The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

manta into which they themselves have entered. (Cheers.) When we read such statements as this, it is necessary that the true history of this reform bill, depending not upon im putations and suppositions, but upon the recorded history of the country, should be brought to mind; and really, sir, when I read this statement, I sought for a description of it, and could find no other so applicable—with the excep tion of one monosyllable which I wish entirely to omit— as the retort of Prince Henry to Falstaff— These lies are like the father that begot them— Gross as a mountain, open, palpable. (Much laughter, and an hon. member, " Who is the father of them ?") Who is the father of them I cannot say, and of his dimensions I know nothing, but if he be equivalent in size to hissrototype this description is certainly a true one Gross as a mountain, open, palpable. (Cheers and laughter.) Sir, the house will remember that on a former occasion I ventured to refoz to the state of the constituency at the present moment as compared with what it was in 1832, and I endeavoured to show, by a computation of which I stated the grounds, that the proportion of the working classes included in the constituency, although to our great satisfaction we had found it to be larger than we had supposed, yet was s maller than was the case in 1832. That statement had not been impuged in this house, and I don't think it can b e impugned. I don't think any gen tleman who has examined the figures will venture to say that at the present moment the quantitative proportion of the working men in town constituencies is less than I have stated it to be—namely, less than it was in 1832. Neither must the house forget that since 1832 every kind of benefi cial change has been in operation in favour of the working classes. There never was a period in which religious in fluences were more active than at present. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that since that period the civilising and training powers of education have for all practical purposes been brought into existence as far as the mass of the people is concerned. (Hear, hear.) As regards the press, an emancipation and an extension has taken place to which it ' would be difficult to find a parallel. (Hear, hear.) I will not believe that the mass of gentlemen opposite are really insensible to the enormous benefit that has been effected by that emancipation of the press, when for the humble sum of a penny, or for even less, newspapers are circulated from day to day by the million rather than by the thousand, in numbers almost defying the powers of statistics to fol low, and carrying home to all classes of our fellow-country men accounts of public affairs, making them feel an interest in the transaction of those affairs, and containing articles which, I must say, are written in a spirit, with an ability, with a sound moral sense, and with a refinement that have made the penny press of England the worthy companion-1 may almost say, the rival— of those dearer and older papers which have long given to British jour nalism the first fame in the world. (Hear, hear.) In every way, by measures relating to labour, to police, and to sanitary arrangements, Parliament has been labouring, has been striving to raise the level of the working community, and has been so striving with admitted success. And there is not a call which has been made upon the working community which has not been fully answered. (Cheers.) Take, for instance, the Working Men's Free Library in Liverpool; who are the frequenters of that institution? Why, the majority of the careful, honest, painstaking stu dents are men belonging to the working classes, a number of whom cannot attend without making some considerable sacrifice. (Cheers.) We called upon them to be provident, we instituted for them Post-offi ce savings banks, which may now be said to have been in full operation for four years ; and what has been the result ? During those four years there have been 650,000 depositors in those savings-banks. (Cheers.) This is the way in which Parliament has been acting towards the working classes. Parliament has been striving to make the working classes fitter and fitter for the franchise ; and can anything be more unwise and senseless than to persevere from year to year in this plan, and then blindly to refuse to recognise its legitimate upshot namely, the increased fitness of the working classes for the exercise of political power ? The proper exercise of that power depends upon the fitness of those who are to receive it. That fitness you increase from day to day, and yet you decline, when the fitness is admitted, to give the power. (Hear, hear, and No, no, from the back Opposition benches.) You decline to give the working classes political power by lowering the borough franchise. (No, no, from the back Opposition benches.) I don't complain of the interruption —in fact, I am very glad to hear it. (Cheers and laughter.) I wish that cry was much louder, I wish it was more uni versal, I wish it came from the front Opposition benches, and from my noble friend behind me. (Cheers and laughter.) This course appears about as rational as the process of a man who incessantly pours water into °. jug or bacon, and wonders and complains that at last it overflows. Now, what are the arguments that the busy brain of man has framed in oppo sition to this measure ? It is a favourite plea that we ought not to hand over the power to govern to those who do not pay the charges of Government. In the depository of wisdom 'to which I have referred that argument occupies a very prominent place, as it did in the speech of a very distinguished member of this house, from which I am afraid the writer in the Quarterly Review has been guilty of gross plagiarism. (Loud cheers and laughter.) But is this what we are going to do ? are we going to hand over the power to those who don't pay the charges of Government ? (Hear, hear.) I will not at this moment go into the first portion of the proposition, although I say distinctly we are not going to hand over the power at all—(loud cheers) ; but is it true that the working classes do not contribute fairly, fully, largely, to the expenses of Government ? (Loud cheers.) This question was put to me two days ago, in consequence of my statement that, according to the best estimate I could form, the working classes were pos sessed of an income forming not less than five-twelfths that is, nearly one-half—the entire- income of the country. (Loud cheers.) I repeat that statement in the presence of those who are able to correct me if I am wrong, and in the presence of:the greatest economists of the day. The hon. member for Derby, who is no mean authbrity upon subjects connected with the earnings of the working classes, has placed their . income at a still higher rate than I have done. This is a matter on which I may be confuted, but scarcely contradicted, because the question is not one of fact but of inquiry, argument, and inference. I repeat that it is a moderate estimate to put the income of the working classes at five-twelfths of the aggregate income of the country, whereas they are put off under the present law with only one-seventh of electoral power. Is not that state of things absolutely unjust ? (Loud cheers.) Perhaps I shall be told that I have based my estimate upon the income and not upon the property of the working classes. Probably that may be the answer to my statement. Yes, I hear a cheer. (Laughter.) I admit I have spoken in reference to income, and not to property. Well, you may take it on that ' ground if you choose, but you must also take the con sequence of making that choice, and you _must be prepared to change the whole system of taxation. (Loud cheers.) You now lay upon income the greater portion of your taxes, to which the working classes contribute a larger proportion, looking at the amount:of their earning; than is paid by the proudest noble in the land. (Loud cheers.) I,;therefore, say to those gentlemen who argue that the working classes are not entitled to the franchise because they don't possess property, that they must be prepared to join hands with the hon. member for Birmingham, and with the financi a l reformers of Liverpool, and instead of raising a fourteenth part of the revenue from property and the rest from income you must raise a fourteenth part from income and the r Again it is said, at leasetslt from property. (Loud cheers.) where the workin g classesli eve it has been so said, that (Load have ch eers a majority they vote together as a class. shade Or sharsdofrom the Opposition.) Now is there any s uch is the fact 1 (Cheers.) am wor rag of p ro o f th a t upon the patience of the house by which e rearn i g ng a lteotter trespass I received to-day from a working man and w s hall lay before you for the es p ecial benefit of the h gen tlemen opposite. (Cheers and lau g hter. ) 1 believe the stat ments it contains to be perfectly true, and that the writer's arguments are typical of the class to which he belongs, and their nature is such that you will not be sorry to hear them. (Hear, hear.) "Dear Sir,—MY motive in writing this is to remind you of the Tories who belong to the working ht class, as at the you ri can not think of all you wou ld wish, perhaps, just . g time. We all know that t here are the same variety of prin ciples and opinions in all classes of society. lam a wor e . g man, and have an opportunity of knowing , 0 ha Tori s principle, especially of the ;rtizan c l a ss, are very nume rous The newwho not 'now in posses sion of the franchise. Tories as know. The love Li, Reform Bill, I think, would do about as much for of count ry ° !. a r s als. It would for all we is as loyal class. . k Lib ": constitution is confined to no particular deuce to show li r l 4 as a Tory. Is there any evi- Franchise Bil with it ? They k no know enfranchise, are not fit to be trusted otetihese men, which the Relorm or of their country and that the welfare and prosperity welfare and prosp es i ty. ,l'asters is, at the same time, their (Cheers.) Well, sir, in mya that opinion, th e l e tt er is conclusive of the question. There tent concentrative good sense which often comes front the d mind, tram the mouth, and from the pen of the uned u cate!man, who, I may say, without any reproach to education, s s° m than h e would much nearer the point at which nature osiginally placed be were his mind more refined and g that there is no proof whatever that th e v seated. I maintain en f ra nchised, would act together as a clasosrkin classes, if (Hear,e Per haps you a sk for p roofs to the contrary, but it (Hear, hear.) i ex ceedingly difficult to give a proof of that which cie—s h ap p e n ; though in my opinion am p le proof of the coerr enet Dot • ness of my statement does exist. (Hear.) Municipal- franc hi se s are almost e xclusivel y workin g men's fr anchises 'Those franchises, if they do not quite come up to universal suffrage, at all everts nearly approach household suffrag e . What has been the system followed by the working classes in municipal elections ? In order to institute a compari son between the municipal and parliamentary franchises we must select those towns in which the municipal and parliamentary boundaries are the same. There are 346,00 C municipal voters in that portion of the town constituency, and computing as well as I can I find that there are 163,000 of them on the Parliamentary register. I deduct from that number one-fourth as representing the maxi mum portion of working men, and the result is 122,000 as the number of non-working men in the municipal con stituency. Thus the working men number 224,00 0 . What a dreadful state of things ! Yet there has been no explo sion, no revolution, no question has been raise d about Proleertv, nor indeed has any attempt been made to give a political character th e to municipal institutions. (Oh ! oh !) Yes, but wh en 0 muni cipal franchise was discussed in 1835 the party who occupied the seat hon. gentlemen opposite— Mr. DISRAELI—Where were y ou sitting then ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —I was sitting there it is true ; but I was not one of those who supported the argument. But where was the right hon. gentleman sitting at that time ? He was not sitting, in deed, but he was standing in the mountain behind these benches. (Cheers.) Many of the gentlemen who were then sitting opposite prophesied that great danger and mis chief would spring from the municipal franchise, because it would political character to municipal institution s au givedimbue a a all our corporations with a similar spirit. That being the case I think I am perfectly justified in standing u pon an important and strictly relevant fact, that, as far as I am aware, you are not able to adduce a single instance in which this working class majority has given a democratic —I will not say a disloyal, but a democratic character—a character distinct from that which they bcre under the influence of the middle classes to the municipal institu tions. Let gentlemen glance at the present state of things. I have referred to the metropolitan boroughs, which return a large number of what are denominated advanced politicians on this side of the house. I come now to the other end of the scale. I find that in the present town constituencies there are eight boroughs where the working classes are in a majority on the registers. These eight towns are —Beverley, Coventry, Greenwich, St. Ives, Maldon, Stafford, Pembroke, and Newcastle-under-Lyne. What is the revolutionary character of the members which they return ? (A laugh.) I find that these eight towns return five Liberals and nine Conservatives. This, then, lathe result of the working classes being in the majority. But there is a much broader ground, to which, I think, no reference has been made, and that is the case of the boroughs which had open constituencies containing large majorities of the working classes—constituencies much more popular than those of the present day. Now, examining the ope ration of the new bill, I find that according to our very large definitions of the working classes—a definition which is employed rather for argument's sake I mean in order to avoid contention than because it was strictly and literally true—l find this probable result, that is 60 boroughs, re turning 101 members, the working classes will have majo rities. In these boroughs the electors form B'4 per cent. It may reasenably be asked, is there anything very formid able in the character of those 101 members ? I beg par don ; I have made one error ; I have been computing pro spectively. Before 1830 there were 65 boroughs of a strictly popular character —more popular indeed than the classes under the bill now on the table, for the electors 60 boroughs that would have a majority of the labouring in stead of being 84 per cent. of the population, numbered nearly 10 per cent., and commanded 130 seats. If it be true . that the majority of the working classes in a constituency give the control of the seat, which I entirely deny (hear), you cannot show that, under our bill, there would be more than 101 such seats ; while, under the old Parliamentary system, which so scandalises my right hon. friend the member for Calne—(a laugh)—they numbered 130. We now, therefore, stand upon the firm 'ground of history. Was there among those 130 members at any period of our history developed a character in any degree dangerous to the institutions of the country ? I really do not know, but these are considerations which I frankly confess appear to me to be of great interest, and to be entitled to weight when presented, if it be not done in an offensive man ner to the minds of considerate men on whichever side of the house they may sit while dealing with this question, and desirous as my noble friend is to see it settled, I frankly own that I can see nothing dangerous to the party opposite in the proposed reduction of the borough franchise from £lO to £7. There can, indeed, be nothing dangerous to them in that reduction if they will only take warning by the expe rience of the Reform Act. There was nothing in that mea sure prejudicial to the predominance or to the just influence of the party opposite, but they chose to give it that cha racter by their determined resistance to its progress. As long as I could do so, therefore, I cherished the hope that the recollection of the Reform Act and the consequence of their resistance as exhibited in the transfer of power to their adversaries, would lead them to avoid falling a se cond time iu the same generation into so palpable a snare, and that they would not prejudice themselves and their credit in the opinions of the bulk of the population by offering a resistance that cannot fail to engender more or less of aversion and hostility. I think these facts are suffi cient to disprove the statement that where the working classes form the majority of a constituency its members work together in combination. Perhaps I may be told that my argument goes too far, and if that be true there can be no danger in a much larger enfranchisement than that which is proposed by the present measure. I have already said that in my opinion a further enfranchisement would not be attended by danger to the State. (Cheers.) That, however, is an opinion I cannot expect Parliament to accede to, and though I believe some further enfranchise ment would not be dangerous, I am far from saying that it would be wise to go to great lengths in that direction. Changes that effect sudden and extensive transfer of power are attended by great temptations to human nature, and, however high our opinions may be of the labouring classes of the community, I do not believe that it would be right to place that temptation within their reach. The genius of our country and the history of our institutions dictate and recommend gradual progress, and by gradual progress, therefore, these changes should be made. It is constantly alleged, and the argument is employed with confidence,that if we would only let the matter take its course, the enfran chisement of the working classes is being effected by natural process,whereas we are endeavouring to aid this enfran chisement by artificial means. This is a matter upon which I should be extremely slow to dogmatise, because it does not admit of being brought to a test with such precision to warrant the employment of any tone of superlative con fidence. But I must say that the whole of the argument is the other way, and that I wait with anxiety, but without expectation for the proof of this enlargement, of this natu ral and spontaneous enlargement, with which it is said wo are rashly meddling. The number of working men on the register is, I think, undeniably lessat present than in 1832, but, of course, there is the fact that, since 1832, the work men men belonging to the class of freemen have somewhat diminished. (Hear.) I do not think that the diminution in this direction isnumerically of much importance; but there has been a great diminution in the scot and lot voters who are working men. This class is not, indeed, quite extinct, and therefore in your computaticns respecting the future, you must allow for a continuance of this dwindling process until the whole number of scot and lot voters in existence at the time of the Reform Bill has disappeared. It is said, however, that there is a rapid growth of the working class among the £lO householders. But where is the proof of this assertion ? I believe it to be undeniable that the rate of progress in the aggregate number of £lO householders has been very much less of late years than in the first few years after the passing of the Reform Bill. From 1832 to 1851, while the population increased at the rate of 43 per cent., the £lO householders grew more than twice as fast, but from 1851 to 1866 the constituency grew only 50 per cent. faster than the aggregate population, thus showing a great sclackening as compared with the earlier period. But this can in some degree be accounted for. There were per sons not belonging to the working classes who were classed under other denominations at the time of the Reform Act, but who have subsequently appeared as £lO householders. But it is a mistake to imagine that so large a growth has taken place in £lO householders, and a still greater mistake to imagine that the growth has taken place in the working portion of the population. Let us look at the economical facts of the case. If we take the towns we find that the increase of the franchise has been nearly the same as that of the population. In the population it has been 79 per cent., and in the franchise 82 per cent., a variation so slight that it may be altogether disregarded. It is said that there is more than a proportionate growth in the wealth of the working classes—but how do you prove it? Tho increase of wealth has taken place chiefly among the middle classes wealth e th co o u t of ta the country. To put it shortly and intelligibly, the capi thle of w n th try e w h o a r s ki g n i g •ow el n as i s n es a far T greaterbe capital d e h g ra has e than grown to a far greater extent. How is that ? You \ must remember that in the large towns, where the area is limited, the growth in the value of land and rents has been much more rapid than the growth of wealth. If we inq ui 1 what is the value of land in the city of L on d on, and corn parere it with what it was 20 years ago, we s h a ll find that its growth is entirely out of proportion to th e growt h i n the wealth of the city, great as that has been. I shall not be going too far if I assert—in fact I may say that it is no torious—that there are large masses of the labouring people es p e cially in London, who, as compared with thei r posi tion 20 years ago, are better clothed and better fed, but who live in worse houses than they did, although their income is larger. This arises from the fact that there is not the same limitation in the supply of food and clothing as exists in the supply of houses, because of the contraction of area. (Hear, hear.) I state my own opinions with the reserve that the nature of the question requires ; but I must say that I have heard no good argument to the fi na lly upon this—For a man to con trary. And I st and occupy a house ann ual setting houses, o f £lO clear value, aside " lodgers in their he only the class of men who have ear. That clear must have an income of from.,£9o to £lOO a utaxes, nd it is minus annual value is minus ra tes and furniture also. It is vain th en to stand in the face of your working population and st.y, " We hav e a law which will enfranchise a ll the careful, diligent, a nd respectable men among you ; no working man is intell i g ent or respectable unless he can earn 355. a week." That is too severe a test a nd 'my statement of facts is enough to show that it 1 to s speak of a £lO f ranc hi se, t a ki ng the country all ov er, a one which takes in all the industrious and diligent among the lower classes. I must now beg leave t o deny that any transfer Sir, of power is contemplated by this bill. Th a t i s to say , the p repon d erance o f power in the country now lying in one quarter is not by it to be carried over to another. But with vain to deal with fear. The suspicion it is vain to deal ; it is figures and see how they sta r a e d asonable course is to go to mate the maximum of this ~ formida l am now g oing to esti ble invasion" that we are told we shall have to co n t en d with if th are 658 members of Parliament ; an d I w ould e ask bill pass. There how far will the character of the representation be "taii.ted , " so by the influence of the labouring classes ? To be g to call it , there are 254 county members. Hon. gentlemen areinawwiathr; of the character of the county franchise ; and I think they 1011 say that that body of 2a county members is almost is vain free from the contamination of the working classes?' ' (Cries of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) You say not. Very well ; but I don't endorse your opinion if you think that one working man taints a eounty constituency like a fly in a pot of ointment. (" Oh, oh !") I say that, as far as I know, there are no county constituencies where the working class is predominant. (Hear, hear.) I really think that is a proposition not admitting dispute. I may be told that there are a great many county members who do not vote with the other side, who may think that a very bad sign, as far as it goes, of the nature of the cousti tency by which they are returned. It is true that county members from Ireland are returned by a £l2 rating fran chise ; but I presume you don't call those persons working men unless they be tenants. Mr. DISRAELI—There are the 40s. freeholders, of whom a great many are working men. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —You have added these people to the fly in file pot of ointment. ("No, no," from the Opposition.) What is the proportion ? If we are to carry on the debate in this interlocutory fashion, I would ask what is the proportion of 40s. free- ;ous holders . Mr. DISRAELI—That is for you to say. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —The right hon. gentleman interpolates questions in the middle of my speech very fairly I admit, and I make no complaint of it if that course be thought convenient —yet, when I invite him to continue the argument in his own way, he declines to follow. (Ministerial cheers.) Then I only wish to say, and certainly I thought it generally believed, that the proportion of working men in the county constituencies is exceedingly small. I take it that the county constituencies are from the predominance of working-class influence.in f l a f e i t i be not so 1 shall be obliged independent ; free, to put the proposition in a manner much more unfavour able to you, and I say I have not dealt unfairly by you in saying the county constituencies, having only a minority of working men, are free from the influence of the working classes. Now the towns in England and Wales where it is likely there may be a majority of working men in the con stituency have 101 seats ; the towns where they must have a minority, 239 seats. I assume the same proportions in the Scotch and Irish towns. The effect of that will be that the working classes have a majority in 120 towns and cities, and they will be in a minority in 284 towns and cities. Then come the county constituencies- 254 . Therefore the working classes will be in a minority in 538 seats against 120 seats, in the filling of which they may be in a majority. Is that a transfer of power such as you ought to fear? Sir, lam astonished when I find that it positively seems to be held by intelligent men, such is the effect of fears and suspicions, that property is a cause of weakness, and that mere numbers, in spite of all history and experience, are to be regarded as stronger in determining the foree of political opinions than similar numbers when they happen to be backed by property. (Hear, hear.) To the very liberal statement I have made I invite the closest consideration, and I state that members will be returned to at least 9-11ths of the seats of the country by constituencies where the influence of the working class cannot possibly, as a general rule, pre dominate. Now, I am desirous to make well understood to the house the position in which the Government stands. I am not about to qualify or alter in any respect, but to con firm, what has already been asserted. To those gentlemen whom we believe to be earnestly united with ourselves iu desiring an extension of the franchise we have cheerfully made a concession. Although we ourselves believe it to be the wisest course to dispose of the great subject of the franchise before we went forward to discuss in any way the question of redistribution of seats, yet we have pro mised to set our views before you in the most definite and formal manner—that is, in the shape of bills upon the Scotch and Irish franchise and upon the redistribution of seats—before we go into committee upon this bill. That is what we have said; and we have also said, what I really until the day before yesterday had always believed to be unnecessary to say—that in speaking of this great subject of the representation of the people as a matter vital to the credit and therefore to the existence of the Government we included the subject of redistribution of seats along with the subject of the franchise. I had thought it necessary to say this, because I felt nothing 'could be more contemptible and base than the conduct :af a Government which could give forth, with a view of enlisting the generous confi dence of its supporters, that it would deal with the subject of Reform and stand or fall by its propositions, and at the same time exclude from their declaration all portions of that question but the reduction of the franchise. (Cheers.) I wish the house more clearly to understand than they do at present as to the mode in which the question of time has been treated. I have seen it stated in multitudinous forms that I have said on the part of the Government that we will not go on with anything during the present year except the question of the franchise. I never said any thing of the kind. But this I have said :—Looking at the ordinary time of the session, and this I said on the intro duction of the bill, I did not believe that within that period it would be practicable to deal with those other portions. Allowing for full and free discussion regarding the subject, we could not expect that the two portions of it would be dealt with, and still less of the other portions of it, within the ordinary and usual duration of the session. But, be yond that, I have stated, as is well known, that we for our parts, from motives of duty, decline to proceed with any other part of the subject until the fate of the Franchise Bill is determined. When its fate is determined it will then be for us to review our position. A portion of the work will still, it is true, remain to be performed ; but we shall then know the state of public business, the feeling, and de sires of the house. The Franchise Bill is so framed, and professedly so framed, as to afford ample time for disposing of the whole matter without much dis turbance of the arrangements of the house—l mean of honourable members of this house. The notices to be given with a view to registration must be given, I think, on the 10th of June, and as the most sanguine among sanguine men would hardly suppose that this bill could receive the Royal assent before the next 10th of June it follows that the new constituency cannot be in existence till the end of the year 1867 ; and consequently this Parliament, or one elected by the present constituency, has ample time for deal ing with the whole subject. (Hear, hear.) There may be gentlemen who have a great love of comprehensive action —(laughter)—and if they desire a prorogation or adjourn ment of the house there is nothing in the world to prevent it. The appetite for redistribution seems to have grown so enormously—(loud cheers)—within the last few weeks, that if there be a determination to let the grouse and par tridges and pheasants have a holiday, and to call Parlia ment together whether by prorogation or adjournment in order to get this great work out of hand, it is not for us to plead our own personal convenience ; we shall be ready to make the sacrifice and come up as well as we can, though looking perhaps pale and languid enough, to set a last hand to the accomplishment of the work. That is the position in which we stand. And there is, as far as I know, but one allegation made in these debates which is broad enough to cover the opposition to the bill. lam convinced that all attempts to show there is a self-working enfran chisement adequate to the cause, all attempts to show that every intelligent, respectable, and well-conducted man can now come upon the register, will utterly break down. (Cheers.) They cannot be sustained on any careful inves tigation. There is only one allegation— Ido not say whether it has been made—but it was that which was supposed to have been made by my right honourable friend the mem ber for Caine [Mr. Lowe.—" Understood to have been made."]—(cheers and laughter)—and I am bound to say, as far as words have meaning, rightly understood. (Cheers.) Of course, I accept at once the disclaimer of a man of whom I freely confess that, in my judgment, he is not more eminent for his extraordinary intellectual power, in many respects never surpassed and rarely matched in this house (hear, hear)—than he is entitled to the utmost respect for his integrity. (Cheers.) I take this opportunity of making an apology to my right hon. friend for having used hastily some words which appeared to cast a reflection on his courage. 1 did not mean any such thing, and if I used words which appeared to convey that I am very sorry for it. (Loud cheers.) But my right hon. friend will allow me to explain, or rather allow me to answer his explanations, on my own behalf. He says lwas answering at Liverpool the speech which he made here. I did nothing of the kind. It was an answer, so far as it was an answer at all, to his letter to the electors of Calne ; and I noticed the strange conclusions and the singular labyrin thine complications in which it appeared to me that the artful Mr. Bishop had contrived to entangle him. (Cheers and laughter.) But my right hon. friend says he spoke in the speech which he delivered in this house, not of the mass of the labouring class, whom he very greatly respects, but of some persons in the different constituencies, I will not dwell on the fact that he afterwards described that por tion of the labouring class among the several constituencies as men who had won their way there by forethought, or men whom it would be an injustice to mix with the inferior persons beneath them. (Hear, hear.) But my right hon. friend, speaking of those persons, used four memorable words—and my right hon. friend's phrases are not like what has been said of lover's vows : " In vento et rapids scriber° oportet aqua," —he uses a pen of steel, and his words are written on the rock. "Ignorant, drunken, venal, violent"—words easily remembered ! My right hon. friend spoke of the labouring classes in the constituencies. Did he speak of them gene rally, or merely hero and there of one among them ? If he spoke of them generally, then I say his bold allegation is sufficient for its end. If he spoke of a few among them, then his allegation is worthless as an argument—(loud cheers) —his arrow falls short of the mark, he has no right to apply Pride's Purge to the working :class, and say, "from you we will riddle out before we ad mit, you to political rights every man who is a spend thrift, every man who is a drunkard, every man who has broken one of the tea commandments," while those higher in station, but exempt from the operation of this purg e, may have been wanting in all these respects without in the slightest degree impairing the efficiency of Parlia ment. (Loud cheers.) But did my right hon. friend speak only of the members of existing constituencies ? Is there a man here, or a man who heard my right hon. friend deliver that speech, who forgets his favourite simile of the Hyper boreans ? (Hear, hear.) What were they ? They be lieved that though the north wind was cold where they stood—they are the £lO c onstituencies ; that is where we stand now—(hear, and laughter)—yet that by going a little further towards the north—that is, by going successively to £9, to £B, to £7, and eventually to £6 —at last they would get into a warm country. (Cheers and laughter.) My right hon. friend ridiculed these notions, and it was not the constituencies alone—it was the masses to whom his ob servations applied. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend supplied us with another proof of his meaning—though I endeavoured to warn him off the ground—inthe use which he made of the simile of Virgil. I said this is no " Mon strum infelix," no horse charged with armed men who are to carry fire and desolation to your homes ; but my right hon. friend rushed in haste into the trap, and with porten- Lasis declaimed— " Instamus tamen immemores, cteciquo furore, Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce." What is the "Monstrum infelix?" Who are the persons con tained in it ? The 7-pounders ! (Loud cheers.) Sir, lam not seeking to tie my right hon. friend to this construction. What I have said I said to justify myself for having believed with reluctance and with pain, but still for having honestly believed, that his speech a as a denunciation of the working community. If that was wrong, by all means let us hear it. My right hon. friend has explained his speech ; let him ex plain his explanation ; and when he explains it, let us dis tinctly understand—is this a charge against the mass of his working fellow-cttizens, in which case it is untrue— or is it only a charge against certain bad characters among them, in which case it is insufficient ? (Cheers.) If that argument of my right hon. friend can be sustained in the more unfavour able sense, then I admit it is sufficient to destroy this bill ; and I think ;it sufficient to destroy a great deal else along with this Bill. It is sufficient to destroy the hopes of every generous heart and every intelligent mind (hear) there is nothing to hope for England if that picture which my right hon. friend with his matchless power strove to draw is a true picture. I thank the House for the great patience and kindness of its healing. On this subject men must become warm ; it is hardly possible as we advance in debate that we should do otherwise. But I do earnestly intreat and conjure the house on both sides that it is not enough for us now to say " We are ready to entertain the question of Reform with a view to its settlement." Enough and more than enough there has been already of bare, idle, mocking words. Deeds are what are wanted. I beseech ycu to be wise ; and, above all, to be wise in time. (Loud and continued cheering.) Mr. LOWE said—Sir, I only interpose now for two minutes, as I shall have at a later period to address the house upon the subject of the bill. I wish very much to disentangle the discussion from anything of a personal nature, and therefore I ask the opportunity in the house, as one who has been much spoken against since the house met last, to say what I have to say in defence of the charge that has been again brought up by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. Sir, what lam anxious to meet is not any argu ment that can be drawn from my words. lam ready to admit that any gentleman is free to draw any inference, however unfavourable to me, from my words, so long as he does so avowedly as an inference. But what 1 rise to pro test against in the face of the house, and through the house to the country, is the gross, systematic, and wilful perver sion of language which has been resorted to. (Opposition cheers.) It is entirely alio intuit°. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer enjoy the inference he has drawn. I am not going to waste time in partially arguing the question, but what I want to state to the house is this, that I so little expected this attack to bo renewed, after what has passed, that I have not come down to the house even furnished with the document which would have enabled me accurately, and word by word, to refute it. (Opposition cheers.) I was arguing, whether well or ill, that it was not wise to lower the franchise, and I drew an argument, or intended to draw it, from the notorious mal practices that existed in many boroughs and amongst a large number of the constituencies. I meant to speak of notorious facts proved before Royal Commissions and before committees of this house. I did characterise the proceedings of many electors, a 3 proved before those tribunals, as show ing that there was venality, drunkenness, ignorance, and vice in many constituencies. And that that was my intention is quite manifest from my having begun the sentence by saying, "I have some acqua i n tance with the consti tuencies of this country ;" and then I said, If you wish to find persons possessing the four cardinal vices," as I called them, "where would you look —whether to the top or bot tom—that is of course to the top or bottom of the consti tuencies?" (Cheers.) Well, sir, certain gentlemen, whom it becomes me to speak of with certain feelings of- respect, thought fit'to get up an address to me, in which they left out the beginning and end of the sentence. They left out the part that showed I was referring to the existing con stituencies, and the words after "where would you look" —that is "to the top or the bottom." Having thus mani pulated the sentence to their own satisfaction, they pro ceeded to severely censure me, and in that they were joined by the penny press, the blessings of which we have heard so much to-night. (Opposition cheers.) Now I have no thing to say about the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Ho is free to draw any argument he likes from my words. What I have had to say about him I have said in print. But the noble lord at the head of the Government, I am in formed, in his address to his supporters the other day, con descended to read this passage to them, garbling it exactly in the same way as it was garbled, leaving out the latter words which showed clearly with what intent the words were spoken ; and not only so, but the hon. member for Birmingham, in his speech at Rochdale a few days ago, not only left out the words "to the top or to the bottom," but put into the place of them "to the unrepresented classes"--(loud cheers)—words which I never spoke, and words not to be found in the two reports of my speech I have consulted—words which I know not where ho ob tained them, but perhaps they were the Bright invention of some of his organs in the press. This is what I protest against ; not against argument or inference, but against a deliberate falsification of what I did 'say—against those mean and reprehensible arts of omission and and suppression, and suggestion and substitution of words never spoken. (Loud Opposition cheers.) No man in the world has ever been subjected to more gross abuse than have for the last month, and that abuse has been occa sioned by deliberate and purpose-like misrepresentations, misstatements, and misquotations of my language ; and the people who are about to invade and govern us have not the opportunity of referring to original documents, but take it from the words of the Press that instructs them and the orators who inflamed them. (Opposition cheers.) make my protest in the face of the house against this species of political warfare. Mr. 0. STANLEY rose to order amidst loud cries of "Oh, oh," and was understood to complain that the right hon. gentleman was abusing the licence which had been given to him. The SPEAKER—The hon. member has not pointed out anything that could justify his interruption. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman is perfectly in order. Mr. LOWE—I only wish to say, in this public manner, that it never was my intention to say anything at all re flecting on the poorar or working classes of this country as a body—(oh, and cheers) —though whatever inference may he drawn from my speeches are legitimate matter for argu ment, that I must meet as I may. But Ido trust that in this house of hon. gentlemen, although a court of honour is not like the Court of Chancery, capable of issuing an in junction—yet Ido trust that the attempt will be discoun tenanced to put down a man who, whatever his faults and failings may be—and I am quite aware of them— is acting according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as he be lieves, with perfect integrity and good faith. (Cheers.) Earl GROSVENOR, who on rising was received with loud cheers, said he would take the liberty of bringing the house down to the region of commonplace. In rising to move the resolution of which he had given notice, he must first of all claimthe indulgence of the house, and more espe cially of those who sat on his side of it—in opposition to whom he should have the misfortune to appear to act—an indulgence which he should not ask for in vain. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The task that he took upon himself would require tho 'eloquence and ability of a more prac tised debater, and of higher distinction than he could lay claim to, for the only claim he had was founded upon the sincerity of his conviction that the course he was following was correct and the honesty of his motives. He could assure the house that it was not without great difficulty and anxiety that he consented to move this resolution, and it was not without consulting the advice of men of high position, upon whose judgment he could rely, and whom he thought were well qualified to advise him in this crisis. He had been made the subjectof many violent attacks, both in the Press and in speeches, since he gave notice of this motion ; and ho knew of no more ungenerous and indefen sible attack than that which was made upon him by the hon. and learned member for Oxford (Mr. Neate.) He did not for a moment wish it to be understood that he referred to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. His own inclination would have been to give a silent vote, as he had on many previous occasions ; but he felt that there were times and occasions which must give way to a sense of duty, and he might say such an occasion had now presented itself to him. (Cheers.) If the house would allow him, he would say one word in reference to what occurred yesterday, and which had been rather misunderstood. He was anxious to have a clear understanding from the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the course which was intended to be taken by the Government for the redistribution of seats and the disfranchisement of boroughs. There was some misapprehension upon the sub ject. There was a lengthened report in the _Morning Star giving a detailed account of the circumstances of the meet ing, and several members asked him what was the object of his rising in his place yesterday. His object in rising was to obtain some confirmation orcontradiction as to what appeared in print as to the course the Government would take in respect to these bills. He was not able to put that question at the time. The noble lord at the head of the Government, in reply to the hon member for the Tower Hamlets, was reported to have said that he intended topro coed with the bill for the reduction of the borough franchise but he would not tie himself down to any time when he would proceed with the other bills. He considered ho was justified in some measure in bringing forward his resolution from the fact, that though the Government had partly conceded the object of the resolution by pledging them selves to bring in some of the bills, yet the right hon. gen tleman in his speech that nighthad totally evaded the ques tion. (Opposition cheers.) He had made no reference to the main point to which his resolution referred, that the house desired to have under its consideration the whole scheme of reform contemplated by the Government. (Cheers.) For the many years that he had been in the house he had been an humble follower of the present Prime Minister, and he had supported other Liberal Administrations in the measures they brought forward which he conceived to be for the good of the country. He acknowledged the great ability of the noble lord, and his great and heartfelt sincerity in the cause of reform. The noble lord said he began his political career in the cause of reform in 1821, and he observed with pain the disparaging remarks which had been made in the press in reference to the noble lord since he became Prime Minister. (Hear, hear.) He was aware that he laid himself open on this occasion not only to the charge of deserting the Govern ment, but also the party of which hitherto ho had been a member. The noble lord in 1859 moved a resolution against the bill of Lord Derby on the question of reform, and he (Earl Grosvenor) followed the noble lord into the lobby on that occasion, and he might be permitted to doubt whether he was altogether right in that course. (Hear, hear.) But it was easy to be wise after the event, and it had struck him since whether it was not an opportunity that might have been used for the settlement of this question of reform instead of upsetting the bill. (Hear, hear.) But he would ask, did not hon. gentlemen leave themselves open to the accusation of deserting their party, when in bringing for ward a measure of reform they consulted mainly what were the feelings and wishes of hon. gentlemen who sat below the gangway—(loud cheers)—and in that deserted the old traditions of the Whig party ? He was, however, proud to be in a position to say that there were a few hon. members at all events sitting on that side of the house who were determined to pursue an independent course, and who preferred the real interests of the country to their allegiance to the Government. (Renewed cheering.) With out in the least degree arrogating to himself any extraordi nary merit or virtue, he might be permitted to wonder how it was that so many other members who sat there and did not approve of the measure—how it was that so many who considered it a partial measure, although admitting that it contained some good provisions—how it was that so many who did not approve of it as being ill-timed—how those members on that side of the house, who, judging from their conversation in the lobbies, dis approved of the bill, could yet find it consistent with their duty and their consciences to support the Government on that occasion, and, agreeing in the spirit of his resolution, nevertheless, found it their duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. Those honourable members, however, who were acting with him were, he believed, acting a more upright and friendly part to the Government, and of this he felt sure that, however their acts might be now miscon strued, the time would come when their efforts would be appreciated by a party stronger and more united because more honest in its views. (Opposition cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech at Liverpool stated that the trumpet of Government blew no uncertain sound. They would all recollect the number of notices which were upon the paper previous to the recess. Well, he supposed it was at the sound of that mighty trumpet that all those notices disappeared in an inconceivable manner like the walls of Jericho. (Laughter and cheers.) His resolution, however, because founded upon a rock, was the only one which had been able to with stand the terrific blast, because founded on truth and justice. (Cheers.) They proceeded by resolution on this occasion, because they believed that some of the provisions of the bill were worthy of adoption. They had, too, a precedent far that course in the conduct of the noble lord at the head of the present Government, when he in that way encoun tered the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and by which he succeeded in throwing out the Bill, and preventing the settlement of the great question of Parliamentary Ref mm. Such was th 3 horror of the reso lution proposed by the noble lord that the right hon. gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into the lobby with the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then declared that the only part of ,the measure he ap proved was the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) He said that that was no small or trivial matter ; that the question of the redistribution of seats was in the full one-half of the whole ; that the redistribuiton of seats and the extension of the franchise made up the entire measure. (Cheers.) Well, the right hon. gentleman also disapproved of his re solution as saying one thing and meaning another. He had described it as valuable, not for what it declared, but for what it did not declare, and that no man cared for what it did declare. If the house would allow him he would read to them the terms of his resolution, premising that it had not been drawn up, as asserted, by a Tory hand. , (Hear.) It was, " That this house, while ready to consider, with a view to its settlement, the question of Parliamentary Re form, is of opinion that it is inexpedient to discuss a bill for the reduction of the franchise in England and Wales, until the house has before it the entire scheme contemplated by the Government for the amendment of the representation of the people." If the right hon. gentleman was unable to understand the plainest Eliglish ever written he could not explain it to him further. It was impossible to deny that the house was ready to consider the question, a statement which the right hon. gentleman, however, passed by with a sneer which was unworthy of him— "Ready to consider, said the right hon. gentleman; I believe the house is ready to consider nothing of the sort." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated his dissent. Earl GROSVENOR begged the right hon. gentleman's pardon if he misrepresented him, but he spoke from the report of his speech published in the newspapers. (Several hon. members, " Quite right.") Now, he thought that both sides of the house had given proof that the house was at all times ready to consider the question of reform. That was evident from what had happened in 1852, 1854, 1859, and in 1860. The main point of his resolution was iden tical in principle with the doctrine laid down by the late Sir James Graham in the last speech he ever made in the house, in which he stated that the main end of reform should be to prevent the necessity of further reformation. Did the present bill afford any probability that that prin ciple should be fulfilled ? (Cheers.) It only dealt with two points, the modification of the franchise in boroughs, and the modification of the franchise in counties. The present Prime Minister said in 1851, when the hon. gentleman the member for East Surrey brought forward his county fran chise bill, that he (Lord John Russell) would ask the house to consider the gravity of the question, and if it would not be wise and prudent to reject that bill as a partial propo sition—(cheers)—until the whole scheme of the alteration of the franchise was placed before Parliament. (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The noble lord had, it seemed, since changed his mind, although the principles which were valid then were equally valid now. The bill of 1854, proposed by the noble lord, was a tolerably sweep ing measure, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer found fault with it because it went too far, and on that occasion he made his great speech in favour of the retention of small boroughs. With regard to the redistribution of seats, if the inequality of representation was great now, what would it be after the passing of the measure, when the consti tuencies in all the large towns would be doubled ? The hon. gentleman the member for Derby, for whom he enter tained a very great respect, had told his constituents that be would vote for the bill although he thought it would unsettle the question, and that what he should like to see adopted was the municipal, which was very much tanta mount to a household„ suffrage. (Hear, hear.) It was the object of hon. gentlemen below the gangway to increase the power of the lower classes, and a very able pamphlet, written by Mr. Gibbs, of Wolverhampton, showed that the measure now proposed would give those classes a prepon derance of political power, for it was clearly shown that those classes were increasing at a ratio greater than at which the population of the country was increasing. No time, however, had been given them for the con sideration of the returns which had been laid on the table of the house. On the other point, he wished to call attention to the fact that. Sir James Graham, arguing in favour of the £6 franchise, did so on the assumption that the class of £lO voters were becoming diminished ; and Lord Russell, in 1860, was under the same impression, when he estimated, probably on the re turns of 1858, that the total number of voters in boroughs was under 200,000, whereas they were now 336,700, show ing that, so far as the working classes were concerned, there was a large increase in the number of voters. They had since 1851 increased at the rate of 45 per cent., whereas the increase of population was only at the rate of 36 per cent. Now, with regard to the tone of the public press, he believed the great majority of the respectable journals in the country were favourable to the resolution and un favourable to the course pursued by 'the Government. There was, however, one exception, for that paper which was the organ of the hon. gentleman the member for Bir mingham indulged in threats and menaces against those members of the house who ventured to entertain an inde pendent opinion and had the courage to avow it. (Hear,. hear, and cheers.) He was sure that those threats and ap peals to physical force would not doter any member of the house from avowing his independent opinion: (Hear, hear.) Certainly the threat that his unfortunate son was to be deprived of the property which it was expected he would one day inherit would not prevent him (Earl Gros venor) from coming :forward to perform what he con sidered a great 'public duty. There was another point which he could not pass over, as it affected him personally, and placed him in a dirty conspiracy. He had now sat in that house for many years, and had frequently heard the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham give utterance to the grandest thoughts in the noblest language, and there fore it was with feelings of pain and regret he found that the hon. gentleman, when at Rochdale, had spoken of him self and those who had supported his resolution in language which no gentleman in that house would use (hear, hear, and cheers)—and which no one who was a gentleman would use out of the house. (Renewed cheers.) It was not necessary for him to go into the question whether it was wise or prudent to make such a change as was now pro posed. Certainly a period of thirty years was but a small period in the Parliamentary history of this country. It might be open to consideration how more of the working classes might get admitted to the franchise, but he believed they were themselves effecting that object, and that there was no working man who might not by pru dence and diligence work himself up to the position of a £lO voter. The supporters of the present measure hadgono about asserting that those who were opposed to it indulged in the indiscriminate abuse of the working classes. For himself he could say he never used a word of abuseagainst them; indeed, the whole tenor of his life had been to re- spect all classes of his countrymen. The hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham, however, in his speech at Rochdale declared that there were still large masses of the people whom the influences of religion, education, and civilisation had never reached, and yet the grant for public education had within the last 20 years increased from £30,000 to £BOO,OOO per annum. Now he (Earl Grosvenor) thought that was hardly an argument in favour of the pre sent bill—it was rather an argument which had a tendency the other way. However that might be, the great majority of the house wished to pass a moderate measure of reform one which would be based on the two great principles — the good government of the country and the fair represen tation of the people. The question they had now to ask themselves was, whether or not they had got a bill which would secure to them these two ends. The question was, Had they got this? He believed they had not. Then the question was, How could they obtain it? Would the bill then before the house accomplish it? That was the ques tion, and he was bound to say that ho did not think it would (Cheers.) He believed that no Reform Bill would ever pass that house which first of all consults hon. members below the gangway in preference to the great party who sit above it, and - without consulting hon. members who sit on the other side of the house. He believed that until their feel ings and wishes were consulted and the question was taken out of the domain of party—(cheers)—there was no possibility of any bill passing, unless, as had been sug gested by Earl Grey, it was put into the hands of a com mittee of the Privy Council, or of an unbiassed commission For this reason he moved the amendment. He believed that moderate opinions prevailed, and would continue to prevail, and that a bill which was founded upon that prin ciple, upon matured opinionsand matured principles, would become the law of the country. (Cheers.) He thanked the house in all sincerity for the great patience with which they had listened to him, and he would only appeal to those members who sat on his side, and who agreed in the spirit of the resolution, whether they could not in their consciences support the resolution, because he believed the Govern ment bill would never pass the house. He knew that many agreed in the spirit of the resolution, though their allegi ance to the Government had superior claims upon them. He appealed to gentlemen out of doors to justify him, be cause he had been subjected to great abuse on account of the course which be had felt it to be his duty to take on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl, concluded by moving the resolution he had placed upon the paper, and resumed his seat amid loud Opposition cheers. Lord STANLEY, who was received with great applause from the Opposition benches, seconded the amendment. For some minutes the noble lord was very indistinctly heard. He was understood to say that he seconded the amendment from the strong conviction he entertatined of the falseness of the position in which they had become involved. He did not intend to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer through his long and able speech, but he must observe, in reference to the quotation which the right hon. gentleman made from the Quarterly Review, and by which he seemed to wish to affix a stigma upon the Con servative party, that he (Lord Stanley) entirely de clined to be responsible for any article whatever, of which he knew nothing and with Tihich he had nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman also appeared desirous to have it be lieved that the Conservative party would wish to go to war with the United States. Now he (Lord Stanley) thought that this was some of the tender ground on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was afraid to enter. (Cheers.) Why, during the war all that the Con servative party wished to see was a recognition of the Con federate States ; but the right hon. gentleman himself it was who declared that Jefferson Davis had made a nation. (Loud cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had con cluded his speech with a powerful appeal to the house, not only to be wise, but to be wise in time. (Hear, hear.) Ho did not know when this necessity for urgent haste in the matter began in the mind of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The Reform bill of 1860, brought in by Lord Russell's Government, was not thrown out by the house ; it was simply dropped. (Hear, hear.) Those who had left this question for six years without even an attempt to settle it wore not now justified in turning round and saying that the house would not be wise unless it passed this bill with the least possible delay. (Loud cheers.) He did not intend to discuss the details or the principle of the bill ; but simply to support the proposition expressed in the re solution of his noble friend the member for Chester. What was it the Ministry asked them to do ? They asked them to act upon a principle which they themselves six years ago declared to be an unsound one. In the present case the original theory on which they proceeded was that the question of the franchise and the redistribution of seats were wholly independent of and distinct from each other, and that they ought to ba separately considered. Her Majesty's Government had now distinctly acknow ledged the right of the house to know what they pro posed to do about the seats before the house went into the details of this measure. (Cheers.) But the Govern ment said, "We must have your pledge that you will vote for the second reading. You must perform that act of faith in us, and when you have done that we will reward your submission and your confidence by telling you what will be the effect of this vote you have given blindfold." (Cheers.) He wondered that Ministers did not see, or that seeing they did not care for, the con struction to which that course of policy was exposed. No one could suppose that they had not got their plan ready. No one could believe that they did not know what boroughs they proposed to disfranchise and what con stituencies they intended to create. Those facts, however, were kept back from the house, and why ? Because, as the leader of the house said at Liverpool—and it was a singular admission to come from one occupying his position —the Government knew with whom they were dealing. (Cheers.) Although the Government asked the House of Commons to trust them, they were not inclined to trust the House of Commons. (Cheers.) And why ? Because —and he did not think he put it unfairly—they thought that if two measures were brought forward at the same time, and one of them were a small disfranchisement scheme, it might so disappoint and disgust several mem bers as to make them indifferent to the whole measure of reform. If, on the other hand, they brought forward a large scheme of disfranchisement the members whose seats would be taken away would be inclined to vote against the whole measure of reform, and thus it might be de feated. He wondered that Ministers imagined so transpa rent a device would succeed. (Cheers.) He fancied there was no member so young or so innocent as not to see the net which had been spread out before the house. (Renewed cheers.) And after all what would Ministers gain if their device should succeed? Simply a little time. If the bill should be read a second time, the opposition which they wished to prevent on the second reading would have to be encountered in committee. Under these circum stances he thought it was hardly worth while for Ministers to attempt to press the bill forward at present. The fate not merely of a member, but of his constituency, might depend on the vote which he might give on the second reading of this bill. A large number of boroughs were upon the border line, and arrangements might be made which would swamp the constituency of an enemy and save that of a friend. (Cheers.) Eveu.the measure of 1832, sound as he thought it was, was not free from some arrangements of that kind. (Laughter.) But let it not be supposed that he charged the Government with intending to make any corrupt bargain of that kind, but thought that the house ought to con sider carefully the position in which they stood with referenae to this matter. They were going to have a large redistribution of seats. Any alteration of that scheme was still possible, and ought the house to be asked to vote upon a measure upon which the Government had staked its existence, while certain influences which he had described might be exercised upon the representatives of certain constituencies ? Who was to guarantee the iden tity of the redistribution scheme of 1866 with that of 1867? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Would the Ministers them selves say that they would accept no amendment, and would not reconsider their perhaps hasty thoughts ? They could not use language of that kind. And who was to an swer for the events of the next 12 months ? Might not some domestic or foreign event occasion a dissolution of Parliament within that time? And if a dissolution should take place in what an extraordinary posit ion would the house and the country be placed. If they appealed to the old constituencies, they would be con stituencies which the House by a deliberate vote had condemned. And if they appealed to the new consti tuencies, they would have this still more anomalous state of things.. They would have an appeal from Parliament to the people under a provisional constitution. (Cheers.) Who was to guarantee that the same body which dealt with the question of enfranchisement would be able also to deal with the question of seats ? A guarantee of that kind was simply impossible. He did not blame the Government for not having brought in the bill until statis tical information had been laid before the house, but he did regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not a little more leisure, which would have enabled him to read the book which he laid on the table containing that statistical information, because the facts in that book turned out quite different from what the right hon. gentleman ima gined them to be—(hear, and laughter)—the whole ques tion of Reform should be suspended till another session. They had no. guarantee that if this measure were car ried the settlement of the second question would rest in the hands of the present House of Commons. Referring to the expression a "dirty conspiracy," he wished to know how that term was to be defined. Did it mean a combina tion for a temporary purpose of a portion of the Liberal party with the bulk of the Conservative party ? It could hardly be that, for he had known two such combinations within the last few years, in which part had been taken by noble lords and hon. gentlemen who now supported Government, and amongst them the hon. member for Bir mingham —once on the occasion of the resolution on the China war, and on the case of Bernard and Orsini. Mr. BRIGHT rose to order, but was met by so deter mined an opposition from the Conservative side that he could not be heard. Mr. DISRAELI (to Mr. Bright)—Do you rise to order ? Mr. BRIGHT—I do. The SPEAKER, rising in answer to cries of " Chair," said—The hon. member says that he rises to order, and of course he will keep to the question of order. Mr. BRIGHT—I do not wish to interrupt the noble lord. I only wish to say that on the first mason— (Renewed cries of " Order," yielding to which Mr. Bright sat down. Lord STANLEY went on to say that the Liberal members alluded to had only asserted their right to the exercise of their own judgment, and their refusal to submit to the dictation which would say to them, " Swallow your scruples and follow your leader." He contended that there was no similarity whatever between the resolution proposed in 18 59 and the amendment of his noble friend. The resolution of 1859 affirmed the principle that no settlement of the Reform question would be satis factory that did not include the lowering of the borough franchise. That resolution was objected to as unusual and unfair, on the ground that the point raised was one that could be disposed of in committee if the bill were allowed to pass a second reading. (Hear, hear.) The pre sent bill was only a franchise bill, and it would be con trary to the practice) of the house to insert in a franchise bill a clause relating to a different subject. (Hear, hear.) This was not an amendment that nega tived the principle of any Reform, or that even ex pressed disapprobation of the principle of the bill. (Hear, hear.) After the promises that had been made re specting reform, he should be unwilling to vote against the second reading if he could avoid doing so. He would much rather, if possible, discuss in committee any question in which there existed a difference of opinion, but they were cut off from taking that course by the peculiar man ner in which the scheme was brought before them. (Oppo sition cheers.) They should be able to judge of the effect of the bill not only in the existing boroughs, but also in the new boroughs hereafter to be enfranchised. They were therefore asked to legislate upon a subject about which they absolutely knew nothing. (Opposition cheers.) Their judgment ought to be free and unbiased, and founded upon a full knowledge of the subject. Believing that they could not so exercise their judgment if they acted in the manner the Government desired, he should second the amendment of his noble friend. (Opposition cheers.) Mr. P. W. MARTIN expressed his intention to support he bill provided the Government would introduce a clause io save the rights of the dockyard artificers, but not other- wise. Mr. HORSFALL commented with some severity on the language used by Mr. Bright in reference to Liverpool, which he described as most unjustifiable. He described the freemen of that town to be quite as independent as the £lO householders, and while expressing himself anxious to assist in any compromise or settlement of the question when the proper time arrived, expressed himself hostile to a measure which would transfer the balance of political power to the working classes, and which would enormously increase the expense of elections. Mr. PIM disclaimed any idea of regarding the question of reform as one of party. He did not wish to see the Go vernment displaced, but he could not give his consent to a fragmentary measure, although he was quite disposed to support a fair and moderate measure of concession when the proper time arrived. The Marquis of HARTINGTON could not understand upon what intelligible ground the Opposition were pre pared to give their sanction to the amendment of Lord Grosvenor. That amendment was directed against a real and practical proposition, and if it were now rejected it would be impossible to tell when there would be a settle ment of the question. Ho denied that the measure had been brought in at the dictation of Mr. Bright. It was in spired by the pressure of long-standing engagements , which no honourable men could longer resist. Had the Government met the new Parliament without a Reform Bill it would have been said that they had sacrificed their principles to their places. The fate of the Cabinet was, it was true, staked upon the bill, but a far more importan t question than the resignation of Ministers remained behin d —the peace and prosperity of the country. General PEEL reminded the house that the new-born zeal of the Government in favour of Reform had been in spired by the death of the late Premier. Before the dis solution of George 111. the cry of the Government was , "The good old King and no Popery," and during the life time of Lord Palmerston the cry was, " The good old Palmerston and no Reform Bill." To ask the House of Commons to sanction the principle of a Franchise Bill without accompanying it with a plan for the redistributio n of seats was to treat it like a child. For his own part Il e was not prepared to consider one without the other ; en d ' so far as the lowering of the franchise was concerned, be would not give his assent to a £7 occupation in boroughs even if accompanied by a measure for the redistribution of aeats. He considered that a£7 franchise would open the door to endless corruption, as it would revive the old free men, scot and lot voters, and potwallopers, whose eli° t ; ence was destroyed, or nearly destroyed, by the bill e; 1832. If the bill were passed in its present shape it wou l d open the door to all descriptions of corruption , en boroughs would be bought and sold like shares in the Stock Exchange. The cost of every borough would be d fixed ; a parliamentary bill of fare would be draw n u p , en the price of mint sauce for Nottingham "la mbs" would eb once be ascertained. He was not indisposed to give ti le r working classes a reasonable share of political power, le, he was not afraid of them ; but he owned he was afraid 01 he men by whom they were likely to be led. After a few words from Mr. KINGLABE, justifyi n g the withdrawal of the amendment of which he had given notice, Mr. BANKS-STANHOPE opposed the bill on t he ground that it was not an honest measure. It was we t known that it was the handiwork of the member for Bir mingham, who had openly declared that no measure would give satisfaction to him and his party out o f door',, which was not accompanied by the ballot. On the motion of Mr. BAXTER the debate wan 961- journed at half-past twelve o'clock until this a fternoo n ; after a pretest from Mr. Ayrton against the "feeble" ana "uxorious" manner of conducting so serious a n t important a discussion . He expressed himself in fa cn/1 of sitting day and night until the division had Seri taken. The other business on the paper was disposed of/ n nd the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. ILANCHES T ER—THURSDAY. .Aet ; There was an average attendance at this day's r a '',4o the best descriptions of English and foreign wheat brn, rio f is per qr. over the rates of this day se'nnight, but itl i , e l pie• qualities were neglected, and without alteration in "s - , e pt Flour was held more firmly, but without any improve wont in the demand. Oats and oatmeal each slightly in 10 of sellers. Beans and Indian corn unchanged. BIRMINGHAM—TRunspAY. ,11: 513 At this day's market there was a fair supply of voo,„a wheat, which sold readily at an advance of is per g r c i' co or foreign was nearly as much nearer. Barley tending s 0 ,4 wards. Oats realised quite as much money. B ean peas unaltered. S T OL—THURSDAY. 11 le On our market ER I to- day English wheat was in gaol- pit ply ; the trade ruled very firm, and an advanc e of -S S r 00 qr. was occasionally realized. Foreign held for ls improvement. Malting barley without change ; ce 6d from extreme scarcity, commanded a further adva n,, a per qr. Oats in short supply, last week's values "" firmly supported. BURY ST. EDMUND'S—WEDNESDAY. 0100 We had a full show of wheat here to-da y , and sellers were able to realize quite as much money as last roc i.- The trade in malting barley is over for the sea son ; ing sorts inquired for. Oats, beaus, and peas fully A tain late rates. iv 01 " White wheat, 53s to 555; old red, 46s to 4 8 s; 11 .3 0 bar 40s to 44s , grinding barley , 35s to 38s ; Page ' s p row ' ley, 39s to 40s per qr. Averages :—Wheat, 8991 qrs, at 42s 10d ; b a rleys 7201 qrs., 37s 2d ; oats, 25 qrs, 28s Od. EDINBURGH—WEDNESDAY. f 00 111 ; At our market to-day there was a fair supPlY o f t 4 ' try wheat, consisting of 440 sacks, which sold at is r advance. Average, 9d up. Wheat on the top, is Od down average, Os 3a ad doh3 `' Barley on the top, 2s Od up average, Os u, u p. Oats on the top, is Od down .. average, Os " Beans on the top, is Od up average, Os 10 Average Average prices. Wheat, 44s 9d 1 Oats, 28s 3 a Barley, 37s ld 1 Beans ...47s Od Total supply and sales. 393 Wheat 449 qrs ............ sold ~,,, Barley 522 qrs. ........... sold 4 74 , 4 Oats 1926 Beans s old . gtil l 256 qrs ... -. ...... od • 0 q r. ............ sow 13, , 61 Town-made flour sells as follows:—White, 4 00 superfine, 38s Od ; superfine , 36s 9 j_fi11 .. R,._ 3 . _ . ,.._-.... 6 °J___:____.--•"" Births. r tes LINDSAY—On the 9th inst., at Nice, the Hon. MO. Chi Lindsay, of a son. POYNTER—On the 11th inst., at Frogmore House', sea, the wife of Captain R. Poynter, 87th EDP' Fusiliers, of a daughter. , MISTON—On the 11th inst., a t Tunbridge Nel l UR wife of Captain IL B. trrmiston , Deputy-Coma l S Sl Punjab, of a daughter. Marriages. NEVILLE—COBBETT ` On the 10th inst., at WortleY C l :ds, t ° Lieut.-Colonel E. Neville, late Scots Fusilier Georg i ana Frances, daughter of the late V. COrbe',-'.air POOLE—iIANNINGTON On the 11th inst., a t the riz,l l4 c hurch, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, Commander Pf' to Mary, youngest daughter of C. J. Ilanningt°' of Hurstpierpoint. J:atthgv~ TI -1g SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1866 Deaths. KissEY—On the 10th inst., at Winkfield, Berks, Kinsey,.Esq., aged 80. Col. ROE7- . on the 7th inst., at Knockbreck House, Tt'! l ,:a 5 9 ' AE Rose, Retired List H.M.'s Indian ArU'Y' Itta STREET—On 011, the 11th inst., at 40, Milnee-square, 15. `' Charles Street, Esq., aged 80. vairV iel o, STAPYLTON—On the 11th inst., at Alpha ouse, - „ i iiieg Dublin, Lieut.-Col. H. Stapy lton, late 27th In aged 48. WARD—On the 11th inst., the Rev. S. 13. Wa rd, rect° 0 , l e° Teffont Evias, near Salisbury, aged 68. of WILLETT-0 n the Bth inst , Wm. Willett, xisck , t , House, Brighton, aged a.. ~.,. Jeli ll ilVittoirr—On the 9th inst., Id 13, Queen' s-road' P" wood, Major-General Wright, R.E., a 9,•ged 73. , ...... _ __------,,,0.• , er ,loo London: Printed and Published by SVIL I.JAVC . 1 "To•L pi of No. 112, Strand, Punter, at Taz. SUN OingebolliM Strand, in the. Precinct of the Ssvoy in t" MiddleecX.—Friday, April 13, 1866.