little more to say of my hon. friend, except that I do not suppose there is anybody in this house that has any objection to the working men coming here if the constituencies choose to send them. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend need not have taken up his time in arguing that point. It is for the constituents tc say whom they choose to send here. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt whoever they send here we shall receive with propriety, and listen to with respect and attention. (Cheers.) But when we are told of the subjects that we are to have debated—when my hon. friend points to debates upon the rights of labour, which sounds to me very much like the right to labour, of which we heard so much in 1848—when we are told that we are to discuss the doctrine and discipline of strikes and trades unions, it seems to me that we are going to argue the prin ciples of St. Simeon over again, and, in fact, to constitute ourselves a means of education for :the working classes. I protest against this system altogether. (Hear.) We legis late for the country, and if we manage its finances—if we look after its executive government pretty sharply— (cheers and laughter)—and attend to its foreign affairs, I think we do enough without converting ourselves into a gymnasium or an academy—even for the elite of the working classes. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said if the working classes had the franchise they would establish, as in America, a school in every parish. Now, I should like to know upon what data my hon. friend makes that statement. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") This is a subject of which I ought to know something. (Cheers.) I can say this, that the main object which I had in view in the changes I proposed on behalf of the Go vernment in the educational system of the country was the benefit of the working classes. The old system of giving grants was that of awarding them on the examination of the children in Ihe upper classes of the schools. The lower children were neglected. The object I had was to have those grants given to the poorer as, well as to the richer, and the change was mainly for the benefit of the working classes. In following out that object I never received the slightest assistance from the working classes. The opposi tion which 1 met with came principally from the members representing large towns, where the working classes have a good deal to say in the constituencies. It was not the workmen, but the schoolmasters, who interfered against me, and it was the schoolmasters who influenced members against me—the working classes never stirring a finger in behalf of my measure. (Hoar, hear.) On what ground, therefore, my hon. friends thinks the working classes would come immediately to understand this complicated ma chinery that has baffled the most experienced statesmen in the country, and put it in right order, I cannot conceive. (Hew, hear.) My hon. friend ought to be prepared to show how the change he advocates in this theory of classes would avoid what he calls the faults of a mono poly. We have now got apparently a majority of the working classes in the borough constituencies, and besides we are to have a Redistribution Bill which will enor mously intensify that interest. (Hear.) It would be quite legitimate to argue that the house, which would then be produced by the compound effect of the reduction of the franchise and the Redistribution Bill, might not be content with the franchise or redistribution which they found before them; and that the Redistribution Bill would help to another lowering of the franchise, and the franchise so reduced would help to another redistribution, and thus we might assign a ruinous see-saw to which no man could as sign any limit. (Hear, hear.) There would in fact be no reason why we should stop at any particular redistribution or lowering of the franchise until we got to the point of equal electoral districts, and a franchise so low that it would amount to no qualification at all. (Hear, hear.) Another subject very germane to this is the question of combinations. It is said, and I believe it most sincerely, that there is great danger in the present machinery of strikes and trades unions being employed for political pur poses. (Cheers.) I will here read an extract from a speech made by the hon. member for Birmingham in 1860. He said, "Working men have associations; they can get up strikes against capital, sometimes for things that are just and sometimes for things that are impossible. They have associations, trade societies, and organisations. I want to ask them why it is that all these various organisations throughout the country cannot be made use of for the pur pose of obtaining their political rights?" (Opposition cheers.) The hon. gentleman asked that question in 1860, and I admit that hitherto he has received no answer. Why has he not received an answer? I will tell him why. To use his own expression, the working men have a good lever, but they have no fulcrum to work it. Give them, however, a majority of votes in a number of boroughs, and that ful crum will bo supplied to thom. (Cheers.) It is not by speeches and resolutions that the working men coerce their masters and each other; it is because they watch their op portunities. When many orders are in they strike and bring the machinery to a stand-still. They can work their lever upon tho fulcrum of their vote. Let me draw attention to the condition of those trades unions, because it throws im mense light on the future of that democracy which I believe this bill is meant to inaugurate. I take one class—the co ! operative masons. They number 80,000 members, and have lodges in England and Scotland. They have a large capital, and are a veryinfluential b o dy, h av i ng d e f eate d t h e masters last year, after a strike of 19 weeks. I will read a letter sent to an employer at Edinburgh :—" We present you with the wishes of our trade union, requesting a reply on or before Saturday next. Mr. Thomas and all non-society plasterers to be discharged,' all non-society carpenters to be discharged, and piece work to be abolished.—Signed on behalf of the United Building Trades, Joim BRAY, Chairman." (Cheers.) Mark what that is. See the power these trades unions have of drawing men w ithi n t h e i r own circles. It is said that if they become political bodies, men w h o w i s h e d to h ave nothing to do with politics need have nothing to do with them. But how can they help themselves? Those unions are like a maelstrom, into which every man who comes within its reach must inevitably be sucked. (Hear.) Here is an extract from an Edinburgh paper—" The tailors' strike may now be considered at an end. We have been in formed that the men have made it a condition with their masters that the black sheep who continued working during the lock-out shall not obtain employment until they have joined the society and paid a fine of 10s. each." (Hear.) 'You say that those men do not want to join the society. I daresay not, but what choice have they ? The truth is that these trade unions are far more unions against the best, the most industrious, and the most skilful men than they are against their masters. (Hear, hear.) Listen to a rule froma printed book of the co-operative masons—" Working over time, tending to our general injury, or keeping members out of employment, shall be abolished, excepting in case of accident or necessity." There is political economy ! I (Cheers.) "It is also requested that lodges harassed by piecework, or sub-contracting, do apply at a reasonable time for a grant to the body." (Hear, hear.) This is to say, no man is to be allowed, whatever his necessity, to eke out his earnings by piecework, or by overtime, or to raise him self from his sphere of life, and gain a competence, although he may have attracted the confidence of his employer by taking sub-contracts. The manifest object is to enclose as many men as possible in these societies, and then to apply to them the strictest democratic principles—that is to say, to make war against all superiority, skilled industry, and capacity, and make them the slaves of clumsiness, idleness, and ignorance. (Cheers.) Another extract says—" In loca lities where that most obnoxious and destructive system, generally known as chasing, is persisted in, lodges should use every effort to put it down. When it is plainly visible that any member or other individual tries to overwork or chases his fellow-workmen in such a way as is calculated to lead to the discharge of men or the reduction of wages, he must be summoned before the lodge and a fine must be imposed ou him? That is to say that the poor workman who may geniusill l bo h\ q vi quicker k ande h r is tthebhlakei and ep milvilh makes .i kbe g hle h ei sesbutaohi,uestriy,ll possesses,is i vtt f hee h mes e of aiftsrhteet choose oordsrenbo.ep or terrorism es o fi lominrwhich ho to ja exercise oibncisdhnt itept the d and blac a l l c l unions. Look at the immense machinery would have if you only armed them with the Parliamentary you vote they ask for. (Cheers.) It now remains for us to consider the results of what we are going to do. I will assume that this is a sweeping change in the dernocraticdirection, and would give the majority in the boroughs to the working classes. (Cheers.) This, I assume, would be followed by another important change—that in the distribution of seats. And when these two great changes are effected it does not de pend upon any Minister, or upon any House of Commons, to say where those changes will stop. (Cheers.) It would be like fixing the time that a stone let loose down the side (li advantages.ea r.)W e .e w w o i u n l g d t take m t o a r t t e e a r c h m tom o h s e t b pee t t u o lia . r tion we should either pr aise the wo have of an n o o u t v i a in i v e way to argue this It has been thought by many that irnkdinisgcuelsassinsgotrhisreqmuaeisn silent. But I think that th at is not th e e c o t. lon O i u es r o q w u e n s t s i o t a n t . e m W a e y a b r e e mry be called a transition state ; and we have the experi rinaerynce; o t n h a t t h o i s f s t u h b e j criaclhledLisetaxtPeio THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 27, 1866. ence of the democracies of France and America, which may be said to have run their course ; so that it is inexcusable if we do not draw from them conclusions far more trust worthy than that from our own isolated experience. (Hear, hear.) The Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. For ster) told us that if the working men had a fault it was in their too great reverence for authority, and he ended by saying that if we did not concede what they wanted it would not be a question of how much we should give, but how much they would take. (Hear.) As to the ques tion of peace or war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Liverpool said he was struck by the magnificent spectacle presented by the democracy in the recent American war. I would rather the right hon. gentleman had commended it for something it had done in peace. (Cheers.) I never doubted that democracy was a terrible power in war. No people are so apt to be influenced by ideas as the half-edu cated and unreflective ; and if you show to them wrong, injustice, and wickedness, their generous instincts rise to redress, and nothing is easier than to get up a cry amongst them against injustice. (Heat, hear.) We also feel in justice, but we look before and after—we consider what will hinder our trade and position in the world—to the very consequences that may fall upon poor people them selves, before we commit ourselves. (Cheers.) People who have something to lose are not fond of putting that something in jeopardy. (Hear, hear.) Every one remem bers the Crimean war. We got up an enthusiasm for that decrepit and abominable despotism the Turkish empire. A similar enthusiasm was aroused in favour of Poland and Hungary. Wherever there is oppression and cruelty the minds of the lower classes revolt against them. (Hear, hear.) And it is their impulse to rash forward at once to redress those wrongs. I honour them for this feeling, though I cannot commend their discretion. (Hear, hear.) Therefore to hope that we are to have any improvement with regard to war by making our institutions more demo cratic seems to me ridiculous. (Hear, hear.) Why, in Vic toria and New South Wales it is all we can do to prevent them going to war with each other. (Hear, hear.) In America the people revolted in order to break up the Union, and now they are almost ready to take up arms again to prevent that for which the war was undertaken. (Hear, hear.) If we have a precious jewel in the world it is our free trade policy. It has been everything to this country. With what eyes did democracy look upon free trade? Canada has raised her duties to an enormous amount, and justifies them upon Protectionist principles. The Prime Minister of New South Wales is a strong Protectionist. The Ministers of Victoria, who were originally Freetraders, have become Pro tectionists, and are now engaged in a deadly feud with the council, and we are threatened with revolution and destruc tion of the second branch of the legislature in order to carry out the policy of protection. (Hear.) As for America it out protects protection. There never existed anything like , the zeal for protection that now exists in America. With a revenue that wants increasing by every means in their power, with an intolerable load of taxation, they insist on sacrificing the customs revenues to the deity of protection. They suffer smuggling to be carried on to the extromest extent rather than reduce their customs a single penny. (Hear.) They denounced the treaty with Canada as a step in the direction of free trade, and they aro now about to seek to establish by violence the very rights that treaty guaranteed. (Hoar, hear.) I will not speak of communism, but the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. Hughes) has drawn such a picture of the working men that I cannot pass it over in silence. The hon. gentleman tells us, in the first place, that they are unable to understand that wages must depend upon the markets of supply arid demand. Then they have no idea of any difference in the remuneration of labour between the strong and the weak. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member further informs us that the working men have a horror of paternal or interfering Go vernments ; and yet they want us to prevent their going into public-houses by law, calling that fraternity and equality. (Laughter.) Not only so, but they insist that the money of their fellow tax-payers ought to be spent in building them houses to live in, because, forsooth, it is not fitting for them to pay sufficient out of their own earnings for the purpose. (Cheers.) Well, sir, this is a specimen of the legislation which my hon. friend brings forward. And then we come to the question of the representation of the working classes. It is the old observation that every de mocracy is in every respect very similar to despotism ; and it is well known that those who flatter the people are generally inferior to those they flatter and fawn. And we see that in America the people have undisputed power. They do not send hardworking people to represent them, but political traffickers—men who have lost their charac ters, bankrupts, traders in politics—men who have lost position, and have been driven out of every respectable position. (Hear, hear.) These men take up politics as a last resource. (Opposition cheers.) This house is on the whole a faithful reflex of those wlfo send them to it, and you may trace in the members the qualities of those who send them. I ask you, then, what this house will be when it is elected by working men ? (Hear, hear.) One subject of great importance under the change will be the expenses of the elections, and these expenses might be classed into two kinds, viz., legitimate and illegitimate. The legitimate expenses will be increased by the enlargement of the dis tricts, which will affect the cost of agents and various other items. Then, as to the illegitimate expenses. I know I am now touching on very delicate ground ; but it cannot be denied that by admitting the £7 householders into the con stituency the illegitimate expenses of the election will be increased. I shall quote the right hon. gentleman the Pre sident of the Board of Trade, because I darenot say so my self, but that right hon. gentleman says that in a great many boroughs the people are corrupt indeed. Cheers.) Mr. M. GIBSON—Some of them. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. LOWE—I beg pardon. Some voters in some boroughs—(laughter)—and I must be cautious. Some gentlemen have political opinions, but their minds are so sluggfth that they cannot be influenced without a certain lene tormentum as a reminder in the shape of a five-pound note. (Cheers and laughter.) Others aro so procrastinating that they cannot make up their minds until half-past 3 in the afternoon, when, by some inscrutable method, their views become fixed. Others, again, avoid the dilemma of the ass between the two bottles of hay, who was starved through not knowing which to turn to, by taking up a judicial position and deciding amongst themselves, and then giving effect to their opinion. My hon. friend says there is a constituency which has become corrupt ; let us turn on the pure water of a..£7 franchise. (Laughter.) That doctrine might be sound if my right hon. friend could establish that doctrine. (Laughter.) If I have half a dozen cattle ill of the cattle plague, and I turn in amongst them a hundred other cattle who aro unhealthy I infect the new ones, and do not much good to the old ones. (Laughter.) I could press this subject farther, but I dare not ; but I hope the proofs I have given will enable the house to understand the argument. I have never yet been answered as to the effect which the lowering of the franchise is likely to have on this house. I will not recapitulate, for I have trespassed I too long already; but this I will say that one great mistake and oversight has been to look at this house as a merely legislative body. That is a mistake, for the members of this house have a position such as none other ever had in this world. (Hear.) They do not hold it in virtue of any pecu liar skill in legislation—(laughter)—but because, in addi tion to legislation, they exercise other functions of a most important character. They control directly the public finances, but in addition they are part and parcel of the Executive Government. They can go a long way in making or unmaking a Ministry, and they control indirectly all the acts of that Ministry. In fact, until this question came up I thought we could compel the Executive Ministry to re • veal all we thought it was necessary that we should know. (Loud cheers and laughter.) It is well to consider when advocating democratic changes that we are dealing with an assembly which is certainly different from the legisla tive assemblies of either France, or America. (Hear, hear.) You are not dealing merely with a legislature, but touch ing their more delicate functions of government, in which this house has influence. Whilst legislation has been better since the Reform Bill, the Executive Go vernment has gradually shown uneasiness. Carry the change a little further, and you will have to separate the Executive function from the House of Commons, altogether break up the salutary union that now subsists, and have a Government which shall in no way dependupon this house for its existence. (Cheers). That is a consideration the importance of which it is scarcely possible for me to ex aggerate—it is the one point on which our constitution differs from the other constitutions of the world—(cheers) —and the one thing in which we have been permanently successful. (Cheers from the Opposition). And I believe we have been successful because we have not legitimately followed out democratic institutions, but have always united the executive functions with the legislature. If you consider how much in a democratic assembly the member is bound to obey his constituents you will see how impossible it would be for such a man to hold office under the execu tive government. The fact is every day we see members of this house, of great ability, who might find their way into the executive government but for tho amount of trust which their constituents repose in them. (Cheers). This is a consideration which should have great weight with us, but we have actual experience to guide us. Wo have given democratic institutions to our colonies, and the re sult shows their evils. They have become an actual curse to those countries. (Cheers.) I speak what I know to my cost —(hear, hear) when I tell you that in A ustralia there is no greater evil to the stability of society, to the prosperity or well-being of that country, than the constant changes of government. And I believe the greatest boon you can con fer on our colonies, as you cannot take away universal suf frage, would be to remove what it has made a great curse, viz., responsible government. This is wonderfully exem plified in Victoria, where they have a government under the influence of universal suffrage. The Government there is at war at once with the judicial authorities and with the Upper Chamber, because neither will yield to its exactions. When the court decides against it the Upper Chamber, when appealed to, resists the levy of money on a mere re solution, and the Government dissolves the Parliament and appeals to universal suffrage against both the Upper Cham ber and the judicial power. (Cheers.) This tends to anarchy —a danger from which this colony must be delivered, and it can only be remedied by depriving it of the boon of repre sentative government, coupled with the present which it made itself of universal suffrage, and by placing the Go vernment in some permanent hands, Look at what has happened in France, where there was a limited constitu ency in the time of Louis Philippe, and parliamentary go vernment until the re vo l ut i on of 1848. Then came the , Assembly, elected byuniversal suffrage, but with a respon sible government. The government became weaker every day until the coup d'etat came, and proved that the whole previous system had been a sham. The great men who established the constitution in America foresaw this, and took means to obviate the difficulty. They knew that de mocracy required checks—(cheers)—and sought to check it by various means. They, in fact, checked democracy with democracy, and elected a President. Then they estab lished the federalism to check democracy by lateral pressure much on the same principle—to use a familiar expression—that a person holds up a piece of coal in a pair of tongs. What has come of ie? They have fought out the civil war, and gained a great victory. Men's opinions were divided. One side wanted to preyent the South from regain ing the power it possessed before the civil war; the other to reconstruct the Union on the principle of national division. In this country the question would be decided, whether cer tain gentlemen should continue to occupy their seats, and those who were displaced would carry into the wilderness their offenceijust as the scapegoat carried off the offences of the people. But mark what happens in America. You cannot get rid of the President, who sits for four years, nor of the Congress, who sits for two years. Therefore you have an internecine duel, and those who ought to combine and coalesce for the good of the country are in factious opposition. (Hear.) The whole forces of the constitution are strained until they crack, to try not who shall hold the supreme power but who shall gain the victory. You see what has happened: senators expelled in order to obtain the two-thirds majority, and things have arrived at such a pitch that no man need be surprised at seeing a second civil war succeed the first, viz., from the inability of the constitution to solve the difficulty in which the first civil war had placed the country. Let us apply this to our own case. We have in our Government this invaluable institution. Let us not rashly or foolishly put it in peril. I do not know whether any gentleman has read the reply of M. Rouher to M. Thiers, but it appears to me that the answer of M. Rouher was incontrovertible. He says: " The hon. gentleman asks me for responsible go vernment, but can it exist with universal suffrage ? With a narrow constituency you might have it, but without you cannot." (Cheers.) But democracy has another tendency which is well worth studying for a moment. It is singu larly prone to concentrating power in the individual men. It makes a strong Government because the effect of such a Government is to trample down and equalise everything. Another peculiarity of democracy is that it looks with hos tility on everything that intervenes between the Sovereign and the people. (Hear, hear.) It seeks, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "to have everything on the representative principle, and to have what is not swept away " That is the aim of democracy, and look what it has produced in France. It has left nothing between the Emperor and the people but a bureaucracy. Look what it has done in America. There is nothing to break the shock that is ever going on between the two powers in the state. The wise men who framed the constitution sought to avoid this by dividing factions as much as possible ; but all their efforts turn out to have been vain, and we find the legislature and the executive engaged in a terrible duel of which no man can tell the end. Now, apply such a state of things to England, and England is of all coun tries in the world the country of intermediate steps of power between the people and the Throne. There are a vast number of institutions which our ancestors created, their principle seeming to have been to look a great deal to liberty and very little to equality. (Hear, hear.) They said that existing institutions smoothed away incom patibility, and were content to go on with as little change as possible. (Loud cheers.) This country is pre-eminently the country of privilege, not such privileges as existed in France before the revolution, but such as our ancestors believed in their wisdom to be the best to ensure order and good government. It may be difficult to prove on authority how sll this should be so, because, as Mr. Burke observes, "Ancient Governments are not often founded on abstract principles; they are rather the materials out of which ab stract principles are made." (Hear.) I think we should ap ply our minds more wisely to draw the lessons of wisdom from our success than by trying to borrow from ancient people their notions which have led to such results as I have described. (Cheers.) But how have we succeeded ? I shall call an unexceptional witness—" It has been our pri vilege to see a process going forward, in which the throne has acquired broader and deeper foundations in the affections of the country—in which the laws have more and and more commended themselves to the respect and attach ment of the people; in which the various classes of the community have come into closer connection one with another ; in which the wants of the great masses of our labouring fellow-countryman are better supplied than in the times of our forefathers, and in which, on the whole, any man desirous of the welfare of his kind may look out in the bright surface of society, and may thank his God and say, Behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." (Cheers.) These elo quent words are the words of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer—(renewed cheers from the Opposition)—delivered on the 14th Sept. last, just two months before he began the concoction of the bill which has been so successfully illustrating the manner in which " brethren may dwell to gether in unity." (Cheers and laughter.) But let us suppose democracy established more or less in this country, with what eyes would it look upon institutions such as I have de scribed—what would be the relation of this house to the House of Peers ? I shall call a witness who will tell you . Eight years ago the hon. gentleman the member for Bir - miugham inverted the cause he is now taking. He now seeks to secure the means—he then proclaimed the end. Then he said "See what I'll do for you if you give me reform." Now he says, " Give me reform and I shall do nothing." (Loud cheers.) What the hon. member then said has never been retracted, and I have no reason to suppose that he wishes to retract anything he has said. His words were, "As to the House of Peers, I do not be lieve they themselves could believe they were a perma nent institution" (Loud cheers) What do you sup pose would become of the House of Peers with democratic franchises? What became of them in France ? What remains of the brilliant circle that once surrounded the Louises ? (Hear, hear.) What shall we say for the Church—(hear, hear)—which is not looked on with parti cular affection by large masses of the people ? What does the hon. member say respecting the Church ? "The portion of the public estates which for a time are permitted to remain in the hands of the Church of England ?" (Cheers.) What shall we say of the order of judges ? Look at the difference which exists between this country and America in the case of the judges. We have fenced round the judges with every safeguard, until we have made them, practically, the only irresponsible persons in the country, until we are obliged to submit to the shocking and melancholy sight of a man actually blind administer ing justice, and another of upwards of 90 still sitting on the bench. {Hear, hear.) We submit to this simply be cause we do not wish to do anything likely to influence the judgment of the judges. In most parts of America, the judges aro elected for six years, and in the West Mississippi for example only for two years, and that expressly in order that they may administer the law, not in accordance with the law, but in accordance with popular sentiment. Let us next come down to ourselves. Our position is the most honourable of that of any assembly in the world. Will de mocracy look favourably on our position? Must we not be kept down? (Hear.) Must we not approach the level of our constituents? We are now returned by a privileged class of electors—the £lO householders—a class which has discharged its duties in a manner that defies criticism, but now we are about to swamp that class. But without enlarg ing on this topic, let me ask what must happen if you de mocratise this House of Commons. It will not rest until it has swept away all those institutions that stand between the people and the throne, and supplied their places by in stitutions which derive their authority from the people. . And when that is done democracy will, as in France and America, be approaching its triumph. You will have face to face, without anything to break the shock, the people, the monarch of the time, and the great democratic assem bly. Do you think they will go on harmoniously ? The event may be what no man can predict. (Hear, hear.) We saw something of it in 1857 in France when the President and Chamber were each grasping the sword and each seeking to destroy the other. Despotism succeeded, and if it had not you would have had a Convention, the worst possible form of government. In it the Chamber seeks by its committees to control the executive power, until at last responsible Government breaks down. Cresarism is established by some Napoleon of the period. (Hear, hear.) In America, you have got the President, then you have an imposing power in Congress, and it again works by its com mittees, for every office under Government there is a cor responding committee, and as fast as the Executive Go vernment decides anything these committees neutralise and overcome it, so that the Executive Government is entirely neutralised—but I will follow this subject no further. But I do not base myself on mere conjecture, but I base myself on what history has taught, and I cannot believe that we are any exception to the rest of the world. The Chancel lor of the Duchy of Lancaster says that England is a totally different country from America and Australia, and that the arguments that apply to one aro not applicable to the other. I own there is a great difference, but the difference is en tirely in favour of America and Australia and against En gland and democracy. (Hear, hear.) The great difference is the possession of boundless tracts of fertile land in those countries. In those countries the land is a sedative of po litical passions; hero it is an irritant. In England it is a thing to be desired and seized upon ; in America and Aus tralia it is to be had for next to nothing ; but every one knows and says that if America were left to the govern ment of the great towns they would ruin it instantly, and it is the cultivators of the land who by their Conservative tendencies keep it from ruin and destructiOn. And on that subject I beg to read to the house a few passages from a letter by Lord Macaulay, who, be it remembered, was one of the foremost advocates of the Reform Bill of 1832, and who never drew back from the opinions which he expressed at that time during the whofe of his long and valuable life. The letter was sent on receiving a copy of Jefferson's works, and in it he says—" In this country the supreme power is in the hands of a class, numerous indeed, but educated, select, and deeply interested in the security of property and the maintenance of order. It is quite plain that your Govern ment would never be able to retain a discontented majority; for with you the majority is the Government ; and have the rich—always in a minority—absolutely at their mercy. The day will come when in the State of New York a multi tude of the people, no one of whom had had more than half a breakfast or expected more than half a dinner,will choose a legislature. Is it possible to doubt what kind of a legislature will be chosen ? On the one side you have statesmen who are desirous of urging moderation, patience, and a strict observance of good faith, and on the other hand de magogues ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and the greed of usurers, and asking why one man should be per mitted to drink champagne and ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest men are in want of bread—which is likely to be chosen by the working man? Seriously, I ap prehend that you will in some time of adversity such as I have described—you will do such things as will be fatal to your prosperity. Either some Cceiar or Napoleon will arise and seize the reins of power with a strong hand, or your republic will be as surely plundered and ravaged in the 20th century as the Roman Empire was in the sth—with this difference that in Rome the Huns and Vandals came from, without, whereas Huns and Vandals will have been en gendered in your own country, by your own institutions.' (Cheers.) Now, sir, that is the argument of Lord Macaulay. You have a democracy in America, but there they have at present plentyef elbowroom and subsistencefor everybody —but when you have grown to such a point that you have not enough room and enough sustenance for everybody, then your institutions will fail and the crash will come. (Hear.) Apply that to England. You have not a demo cracy, bat you have the state of society described by Lord Macaulay. When in periods of pressure there is distress and misery, if we add that by ourown handsfivhich he says the course of time will add to America— then by adding population to democracy,we are here adding democracy to population—it will bring about exactly that state of things from which we may expect something like the conse quences which he foreshadows. (Cheers.) Well, it seemsto me that we have more reason everyday we live to regret the loss of Lord Palmerston. By way of a mortuary contribution it seems to me that the remaining members of his Cabinet buried in his grave all their moderation, all their prudence and all their statesmanship. (Hear.) He was scarcely in terred before they set to work to contravene and counteract all his policy. Why? Because it had been his policy—the policy of a man who understood the people of England and had achieved unexampled success. They thought that the way to continue that success was entirely to reverse his policy, and so before he was hardly cold in his grave they set to work to do the very thing of all others which, if he had been living, he' would have disapproved of. (Cheers.) Well, they have done a great feat. The noble lord and the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government have performed an immense exploit—they have carried the great mass of their party, who are men, I believe, of mode rate opinions and views—they have carried these men from those moderate opinions and views and laid them at the feet of the hon. member for Birmingham. (Loud and continued cheering.) They are brought into contact now with men and principles from which six months ago they would have recoiled. (Cheers.) That is what has hap pened to part of them; the rest of us are left like sheep in the wilderness ; and after the success of this extraordinary combination—for I can give it no other name—we who remain where we are are charged with being conspirators and traitors. (Cheers.) The bonds of party allegiance are strained until they are ready to crack in order to keep the party together, and we are told we are bound by every tie to act according to the policy of Lord Russell. I dispute that. (Hear, hear.) I never served under him. I have served, unfortunately, under two Ministers for little less than two years ; one was Lord Aberdeen, and the other Lord Palmerston. Both those Governments Lord Russell joined, both he abandoned—(cheers) —both those Govern ments he assisted to destroy. (Loud cheers.) I owe him no allegiance. I am not afraid of the people of this country; they have shown remarkable good sense—re markable, indeed, as compared with the harangues that have been addressed to them. (Cheers.) Nor am I afraid of those who lead them, in which I beg to differ from my right hon. and gallant friend the member for Huntingdon (General Peel). Demagogues are the common-places of history—they are found wherever there is public com motion—they have all a family likeness—(cheers and laughter)—and their names float lightly on the stream of time. They generally contrive to be handed down somehow; but they are as little to be regarded as the foam which rides on the top of the stormy wave and bespatters the rock which it cannot shake. (Loud cheers.) But what I do fear, what fills me with the gloomiest mis givings, is when I see a number of gentlemen of rank, of property, and of intelligence, carried away without being convinced or even over-persuaded—(hear, hear)—to sup port a policy which many of them, in their innermost hearts, detest and abhor. (Cheers.) Monarchies exist by loyalty, aristocracies by honour, and popular assemblies by political virtue; when these things begin to fail it is in their loss, and not in comets, eclipses, or earthquakes, we are to look for the portents that herald the fall of states. (Cheers.) I have said that lam utterly unable to reason with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am happy to find that there is one common ground left to us, which is the Second Book of the 2Eneid. My right hon, friend re turned again to the poor old Trojan horse. I will add one more excerpt to the story of that noble animal, after which I will promise to turn him out to grass for the remainder of his life. (Cheers and laughter.) The passage which I wish to call his attention to presents at the same time sketch not only of the army but of the general also— Arduus armatos mediis in mcenibus astans Fundit equus, victorque Sinon incendia miscet Insultans : portis alii bipaptentibus adsunt. Millia quot magnis nunquam yeller° Mycenis. The fatal horse pours forth its human tide, Insulting Sinon flings his firebrand wide, The gates are burst, the ancient rampart falls, And swarming myriads climb its crumbling walls. (Cheers.) I have now, sir, traced as well as I can what I believe will be the natural results of a measure that seems to my poor imagination destined to absord and destroy one after the other those institutions which have made England what she has hitherto been, and what I firmly believe no other country ever was or ever will be. (Cheers.) Surely the heroic works of so many centuries, the matchless achievements of so many wise heads and so many strong bands, deserves a nobler consummation than to be sacrificed to revolutionary passions or to maudlin enthusiasm of humanity. (Cheers.) But, sir, if we do fall we shall fall deservedly, uncoerced by any external pressure, not beaten down by any intestine calamity in the plethora of wealth, and in the surfeit of our too exuberant prosperity, we are about,with our own rash and unconstrained hands, to pluck down over our heads the venerable temple of our liberties and our law. History may record other catastrophes as signal and as disastrous, but none more wanton or disgrace ful. (The hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst the most tremendous cheering, which lasted several minutes.) Mr. HODGKINSON supported the measure as ex tremely moderate, and was thankful for the recognition which the working classes now received of their fitness to exercise the franchise. Mr. YORKE thought the pressing evil was not the ne cessity of extending the franchise, but of dealing with cor rupt practices at elections. He denied that the party with whom he acted mistrusted the working classes, or desired to resist a safe and well-considered measure for amending the representation of the people. Mr. LEEMAN supported the bill, and gave his personal testimony to the good qualities of the artisan class in cir cumstances alike of adversity and prosperity. Lord ROYSTON stigmatised the measure as a mere at- --- tempt to prop up a tottering Government which had lost its head and adopted Reform as a cry - with which to ra ll y its scattered followers. If the Whig party was now driven from office, the penalty would be but retributive justice for their treason to the cause of Reform when Lord Derby was in power. _ _ Mr. ALLEN was of opinion that the true way to prevent universal suffrage was to admit from time to time the most intelligent and industrious of the working classes. He condemned the distrust which had been exhibited of the people in the course of the debate, and the manner in which the ignorant and the intelligent, the idle and the indus trious, had been confounded together. Mr. D. BROMLEY admitted that Parliament was pledged to Reform, and that the time had arrived when it was desirable to adopt a sound and comprehensive measure for the settlement of the question ; but the bill now under consideration was incomplete, unsatisfactory, and dishonest, and was not, therefore, deserving of support. Mr. OTWAY intimated his intention to vote in favour of the second reading ; but unless the clause was struck out disfranchising dockyard voters he should reserve to himself the right to oppose the third reading. Commenting on the speech of Mr. Lowe, the hon. member taunted him with a change of opinions since when addressing the de mocrats of Kidderminster in 1859, he stated that " all pro perty rested only on antiquated charters and musty parch ments." He believed that the bill, although not perfect, did substantial justice to the working classes, and warned the house that the country was in earnest in desiring that a substantial measure of reform should be passed without delay. The measure was the least that could be offered to an expectant people; but he, believed the Government was honest and sincere, and he should therefore support it. Mr. R. DUFF could not vote for the second reading, believing that the measure was not only incomplete, but that it did not deal satisfactorily with even a part of the question. Mr. JAMES having declared that the bill was unsatis factory, because he could not tell to what extent the ad mission of the working classes would control the represen tation, and stated several other objections to the measure, announced, amidst ironical cheers and laughter, that he should nevertheless support the second reading. This determination, however, he qualified by stipulating for the right to oppose the bill at any future stage if the supple mental schemes did not provide for an honest redistribu tion of seats. Mr. SCHREIBER opposed the bill, on the ground that it unsettled everything, was fragmentary in form, and would be inequitable in its effects. It was also, ho con tended, an injustice to the counties, and a dangerous addi tion to the taxing power of those who did not pay direct imposts, and whose watchword would be, if the bill passed —"Down with the excise, and up with the income tax." Mr. CHILDERS alluded to the Australian colonies, and the charge which was brought against them of being en tirely under tho control of purely Democratic tendencies. From long personal experience in those parts, he awarded them the praise pf loyalty and patriotism, and declared that such of their representatives in the Legislature as • were Protectionists were returned by the county districts. In order to bear out a charge of inconsistency against Mr. Lowe, Mr. Childers read extracts from speeches delivered by the right hon. member for Calne, containing sentiments the utterance of which he condemned in Mr. Bright, and in which ha lauded the example of America, and described the British Parliament as "blind, ignorant, and besottectlY stupid." Lord CRANBOURNE moved the adjournment of the debate, till this evening. After some discussion the proposition was agreed to. On the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, Mr. WHALLEY proposed to add to the oath, after the sentence ending "her heirs and successors," the words "being Protestant." He explained that he did this with a view to guarantee the Protestant succession to the Eng lish crown. The motion fell to the ground fof * want of a seconder, and the Lords' amendments were agreed to. The orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned. Science and Superstition. Yesterday afternoon the Rev. Charles KingsleY delivered his second and concluding lecture at th e Royal Institution, " O n Science and Superstition , " to a crowded audience. In his first lecture on Tues day he briefly defined superstition to be fear of the unknown, and in a powerful and eloquent discourse he showed that superstition is altogether a physical Question, and that the savage man, afraid of nature because unable to cope with her, tries .to propitiate the natural agencies which seem to him persons. All superstitions, he observed, maybe explained as being developments of that law, and he adduced numerous illustrations in support of thatposition. The second lecture, yesterday, was devoted to the consideration of science, the great enemy of superstition. As th e savage is afraid of natural agencies, from his ina bility to cope with them, it required great courage in those who first boldly attempted to comprehend them ; and the present position of science is due to a very few brave men, who had not only to contend with nature, but to struggle against public o pinion. Mr. Kingsley forcibly pictured the condition of those men who were investigating scientific truths amidst the suspicions and dislike of their fel low-countrymen, who viewed their progress with alarm and too often stopped their career by death. He expressed warm admiration of the an cient Chaldeans, who first discovered the distinction between the planets and the fixed stars ; and of the Greeks and Romans, who added by little and little to the stock of knowledge, until they became fright ened at the extent of their discoveries, and relapsed into a state of superstition little above that of the savage. He attributed much of the stimulus to in vestigation in early ages to the Jewish religion and to the Hebrew writings, and briefly alluded :t o some of the men who, in the darkness of the middle ages, shone forth as the lights and were the martyrs of science. It was not, however, until the middle of the 16th century that any solid foundation wag laid for scientfic inquiry, and he attributed the rapid advance afterwards made in this country in some measure to the foundation of the Royal Society. Again and again in the course o f hi s l ec t u re did Mr. Kingsley with mu c h f orce an d an i ma ti o n de claim against those who at the p resen t d a y, as well as in former times, opp ose d th e progress o f sc ience from fear of the co nsequences t o w hi c h i t may lead, and he condemned in still s t ronger l anguage those who, admitting that sc i ence s h ou ld b e stu died, at the same tim e wou ld li m i t t h e communica tion of it to their own ideas of what was suitable to the generality of mankind. His views of science were very comprehensive. The attainment of anY new fact he regarded an importantadvance insolence, which does not require a specially-trained mind for its knowledge and discovery, but only the exercise of the ordinary powers of the mind, guided by judgment and common sense. In that light he considered the writings of Mr. Carlyle as eminently scientific, and a knowledge of them essential to a good education. He took occasion, when viewing science in this light, to denounce the existing system of educating the young of both sexes in a certain routine without regard to their peculiar in telectual faculties. He pointed out with grea t force what science has already done for man, who i s still, however, in a semi-barbarous state, and indi cated what it might do hereafter. Science, in Mr• Kingsley's view of it, is synonymous with wisdon 3 o and he concluded the lecture by quoting the passag e from Solomon, "All her ways are ways of pleasant" ness, and all her paths are peace," adding to the quotation that the Creator formed the earth with knowledge, and founded the heavens with wisdom. The language in which the lectures were written was vigorous and eloquent, and Mr. KingsleY, delivered them with great energy an d var i e ty of expression, though a strong intonation detracted from the impression produced until the ear became accustomed to it. COUNTRY MARKETS. MANOHES TER—THURSDAY. Since our last report the trade has remained quiet, and all articles at the currency of the preceding market day Our market this morn i ng was thinly attended, and WI ness limited, at recent figures. BI RMINGHAM —THURSDAY. At this day's market there was a fair supply of Eng llBll wheat, which sold slowly at no advance on late pace s ' Barley firm, little offering, and not much wanted. Oat° inactive, but not quotably cheaper. Beans 6d to is per qr higher. Peas more inquired for. BRISTOL—THURSDAY. On our market to-day English wheat was in small sun s ply ; the trade ruled f ar f rom b risk, but last week value firmly supported. Fo re i gn qu i et, and nearly the spin e in price as of l a t e . M a l t i ng barley in less demand, a nd tending downward s; suppl i es of grinding continue scarc e. For oats there was a fair consumptive inquiry, at forme' values. Maize and beans slow at last week's values. BURY ST. EDMUND'S —WEDNESDAY. There was a good show of wheat at this market to-d B _,Y , which was principally taken off by millers at the late 1. 4 u" vance of is per quarter upon previous prices. In grinqTg_ barley there was a fair trade doing ; prices remained wltP t out alteration. Oats, beans, and peas met a dull sale at late rates. White wheat, 54s to 56s ; old red, 46s to 47s ; new red' 41s to 45s , grinding barley, 35s to 38s ; P age ' s prolific bar' ley, 39s to 40s per qr. Averages :—Wheat, 1,561 i qrs, at 42s 10d ; barley, 5551 qrs., 36s Od; oats, qrs, —8 Od. EDINBITRGII—WEDnsDAY. At our market to-day there was a thin supply of can' try wheat, consisting of 571 sacks, which sold at is per (11. ' advance. Average, 1s 6d up. Wheat on the top, 1s Od up average, 1s 6d up. Barley on the top, 3s Od down average, Os 2d up. Oats on the top, Os 3d up.... ...... average, Os 6d up- Beans on the top, 1s Od up average, Os 9d up • Average prices. Wheat, 47s 2d Oats, 29s 10d Barley, 37s 8d Beans ...48s 6d Total supply and sales. Wheat 571 qrs sold 452 Barley 244 qrs so 223 Oats 2112 qrs••• )ld 938 sOiu Beans 72 qrs ............ sold 72 Town-made flour sells as follows:--White, 40s Od; ext rie superfine, 38s Od ; superfine, 36s 6d ; fine, 35s Od. GLASGOW—WEDNESDAY. A small attendance to-day, and a quiet business doing• Fine qualities of wheat realised recent rates. Flour dull. Beans and peas unaltered in price. Oats were A an advance of 6d to ls. Births. Cox--On the 25th inst., at Mill Hill, Derby, the wife of V• H. Cox, Esq., of a son. FELLOWES—On the 24th inst., at the Rectory, Warbling" ton, Hants, the w if e of Capt. W. B. Fellowes, late of the Madras Cavalry, of a daughter. Marriages. FLETCHER—RANDELL—On the 25th inst., at Norton, Vira l ' cestershire, Henry H. Fletcher, Esq., of Edgbaston, to Caroline, eldest daughter of Charles Randell, Esq., of Chadbury, Evesham. HILL—TicxELL--On the 26th inst., at St. Luke's, Chelten" ham, E. S. Hill, Esq., of Llandaff, Glamorganshire, Col. Glam. Art. Vol., youngest son of Chas. Hill, Bs t l7, Gloucester-gate, R egent ' s-park, to Fanny Ellen, younge daughter of the lat e Lieut.-General Tickell, C. 8., Beng al Engineers. Deaths. • ANGERSTEIN-011 the 23d inst., at Weeting Hall, Norfolk Lieut.-General Angerstein, aged 66. B URROUGHES—On the 24th inst., at Coltishall Hall, Nor folk, William Burroughes, Esq.,, aged 64. DUNK —On the 22d inst., at Southport, David Dunn, Esq•/ late of Platt Abbey, Rusholme; Manchester. GLENELG—On the 23d inst., at Cannes, the Right Roll' Lord Glenelg, aged 87. WEST—. On the 21st inst., at Newnham House, near Devon' try, Northamptonshire, T. West, M.D., aged 70. WADE— On, the 24th inst., at 3, Albany-terrace, Regent'o - Richard Wade, Esq., aged 88. London: Printed and Pubiished by WILLIAM ANDREW ° of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at Tfu. SUN Wilco, No. 1121 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy la the Count/ ° Middlesex—Friday, April 27,1866,