The Sun. — London, England, 1866-03-14 00:00:00

" Scandit fatalis machina muros Rota armis." That, said the right hon. gentleman, is not my bill. Now, that is not a very apt quotation, but there is a curious feli city about it which he little dreams of. The house will re member among the proofs of the degree in which public opinion is enlisted in the cause of reform, that this is the fifth bill which has been brought forward since 1851. Well, just attend to the sequel of the quotation. jam not a be liever in the " S ortes Virgilianie," but I wish the house to hear what follows: " 0 patria, 0 Divum domus, et inclyta bello Manila Dardanidum! Quater ipso in limine porta) Substitit, atque utero sonitum quater arms dedere." (Laughter.) But that is not all— " Instamus tamen immemores co3cique furore, Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce." (Cheers and laughter.) I abominate the presage conveyed in these last two lines; but I mix my confidence with fears. I know I am addressing a new Parliament, whose inten tions, whose actions, are as yet hidden by the veil of futu rity. It may be that they will take the advice tendered to them with so much eloquence and authority by my right hon. friend. It may be that we are destined to avoid this enormous danger by which we are confrcinted, and not, to use the language of my right hon. friend, be forced to com pound with danger and misfortune. But it may be other wise. All I can say is, if my right hon. friend succeeds in carrying this bill through Parliament—the passions and interests of the day are stilled—l shall not envy him his retrospect. I covet not a single leaf of the laurel that en circles his brow. His be the glory—if such it be—to carry this measure; mine, to the utmost of my humble strength and ability, to resist it. (Loud cheers.) Mr. C. VILLIERS, in reply to Mr. Lowe's speech, said— The question of reform was one, he declared, on which the House of Commons was not trusted by the country; fo r wherever one went, and whoever he talked with, the same sentiment was expressed, that they presumed the bill would be thrown out because it was proposed for the reform of the house itself. He contended that repeated pledges made it obligatoryiupon the house to agree to an extension of the franchise, and reminded Mr. Lowe he had formerly enun ciated the doctrine that no reform could be satisfactory to the people that did not reduce the qualification of voters. He denied that the working people were so bad as Mr. Lowe had represented them to be. If they were so, and if they had the evil designs that were imputed to them, might they not endeavour to carry them out now ? It was the duty of the man, then, who dared thus to malign the people, and attribute to them dishonest objects, to have given some evidence in support of his reckless assertions. The truth Was, that the 'working classes had improved in condition, in education, and in intelligence. And why not bring some evidence of their designs upon the institutions of the coun try and of their combinations to put their designs into exe cution ? In former days evidence of that sort might have been produced, but just as they became more free and en lightened there was an absence of everything of the kind. Equally frightful predictions to those of Mr. Lowe had been uttered with regard to what were to have been the consequences of the Reform Act; and he thought the pre sent was an unlucky moment, just as the people in the ma nufacturing districts had passed through a time of great suffering with unexampled patience and endurance, to cast such a slur upon them. He did not know whether the bill would be carried or not, but of this he was convinced, that if it were rejected the time was not, far distant when they would find themselves in the position of haying to pass a measure of a much more sweeping character. Mr. R. N. PHILIPS tendered his grateful thanks to the Government for their bill. He had resided all his life among the working classes, and was sure they were worthy to possess the privileges proposed to be conf erre d on them. Mr. LEATHAM gave the bill his hearty support, be lieving that it would give satisfaction to an industrious, loyal, and contented people. Mr. A. PEEL would have preferred a £lO franchise in counties, and a £5 franchise in boroughs, but was willing to accept the £7 rental as a settlement of the question of the town franchise for many years to come. He looked to the Government, however, to supplement the present mea sure with another for the redistribution of seats. Mr. ALLEN also supported the bill. Mr. SCHREIBER was of opinion that the house was invited to legislate on the question upon inadequate and imperfect information. Mr. LONG said the bill was either a sham or a reality. If it were a sham, then the members below the gangway, followers of Mr. Bright, were bound to vote against it; whilst, if it were a reality, it could only be as part of a great scheme, and the house was entitled to demand an explana tion of the remainder of that scheme before it accepted this instalment. Mr. DULLER stated several objections to the measure, and amongst them that the creation of a savings' banks franchise would be an injustice to fundholders, and that the proposed lodger franchise would have a most demo cratic and revolutionary effect. Mr. ACLAND, having taken a fling at the professed Liberals, who, he said, had been stabbing the Government .measure from the rear, remarked that if the Government or the house did anything that could be regarded as trifling with this question their honour would be deeply at stake. He sincerely believed that they might trust the people, and that the house would not be doing its duty unless it allied itself with popular sympathies. As to the fear of demo cracy, that he left with the other side of the house. He Considered the bill was marked by an honest and earnest desire to give the working classes a fair share in the repre ell,raand that it was a reasonable solution of one im- Mrn.INVI3IInI'efhEoSIIIDhEe q s u ai e d sti t o h n a . t although the question had I been spoken to wwitoholgareoat ability, and although the prin the seco n n examination ipleo f t h the b o i d a e r rgo more close and searching he yet would venture to submit one or two obs erv e a a t p i d o ri i n n n s g :t s o l the house upon the or rather the no question as it stood. The principle of the bill, was beginningiPtee' u ou nd i erstood. It was a remarkable fact that no one ads nok the bill on behalf of the Government save the siTgwillt:htoonf. gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, • had made a speech in which he had shown in what thorough contempt he held the British constitution. (H ear, hear, and laughter.) The only hope he (Mr. Whiteside) entertained was that the right hon. gentleman did not recollect what he was saying, and that no one in the Cabinet would be anxious to abide by the principle which he enunciated. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING,. Hear.) We can understand how these sentiments originated amongst a portion of the public. Because they look upon Government as a sort of machinery for rewardin g and punish ing, giving this to virtue andthat to vice, and they think the Government ought to distribute justice as between two equal co-partners. That is a misunderstanding of the na ture of the business of government. It deals with expedi ency. I will state shortly my opinions on the bill. It is a bill to alter the constitution of this house, to redistribute the power in this house. I maintain that it was the bounden duty of the Government to make inquiries and a careful examinaticn of the present state of this house, by seeing wherein it succeeds and wherein it fails, and applying its measure so as to leave untouched that which is good and to remedy that which is evil. I think it was the duty of the Government, like any other physician, to study the body on which they were going to operate, and not like a person who only mixes drugs or sharpens the lancets. (Hear, hear.) The Government has not done it. If the house will favour me with their attention a short time longer, I will add a little. I propose it with the greatest diffidence, because I have the greatest respect to for this its house ; but I show my honesty by not desiring . constitution altered except upon good and sufficr , nt cause. to (Hear, hear.) Let us examine it, an d desire see our selves as others see us." It is a m irror of the opinions of the nation, and I want the house to look into the mirrorh e and try to see itself. I think. we may say, without slightest fear of contradiction, tnat this house holds a posi tion not merely i n England, but in the whole civilised world, such as has t allen to the lot of no other deliberative assembly. It is respected all over the world. Its debates carry far more weight and are read with far more attention, and do more towards enlightening mankind, than those of any other popular assembly. I think we have every reason to b e proud of the position which this house occupies in the eyes of the world. (Hear.) If we go far, then, then I think we shall find a function which this house pre-eminently discharges—that of finance—which has b e en discharged, on the whole, with greater success than can be attributed to any other legislative assembly in the world. It is not by any means perfect, and perhaps some gentlemen think that the army and navy is nothing but a vast system of out-door relief, and nothing but a job of state. But I think the majority of the pebple are satis fied that the finances are administered in a way honour able to the nation and creditable to this house. (Hear, hear.) If we go further, I think it must be said it is never deaf to any one who chooses to approach it with anything like a grievance. (Hear.) Can any one say a poor man cannot get a hearing ? Look at our debate on the unfor tunate cases of poor Irishwomen removed between Eng land and Ireland. Look how immediate attention is given to any argument that touches upon the poor. We may not always be successful in finding remedies—l will not', say anything upon what we have done in legislation, be cause I said that last year. I think we may say it is an orderly assembly when we read of the manner of demo cratical assemblies, and if we go to a popular country not a hundred miles from us. The House of Commons keeps its order as well as any assembly in the world. It is an in dependent assembly, and now the opinion that there is in dividual corruption among members is absurd. We are really an industrious assembly ; these are great merits. 1 want to know if the bill proposed by the Government will leave all these things just as they find them. Will it have no influence on all these merits ? If you lower your con stituencies, you lower your class of members. I do not wish to say anything disagreeable, but I would direct at tention to the legislative assemblies in North America, the United State; and in Australia. This house, like all other human institutions, has its imperfection; and with all re verence and respect I will point out one or two. There has been a great change since 1832, and which ought to be brought into consideration ; and that is that the House of Commons is now much nearer its constituencies, and much more influenced by them than before. In the old days there was a great gulf, and information was slow. But now the constituencies have a second function in ad dition to electing their members. They communicate to them by railways and telegraphs, and it has happened that the votes of members have been changed in the course of a debate through the receipt of a tele gram. (Laughter and cheers.) Measures are sometimes not fully gone into by the local press ; perhaps through being ill informed they take up a question and an argu ment ; and the constituencies, by information fresh, make up their minds upon these subjects before they have heard the real case, and exercise an influence on those who are in a superior position and better informed. These are small blots, but they are worth mentioning. If you lower your constituencies—if you lower the more democratical constituencies—will they be inclined to leave their mem bers more freedom than at present, more toleration in their opinions —honest and able men when they do not agree with the popular whim for the moment —will they be more inclined to respect real dignity and consistency of charac ter? Then, again, there is another and serious point, and that is the relation of this house to the Executive Govern ment. The house and the. Executive Government, when working together, are, I think, a most invaluable institu tion. The house derives support from the Government ; and Ministers, on the other hand, derive equal advantage and information from being placed in immediate contact with the Legislature, not like the Secretary of State of America, by getting a private member to propose his financial measure ; they have support from their friends when their policy is attacked, and they gain infinitely by the contact with each other. Anything which would tend to sever them would be most dangerous and most mis chievous. It is painful to observe the symptoms of grow ing weakness on the part of the Executive of this house. even since the time that he had had the honour of a seat in it; it is painful to see the weakness exhibited in this house when hon. gentlemen move for papers which ought not to be produced, or which is putting the na tion to a needless expense. How do the Ministers resist it? Formerly if a committee was asked for on a subject which had already been thoroughly examined, or which it was not convenient to go into, the Minister could stand up and say, " I advise the house not to grant this com mittee," and it was not granted. What Minister says so now ? Our ancestors, when they saw a thing was right, enacted it; but now if it i s i mportant i t is delegated to al committee ; or if it be difficult to delegate it is an open question. The whole machinery has fallen a great deal too much into the hands of this house, and the effect has been to injure the Government, and the ultimate effect must be to lower the character of the house itself. The wise men who founded the constitution of America knew that it would be absolutely impossible to have the English system, and therefore they arranged that their two legisla tive bodies should be elected at different periods, and by constituencies, and that there should be no points of con tact. You see the feebleness which this gives to the legis lature and the executive in America. You see it in those discords which are apt to break out between the head of the executive and the legislature, which could not exist for a moment in this country. It seems to me that if this house means to exercise this great power over the executive it must not make itself too democratic. Is it wise in us to rush rashly forward in this direction, and while increasing the popular foundation of this house, deprive it perhaps of its noblest attributes, that of working in accordance with the executive. There is another point ; that is, -the elec tions become day by day more expensive--I mean the le gitimate expenses. This is easily accounted for. There is a torrent of wealth flowing into the country, and many gentlemen wish to get a seat in this house, some for politi cal and some for non-political purposes--some to represent great companies, some because they wish to got into so ciety, and some because they are stimulated by their wives or daughters. (A laugh.) This is a most serious matter ; because, as I observed before, it is only through this house that the most important members of the Government can enter the Government ; and if you require from them, in addition to the immense labours and vicissitudes of public life, that they shall spend more probably than they receive from the public in conciliating their electors, you make public life impossible to a class of men whom you wish to have. (Cheers.) I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when ho has brought his democratical constitution into effect, .how he thinks those small boroughs —about which he spoke so eloquently in 1859 as the places which introduced to the house such men asPitt, Canning, and Peel, how he thinks he will be able to supply the want of those small places ? The matter is one of common sense. There is another topic, and that is the !cat part private interests are beginning to take in / 4 eßouse of Commons. I view with a great deal of je 4 : lo osy and alarm the degree in which the house has become the machinery for the transaction of what is called Private business. (Hear, hear.) We fancy we are in vestigating schemes seeing whether public for . people who have raised capital, and I k e ! interests require them. We are doing nothing We are investigating schemes which have b ee , got I :nct people with no capital at all— (hear, hear)—in order LI house may sell the approval of the committees of the Then there are other on; the Stock Exchange. (Hear.) clevs a ru ira-equally unpleasant, like tsment subsidies of dif ferent we are mixed up w i th have stopped. But ferent kinds, which I should ' I say, do you think that by le again, / government evils. materially below the present Ll.O y ou w l ri n red g u t e h e e th franchi se pointing I think I have shown that such a bill as th e intend to bring in, while it will not in any degree alleviatenment any of the faults which I have taken the liberty of out in the constitution of this house, will aggravate ev ery one of them. (Cheers.) I want to hear from the righthon. I gentleman if he has considered how the measure would work on the house. My sketch is imperfect; let him or the Go vernment make their own sketch or theory on the subject. Let them tell us the faults of the House of Commons, and tell us how the measure will remedy them ; and letthemnot fling their measure on the table, and say that we are to adopt it, without hearing any single reason in favour or against the state of things which has existed so long and happily. (Hear, hear.) It may be said that these argsaments might just as well have been used in 1832. But to make a good argument two things are necessary : the first is that the principle shall be sound, and the second that the facts shall correspond. The arguments were excellent in 1832, only they did not correspond with the facts of the case. Are the facts of the case now the same as in 1832 ? That is a question I am not going into; but I will point out that in 1832 the controversy was perfectly defined. One side said that the system worked well, and the other side that it did not ; an d the , country d ec id e d , r i g htly or --. wrongly, that it did not work well. That is not the con troversy now. It is now admitted that the system does work well, but still we ought to alter it. (Laughter.) Take the clever letter which appeared in the Times of "What mmon s fault house ought to be reform ed, sim p l y because gentlemen are haveans yesterday, w e w r , e f to r 8 find e e WC i s i a ‘ t‘ k hH e t. 'h o e f pTrhees epresent argument, i litu sa none eskoefd : Co but still the what is called `committed' "—that is to say, for the sake of preserving consistency, they will deliberately do what they know to be injurious. (Hear.) Again, there is this distinction : in 1832 the grievance we complained of was a practical grievance. Don't believe that the House of Com- M r ons was reformed merely on account of the inequalities of the then system : the House of Commons was reformed because the public mind was offended by the things it thought bad in the Government and Legislature of the country, and it seized upon those anomalies as weapons to abate the nuisance. That, being a practical grievance, has been redressed, and has led for a certain time to the settle ment of the question. But no one has over settled a ques tion by remedying a merely theoretical grievance. (Hear, hear.) And that is just the grievance we have now to deal with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that one great inducement to pass this bill was, that we shculd find in it a complete settlement of the question ; and he ex pressed a hope—l do not know whether he was alluding to me—that impracticable people of some kind or another would be induced to give their consent to the bill on that account. A settlement, sir ! Why, the right hon. gentleman said that that we were to go on with this bill for twelve nights in this year, and if you cannot pass it in twelve nights, I presume you must leave it to the charity of private members. That charity I need not say is very cold. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, then, probably the measure might go over until next year, and then you must begin all over again ; and when you have done it, you are to be refreshed with a franchise bill for Scot land and for Ireland. Then there would be three redis tribution bills ; and even then you would not be out of the wood, because you are to have a Boundary Bill, which is about the most difficult and irritating matter to get into. Next we are to have a Registration Bill, and that also is a matter of great difficulty. But one more remains, and that is enough to make one shudder—there is the Anti-corrup tion Bill. (Laughter.) In fact, the prospect of a settlement which the right hon. gentleman holds out is, that we are to begin de novo the whole of our electoral system, and go through the whole of it by some nine measures, and that is held out to us as a settlement. (Laughter.) If we pass this bill, the right hon. gentleman tells us that he may perhaps employ us in doing all the work. Well, that is not my idea of a settlement. I am quite sure also that, in addition, there are unsettling causes of which the right hon. gentleman did not tell us. I feel convinced that if this bill be passed, it will be passed in mere deference to numbers, irrespec tive of property and intelligence—(cheers)—that it will be passed in deference to alove of mere symmetry and equality, for that is the name under which democratic envy gene rally disguises itself—and that it will settle nothing. When the right hon. gentleman has given us all, we shall still have plenty of inequalities to stir up passion. The griev ance being theoretical, and not practical, will survive as long as theory does not conform with practice—that is to say, until we shall have universal suffrage and equal elec- 1 toral districts. (Cheers.) Therefore, I see n o element of finality in this bill, and although I am perfectly willing to consider anything that can be brought forward, I crave leave to say that my vote and conduct will be determined by my impressions of the good or bad working of the measure upon the House of Commons, and not by theories of good government, which, according to one great thinker, would consist in any one having a share in it, just as, according to his idea, a good joint-stock company would be one in which every lady was a director. (Laughter.) Well, the right hon. gentleman had not time to give us a reason ; but he had time to give us a quotation, and it was a quotation of a very curious kind. For, not finding in his large classical repertoire one that would describe a state of perfect bliss which his bill is to produce, he put forth one to show us what his bill would not do— With respect to the rest of the right hon. gentleman's speech, it was composed more by the aid of the scissors than the head—(laughter)—for it seemed to himthat it was a collection of a number of passages from old debates on the question of reform, in which the right hon. gentleman took the opportunity to answer Mr. Croker, who was in his grave. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. White side) had had the happiness of hearing Mr. Croker, and having also heard the right honourable gentleman, he was struck with the contrast. (Laughter.) But what was the use of evoking those old speeches ? What we wanted to know was not what was said on the first Re form Bill, but what were the ideas of the Minister at the present day—(hear, hear)—and how he intended to prove that the crude bill which had been thrown on the table was warranted by the circumstances of the times, and was justified by policy and experience. It was said that those who sat on the Opposition side of the house were opposed to an extension of the franchise. No such thing. They were not opposed to an extension of the franchise, but they were opposed to a bill of the nature like that before them, which unsettled everything and settled nothing. (Hear, hear.) He was not unaware of the ideas which the Chancellor of the Exchequqy en tertained on the subject. One Wednesday, when Lord Palmerston was alive, and when we had no nonsense— (laughter)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to that house, and, in reference to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Leeds, declared that the reason why he supported it was that the influence of the working classes was almost infinitesimal in the franchise of the country. Well, the hon. gentleman was poetical with the "rule of three." (Laughter.) But was the statement which he then made true ? He said himself the Other night that he was surprised at the result of the returns which had been laid upon the table. From, those returns it ap peared that a large percentage of the working classes already enjoyed the franchise, and it had been demonstrated in the speech of the right hon. member for Caine, that the same causes which had operated to produce that result must continue to prevail, and that the number of the work ing classes in possession of the franchise must increase. That being so, what was the course to which the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was driven for the maintenance of the bill ? He said that there were inequalities in the fran chise ; that while in one place the working classes pos sessed the franchise to a large degree, in others they pos sessed it only to a small degree. But how did the bill meet that case, or how could any bill meet that difficulty ? Wherever employment was to be found there the working classes would congregate, and therefore it was never meant that they should be equally represented all over the coun try, but that their representation should be in some way or in some manner felt. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it was impossible to introduce a complete measure upon the subject of reform, but by way of solace assured them that the present mea sure being passed, other and supplemental measures would subsequently be introduced. But was that fair ? Was it Parliamentary—(laughter)—that they should be subjected to a long course of Ministerial torture—(laughter)—and was it true that a complete measure could not be framed? In saying the right honourable gentleman had pronounced sentence upon the capacity of his Ministry ; for the confession proved one of two things—either Ministerial imbecility or Ministerial incapacity. Now, for the pur pose of showing that there was not one particle of foundation for what the Chancellor of the Exche quer had said, he would ask the house to recollect the scope of the Reform Bill which was introduced by Lord Derby. In the first place, every ono of the questions that had been mentioned were disposed of in that bill. There was a moderate disfranchisement:clause, there were en franchisement clauses, and the work was done sensibly, worthily, and completely. If the question were again to be cpened now, it ought to be opened up with equal com pleteness. He believed the bon. member for Birmingham to be a sincere man on the subject of Parliamentary reform, and he believed this bill had been separated into several bills, because the hon. member for Birmingham had dis tinctly stated there ought to be three steps—the first, ex tension of the suffrage ; second, vote by ballot ; and the third, redistribution of seats. If the house believed, as he did, that the hon. member for Birmingham was conscien tiously speaking his opinion, and if the objects he had aimed at were attained, the Government would then be practically a democracy. Not that the form of the consti tution would be abolished, but the entire power would be in that house, the House of Lords would remain a pleasant sort of place, and the Crown would bo a phantom. The principle of the old 40s. freeholders was that the voter should have an independent interest in the State, and as that sum in older times would be equal to £4O, to recog nise 40s. freeholders in the present day would be absurd. The 40s. franchise suggested to his mind that which oc curred in Ireland many years ago. A thick-headed secre tary went over and suggested that the 40s. freehold fran chise then in operation in England should be extended to Ireland. It was represented by the opponents that this would hold out a premium to landlords to cover their estates with a pauper constituency, but in time the priest hood would intervene, and there would be priesthood and democracy. Well, that bill was carried. The priesthood did interfere, and O'Connell and the priesthood were triumphant. That system had been altered; but now, after all their social evils and all their political evils, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he intended to lower the franchise in Ireland. All he could say was, that if Parliament assented to that, it was a Parliament gone mad. (Cheers.) It appeared to him to be most impolitic to first introduce 400,000 voters and then to see what effect they would have on the constitution of the country at large. If he rightly understood the principle of the bill, it was proposed to go lower and lower hi the scale of civilisation, instead of holding out an inducement to these men to elevate themselves to a place to which they might fairly aspire. The bill was, therefore, unwise, unfair, and, he believed, unsafe. No one had told a word of the great evils to be redressed. On the contrary, while for years the continent had been disturbed by wars, this country had been contented and peaceful. It was the fancy of a philo sopher that our beautiful system of representative govern ment was invented in the woods ; but whether it was the realisation of the idea of the wise men of old, or was the result of happy accident or providential arrangement, the effect was to combine private happiness with public free dom. There was no part of the world in which the arts of industry and peace were more perfectly developed ; and as ho was satisfied that the constitution rested upon a sound and satisfactory basis, he trusted that those who were elected to this house would prove themselves the wise and faithful guardians of the blessings which the country en joyed. (Cheers.) Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Goschen rose together, but the latter giving place to the hon. member for Brighton, Mr. FAWCETT said—l deeply regret that I have for one moment stood in the way of one of the most distin guished members of the Cabinet. (Laughter and cheers.) I thank him for his courtesy, and will endeavour to be as brief as possible. I would scarcely have adventured, as a very young member, to have intruded myself into so important a debate as this had it not occurred that some few weeks since a personal appeal was made to me by a right hon. member, and he seemed to think I was defi cient in courage because I, as he was pleased to call me, a Radical representative of the working classes, had not expressed myself on reform. Had that appeal come to me from a different quarter I would immediately have responded ; but I doubt an appeal from a right hon. gentleman who sits , on the Liberal benches, and who is always enthusiastically cheered by the Conservatives. But if I have delayed, I think the time has now come when I, an independent member, may give expression to my opi nions on this questitm. If I do represent the working classes, I am glad to be able to say that I accept this mea sure thankfully, and will do everything I can to give it my cordial support. (Hear.) `The hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) gave a speech last evening, re plete with brilliant epigram and telling antithesis, which it seemed to me was a carefully-prepared essay on this sub ject( He says Earl Russell is inconsistent, and the right hon. member for Birmingham is a republican. Suppose he had proved the inconsistency of Earl Russell, and the re publicanism of the hon. member for Birmingham, that would not have affected me on this question. I think, on a great question like this, we have far greater and nobler in terests to deal with than the inconsistency of a noble lord or the extreme inconsistency of one hon. member. I must say I do not know the impression produced upon men who have had greater experience of this house than I have had, but it seemed to me that the right hon. gentleman threw away his brilliant gifts of rhetoric when on a great and important question like this he occupied one hour and three. quarters in uttering miserable personalities. (Loud cheers, and cries of " No, no.") Well, then, I will leave out the adjective, and saypaltry personalities. (No, no.) We have listened this evening to a speech of altogether a dif ferent kind. (Hear.) You listened last year —and I wish I had been in the house at the time—to :a still more remark able speech; but before I deal with one or two arguments ofthe hon. member for Calne, I wish to put a simple and homely question to him, and if he cannot answer it to my satisfaction, I will tell him with the frankness with which he speaks all his arguments, that I believe they will not much impress the country. The question I wish to put is this : Did he not join the combination that de clared no Government was worthy of the confidence of this country unless they enlarged the borough franchise ? I think the Willis's Rooms' compact was fac tious. I think it was based on insincerity, and I think the insincerity on which it was based has for six years haunted this country, and that we must have outspoken Liberal action before wo can give a regenerated and healthy vigour to this house. The hon. member continued : Was not the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) a distinguished member of a Governmenewhich came into office expressly to carry an extension of the franchise ? did he not sit upon the Treasury bench when a wider extension of the franchise was proposed than that which was now proposed. (Cheers.) So that the right hon. gentleman once gave his approbation to a seheme which he now described as calculated to de grade the suffrage. (Hear.) Surely the right hon. gentleman must have been aware of every one of his present argu ments against the extension of the suffrage when he sat upon the Treasury bench ? He must then have read his Bentham, he must then have read his Bentham, he must have remembered those passages from Aristotle ; he had seen Australia and he had seen the democracy there. It Imight be that the right hon. gentleman had chan ge d hi s mind ; but why had he not told them what had induced him to change his mind? (Hear, hear.) Two years ago and no one would have had the slightest right to deny that the right hon. gentleman was not as earnest and as sincere a Reformer as sat in that house. But what had quenched his reforming zeal ? Ho (Mr. Fawcett) hated personal insinua tions, and he should be the last man to insinuate that that reforming zerl had been repressed by the strong reasoning of the noble lord the member for Stamford (Lord Oran bourne). (No, no.) He would be the last to say it, but he knew it had been so asserted out of doors and in high circles. However, something must have occurred in this country within the last three or four years which must have pro duced a groat effect upon the mind of the right hon. gen tleman and the friends who now acted with him on these benches. Yes, certainly one event had occurred, but from that event there could be drawn an argument infinitely more unanswerable than 50 columns of statistics in favour of an extension of the suffrage. During the last four years one of the most important branches of the national industry had been paralysed, and how did the people bear their misfortune ? Why, it was thought by many in the coun try—it was thought by many of our leading statesmen— that if England should be deprived of its cotton supply, the cotton operatives would break out in open rebellion. But what was the feeling which pervaded these men ? Why, the glorious and noble sentiment that rather never again should a bale of cotton enter Lancashire than that slavery should continue. (Cries of "Oh, oh,"`on the Opposition benches, with cheers from below the Ministerial gangway.) When the future historian of the country came to describe the events of the nineteenth century he surely will be able to recount this conduct of the working classes as not the least brilliant page in his narrative. Well, the destruction of the cotton industry was the chief event which had oc curred of late years affecting the artisan population of the nation ; but was that the event which had induced those gentlemen tQ change their minds? (Cheers.) The hon member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) said that he had come back from Australia, and that he stood aghast at the spec tacle which the democracy of that country presented. Well, he would only observe that he too had looked at Australia, and that if his energies had met with great pecu niary success, and if he had seen, as the hon. member had seen, the laws of the country well and justly administered and property secure, he should have been ashamed to re turn home to speak of its population as if they were a band of bandits. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Were not the people of Australia as loyal to the Queen—were they not as free, as happy, and as wealthy as the people at home ? Property was as secure there, the law was as justly ad ministered, and, unlike the people at home, they were without the burden of destitution, to constantly remind their statesmen that they had yet the highest mission to fulfil, namely, to wage an unsuccessful war against pau perism. (Hear, hear.) He thought he knew as much of the working classes as either the right hon. member for Caine (Mr. Lowe) or the right hon. member for Wick (Mr. Laing), and he would not allow that if they were to extend the franchise to the working man that no one but working men could gain access into that House. He went to Brighton without having a friend there ; he told the constituency that he was extremely poor, that he could not afford to subscribe is. for any purpose, and yet nine tenths of the working classes in that constituency voted for him. (Hear, hear.) Nor was there any reason to ap prehend that the working classes if enfranchised would overwhelm the other classes of the population. Why, the working classes were as much divided with respect to public questions as any other class ; and in regard of such measures as the Factory Act—legislation the most bene ficient of modern times—tho support of the working classes might always be counted on, in opposition to the policy of capitalists and manufacturers. He thought those members who were so loud in their calls for a complete measure were not very anxious for any reform at all. He cordially supported the measure, and concluded by thank ing the house for the indulgence with which it had listened to his remarks. Mr. BRlGHT—Although, Sir, during the course of this debate, I have been the subject of much remark—(hear, hear)—and of not a little which may fairly be termed un usual attack—(heai, hear)—l beg to assure the house that I have not risen for the purpose of defending myself ; for I am ready to leave my course in this house and my political character to the impartial view of the members of the house, and to the just judgment of my countrymen. (Cheers.) Nor have I risen for the purpose of entering into a laboured defence of the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, however, that there has been so much said which is not to the point, that it may be advantageous if I endeavour to explain what 1 understand the bill to be some of the grounds on which it appeals to us for support, and to ask the house whether, in the circum stances of this question and the nature of the existing condition of the country, it is the duty of Parliament to permit it to pass into a law. One thing in connection with this bill is highly satisfactory—viz., that what it proposes to do it proposes to do distinctly and clearly, without any tricks—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition)— withont giving something in one clause, and then, under a feeling of alarm, withdrawing something in the clause which follows. (Hear.) I have always been in favour of deal ing with this question in some manner so that every per son who is to be included in the bill should comprehend that it was a measure, so far as it went, fair and generous to the people of the country whom it was intended to en franchise. I think I can show reasons why this house should readily, and without hesitation, agree to this bill. One portion of it will recommend itself to all gentleman who are enthusiastic admirers of the bill of 1832—that is, the portion of the bill which is intended to remove the legal obstacles or quibbles by which many persons who were in tended to be enfranchised; by the Reform Bill have been up to this time deprived of their votes. The Reform Bill pro posed to give a vote to every occupier of a £lO house in a burgh. Now, it is shown that this extension of the fran chise was never completed, but that by the operation of clauses which made it necessary to pay rates many thou sands have been disfranchised. In Scotland there is no such disqualification as that which this bill proposes to re move, and the object of this bill is to assimilate our law in and to give to the Re form ec m r A es e p t t to of 183 th 2 e th la e w of Scotland, complete pleteefacy which was expected from it when it passed. The hon, member for Calne can not refuse his consent to such a proposal, because if there is one thing outside the classical times of antiquity to which he is more devoted than another—(a laugh)—it is 'clearly the bill of 1832. The next point to which I Wish to call the attention of the house is that which the bill proposes to do with respect to the county franchise. Let members opposite bear in mind that the occupation fran chise in counties was a measure of their own carrying in 1832 ; and when once you established a £l5 occupation franchise, with a £lO occupation in burghs, he must have been'a very dull man indeed who would not have foreseen that the county franchise must at some time be greatly reduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the house haying initiated this reform discussion many years ago, when it carried the first reading of the bill introduced by the member for East Surrey. But from that time to this there has been a good deal more done upon this question. The member for Buckingham shire and his Cabinet brought up in their bill a proposition for a franchise of £lO in counties, and offered a certain compensation by attempting to withdraw all freeholders within the limits of boroughs from the county franchise and transfer them to the electoral power within the limits of the boroughs. But that did not in the slightest degree change this fact, that they, after due deliberation, came to the opinion that the occupiers of £lO houses and land in the counties were fit and proper persons to exercise the electoral franchise. (Ministerial cheers.) Ido not suppose that they proposed to put on the roll some scores of per sons in the counties of whose fitness they were not assured They believed then, and no doubt believe now, that £lO was a fit and proper franchise for the counties of England and Wales, and I :should like to find them consistent in proposing an amendment to reduce this sum from £l4 to £lO. (Cheers.) I shall promise that if they wish to have an easy victory over the Government, and to prove their own consistency by such a course, that a good many of us who sit on this side of the.house will be extremely happy, to give them our cordial support. (Cheers.) I think, so far as I have gone, I have shown that gentlemen opposite and the member for Calne should not oppose this bill on these two portions of it. My right hon. friend has stated that in Ireland they have a £l2 rating franchise. That, I suppose, is as near as may be of £l4 value. After the ex perience of a number of years of that £l2 franchise in Ireland, I think the hon. member for Calne might screw his courage to support this proposition in this bill. We come then really to the only point on which there is a dif ference, and I think the world does not afford a spectacle of such a legislative assembly as this making a great disturbance among themselves, exciting themselves, getting into violent passions, pouring out a cataract of declamation upon this simple question, whether the franchise in the boroughs of this country should re main at £lO, or shoilld be fixed for a time at £7. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) We must have a very poor notion of what our children will be if we think they will not be as competent to decide the future of this question as we are to decide at present. Therefore, do not suppose that when I used the phrase "for a time," that I am of opinion that this bill, if it be carried, will in all probability put an end to further movement in the direction of reform. This bill, in addition to the £7 fran chise, proposes a lodger franchise. The right hon. mem ber for Buckingham in his bill proposed something of tne same kind, but of a different amount ; but the member for Buckingham proposed it in a manner that would be ex tremely difficult, and lead to perplexity, and I have no doubt he will agree that theproposition of the:Government is simpler than his, and is likely to be carried out with less difficulty. Let us examine this £7 franchise. Somebody has said that this bill is mine, and that the Government have brought it in at my recommendation. (Hear, hear.) Now, I have not been able to find the point in the bill which was what %recommended. I never was in favour of a £6 franchise, for I believe in a household franchise in boroughs. (Hear, hear.) But when I found a powerful Government like the last proposed a £6 franchise with the expectation it would be carried, I was not to stand in the way of a considerable enfranchisement of the people. The £7 franchise is a proposition which I have never said one syllable of, but it never entered into my mind that the, MARCH 14, 1866. Government would leave the £6 franchise, which was their own proposition, and offer to the house a £7. But here it is, and beggars in the House of Commons must not be choosers, and we must take what we can get when we cannot get what we expect. When the bill of the right hon. member for Buckingham was brought in a very remarkable thing happened. Two members of the Cabi net seceded from it and took up their seats on the third bench, and there they are sitting till this moment. And they both made a personal explanation to the house, and the explanation was that they differed from their colleagues on this question. They did not like the suffrage in counties to be brought down to the same rate as in boroughs, and that the suffrage in boroughs should be continued at what it had been since the Reform Act. I am not sure whether they coincided with their colleagues that the county franchise should be brought down to £lO ; but at least they were of opinion that the franchise in the boroughs ought to be reduced to £B. The Government have been splitting hairs with regard to £6 and £7. I hope the right hon. gentlemen sitting on the third bench will not split hairs as between £8 and £7. Surely after the discus sion which the question has undergone, and after the man ner in which the house really has been brought into diffi culty by past transactions, after the great expectations which have been raised throughout the country, I think it would show ill statesmanship on the part of those right hon. gentlemen, and an obedience to the calls of party which would hardly be becoming in them, if they were not willing to make that small concession of £1 in answer to the concession of which I am willing or forced to make, and join with me in giving at least a friendly if not an en thusiastic support to the bill. After all, what is this £3 ? The right hon. gentleman behind me (the member for Caine) has conjured up a frightfulapparition. (Hear, hear.) That £lO is the salvation of the country. After 34 years its operation has been such as to extort from him, I will say, unlimited approval. 1 don't know whether he will think £9 perilous, or £8 in any degree of doubtful utility ; but £7 he considers to be actually destructive to the inte rests of the country. He has shown, moreover, thatit would destroy the connexion between the executive government and the house, and reduce us to the evils which are sup posed to exist in Washington without any of the advantages of their system. In fact, I know not that a more gloomy, discouraging, and appalling picture of the future of this house and country was ever drawn by any member of the house ; and the whole foundation of these horrors is that we should reduce the franchise in boroughs to £1 lower than was recommended by the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and his colleague, the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wal pole.) (Hear, hear.) Now I appeal to gentlemen opposite whether they will allow themselves, in considering the position of this question, to make it impossible--I do not say that they can, but it may be that they can—to make it impossible that this question of the suffrage maybe got out of our way during the present session of Parliament. If they do make it impossible, I am not much given to pro phesy, but I venture to predict that there are many on these benches who will'live to regret the course they have taken. Now, there is one other proposit ion which is made in this bill which I hope the house will not listen to for a moment, and that is the proposition of the savings-bank franchise. I think conscientiously that it is the very worst of all the fancy franchises that have been proposed. It will be unequal to the last degree, and it will be, I believe, a source of every kind of fraud. I agree with the right hon. member for Wick (Mr. Laing), who, in speaking of it, said he did not see why an investment of £5O in a savings bank should give a man a higher social and political posi tion than an investment or saving of a similar sum in any other description of property, where the investment could be fairly ascertained. But I object altogether to give the franchise to one man and shut it out from another, that second man, it might be, being far more heroic than the other. For example, a man might have to provide the humble equipment for a daughter's marriage, apprentice a son, or something might be taken from his earnings for the education of his children ;_he might have under his roof an aged parent, and might be performing to that pa rent the most sacred and most holy of duties, and this might cause him to withdraw £5 or £lO from his little fund in the savings-bank, or might prevent his having any fund there at all. The law here steps in, and because he is doing what in every rank is so honourable and so excellent, says there fore his name shall be erased from the list of voters in the town in which he lives. I protest also that it would be liable to great fraud, because ii would be easy for three or four members of a family to put savings in one name, and so give that one person a vote. I don't object to the one person having the vote, but I do to its being given under a system which is different altogether from all other processes of enfranchisement, and which is liable to the utmost inequality and to direct fraud which could not be prevented. Having gone through the bill and its many provisions, I would ask the house what they think of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that in England and Wales there are 5-1 millions of grown men. Ho told us that this bill would place within the franchise some thing less than one in four, something a little more than one in five. It will leave out of the 51 millions more than 1 millions of grown men in England and Wales who would still not have the franchise. He says by his proposal there will be 330,000 working men enfranchised. Of this, how ever, I am confident, whenever the matter is fairly looked into, it will be found that this is a very exaggerated esti mate. The right hon. gentleman includes 60,000 persons who now live in £lO houses, besides those who are re turned in the blue-book, and more than that if he includes every man between £lO and £7. venture to say that there is not an hon. member, except the hon. member for Coventry, who is not astonished at being told that there are so many working men. Is not the whole a delu sion of the most transparent character. I should only be too glad if it were honestly ascertained that so many work ing men were upon the register. I think it would do some thing to reconcile hon. gentlemen to the admission of more of them, seeing that hitherto their conduct has been so ex emplary in the exercise of the franchise which they now possess. I appeal to the hon. gentlemen in favour of this measure ; for whatever they may think to the contrary, I never spoke on any question in which I took a greater in terest or with a deeper conviction that I was serving the true interests of their class, as well as of my countrymen at large. I do not know whether I can appeal to certain members of the house. Strangely enough, I have in my hands a paper called the Nor folk News, dated the 4th of February: one column is headed "Election Addresses," and consists of extracts from the election addresses in June, 1859. There are extracts from the addresses of Lord Palmerston, Earl Russell, Sir George Grey, the President of the Board of Trade, the then Solicitor- General and Attorney-General, all referring to the im pending question of Parliamentary reform, and then there is an extract from the address of the right hon. Robert Lowe, Vice-President of the Council for Education. (Cheers and laughter.) What does the right hon. gentle man say in 1859, just at the moment before the Govern ment of the gentlemen opposite was discharged from the service of the house and of the country. (Laughter.) The Vice-President of the Council for Education says, "It will be the duty of the Government to prepare a measure of reform, and I have every confidence that it will be one, if not fully satisfactory to men of extreme opinions, accept able to the great body of the people." (Hear.) I think the right hon. gentleman has a very short memory, or else he trifles wtih the house. Is it conceivable that a man who wrote that in his election address in 1859, and delivers such a speech as the right hon. gentleman has done to-night. Cheers and counter-cheers.) I am afraid under these cir cumstances men change their opinions after they are 50 years of age, and there is not much expectation of bringing them back sot feel as I could not with much hope appeal to the hon. member for Caine or his colleague the member for Stroud—(laughter) — I do not know that I could appeal to the noble lord the hon. member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who, I believe, with the exception of the hon. mem ber for Salisbury, is the only member on this side of the house who cheers the sentiments which they utter. I should like to know what is the reason why these right hon. gen tlemen, who have both hold office, should take the course they do with regard to this bill and with regard to this Government. I will not deal in insinuations, but I must say that when gentlemen have held office with Ministers on that bench, and are left out of what I may be allowed to call the " daily ministrations," I think ono has a right to expect from them a very minute account of the reasons which have induced them to change their opinions. In office these gentlemen are as docile as other gentlemen in office ; but I fear, notwithstanding, the curious idea which some people have of my influence with Earl Russell. I am not able to offer any any of those arguments which might be supposed to influence them in favour of this bill. (Laughter.) I don't complain that men aro fond of office, though 1 never could comprehend the reason why they liked it so much. If I might make an alteration in two lines of a stanza of one of the most beautiful poems in our language, I might ask For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey, The pleasing, anxious office e'er resigned, Left the warm precincts of the Treasury, Nor cast one longing, lingering look beh ind. (Cheers and laughter.) What I complain of, and it is a fair complaint to make, of these two right hon . gentlemen is, that when place recedes into a somewhat dim past, that which when they were in office was deemed patriotism vanishes with it. (Cheers.) We have had from these benches a howl of despair because it is proposed to diminish the franchise in boroughs from £lO to £7, and to add by so simple a proposition as that something to the freedom of the people of this country. The right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud has said little against the government, and little against the bill ; his speech was an attack on so humble an individual as myself. He is the first of this new party that expressed by his utterance, his great grief, and retired into what might be called his political cave of Adul lam, to which he invited every one who was in distress, every one that was discontented. (Laughter.) He has been long anxious to form a party in this house. There is scarcely a member at this end of the house who is able to address the house with effect that he has not tried to bring over to his party or cabal, and at length he has succeeded in hooking the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine. (Cheers.) I know it was the opinion many years ago that two men could form a party, and from two men so amiable as the right hon. gentlemen the members for Caine and Stroud we may hope to see for the first time in Parliament a party perfectly harmonious and distinguished by a mu tual and unbroken trust. But there is one great difficulty in regard to this next party, it is impossible to tell, like the case of the Scotch terrier that was so covered with hair, which is the head and which is the tail. (Laughter.) The right hon. member for Calne told us he had had some peculiar election experience. There are men who make discord wherever they go. The right hon. gentleman went down to Kidderminster, got into some unpleasant altercation, which ended in his having his head broken— though I am happy to say, and the house will bear me witness, that it is just as strong now as it was before the accident. The right hon. gentleman loft Kidderminster and went down to Caine, a village somewhere in the West of England—(laughter)—and got in there. He found in the list of electors 174 men, of whom seven were working men. The right hon. gentleman went down there and found a tumult even more aggravated than that at Kidder minster. They did not break his head, but they did some thing in the eye of the law far worse, for they shut the police up in the Town-hall, and the little mob in this little village had the whole game to themselves. The rightlion. gentleman told us in his speech of some animal attaching itself to rocks which takes its colour from the rock upon which it lives, and suggested that hon. members took the colour of the constituency which they represented. (Laugh ter.) Now, the constituency which he represents only con sists of 174 men, of which seven are working men, but the real constituency is a member of the other House of Par liament—(laughter)—who might have sent his butler here, or his groom. I think in one sense, as an intellectual gla diator in this house, we are much indebted to the Marquis of Lansdowne, that he did not do that, but sent instead the right hon. gentleman. I said I wanted to explain the par ticulars of this bill, and to appeal to the good sense and patriotism of hon. gentlemen opposite not lightly to reject it. I ask them, then, not to take the despairing view of their countrymen which has been offered by the right hon. member for Caine, and the hon. member ;or Salisbury, who I presume from their association at the Antipodes, seem only to take a Botany Bay impression of the character of a great bulk of their countrymen. The right hon. gentleman one night when I was not here said that I, even in the matter of the cattle plague, must set class against class. Hon. gentle men opposite, who from the ease with which they are amused must be a most amiable party, laughed at that observation ; but I ask' any man, is it possible to do anything more likely to set class against class than that which is attempted by the right hon. member for Caine and his colleague the hon. member for Salisbury, by attempting to make it appear that there is a it'll which shall not be passed by legislation between the English and the most powerful portion of the middle classs, and the great body of the working men, who are really the heart of this great nation ? The right hon. gentleman tells us that if we wait long enough everybody will get over this barrier. Well, that is no great4onsola tion, as it only offers us this difference that by the bill of the Government we shall be eaten up now, and by the pre- Alt process either we or our children will be eaten tip at a future time. If they all pass that barrier, the democracy the right hon. gentleman is afraid of will equally have come. Would it not be infinitely better to show our trust in the people now, for of all the follies and crimes which Governments commit, that of constant distrust of their subjects or the citizens of the country is about the wildest and most foolish. The right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud and the right hon. member for Caine, and I dare say somebody else, will be telling us that the people are very indifferent about this matter. 1 think I caught from the hon. member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) in the hubbub of the house at his rising—(a laugh) -something about the number of petitions presented in favour of the present bill ; and the right hon. member for Caine said he should not be particular about the number, but he thought there were four. How many petitions were there previous to 1831 ? Did he ever look back to the list to see ? Let hon. members bear in mind that Lord John Russell had for some time discontinued bringing forward his measure for Parliamentary Reform. In 1821 there was one petition presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform. In 1822 there were 12 ; in 1823 there were 29, and in the six years between 1824 and 1829 there was not a single petition presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform. In the year 1839 there were 14 petitions. What took place in 1831 and 1832 ? Why, some of you were fleeing for your lives— (" Oh, oh !"—amidst the storm which you had not foreseen, but which was as inevitable as any storm that rises in the heavens. That was an accident which was brought about by the French Revolu tion. But there are always accidents. A great portion 'of the things which happen in our lives, so far as we can judge, have the appearance of accident. But with that accident there was material, and matertal for a conflagra tion, and a conflagration arose; and I recollect the ex treme things came to. I remember that some gentlemen went to the Duke of Wellington, when he took office after the fall of Lord Grey's Government, and remonstrated with him, or proposed to do so—for the Duke was not a man who liked remonstrance—and they told him what was going on, and how dissatisfied the people were, and how perilous would be the course of the Government in opposing reform. What did the Duke say ? Standing warming himself at the fire, he got these gentlemen out of the room very quickly, and said, "I don't care for what ever occurs ; I am prepared. You have got your heads on your shoulders, and I advise you to keep them there." (Laughter.) Two days after the Duke was obliged to re sign. The popular feeling in the metropolis and the coun try was such, that this great soldier, who knew nothing of fear, and was, I daresay, as honestly disposed for the honour of his country as I or any of us are— (a laugh)— such was the alarm, such the feeling prevalent, that he was obliges to resign, and Lord Grey came back, and the Re form Bill was eventually carried. (Cheers.) I ask hon. gentlemen whether a similar accident might not occur again ? That accident was in Paris. In 1348 there was another accident in Paris, which was followed by a succes sion of accidents in other parts of Europe. I recollect at that time a noble lord, a member of the house, who sat opposite, being greatly alarmed, coming to me and saying that he was always in favour of a great extension of the suffrage. (A laugh.) I always did believe, and I now be lieve, that the noble lord was afraid of what was coming, and he was not quite sure that I might not be a member of some provisional Government. (Laughter.) Now, I ask, is it wise to wait for accidents, or whether it is not bettor to accept a measure so moderate and reasonable if you like, so inadequate as some. may think, but to some extent so good—is it not better to accept that measure, and show confidence in the people, than take the advice of the right hon. member for Caine—the most revolutionary advice ever given in this house—(a laugh)--to shut your door and bar out five millions, unless they can scramble over this barrier ? The right hon. member for Stroud was loud last night in talking about constitutional principles. Who made those constitutional principles almost more than other men in our history ? Surely the men of the first and second Parliaments of Charles I. Is it not in the journals of the house, and could not the clerk easily find and read the resolutions that wherever there is not some direct interdic tion or contradiction of it, the ancient and common franchise of this country in towns is the householding franchise ? And do you mean to tell me that Lord Somers, who lived in later times, was not a great authority, and to a great extent one of the fathers and builders of our existing con stitution ? and yet Lord Somers, representing the Houso of Lords, being on a joint committee of both houses, said in a conference, that although the lords were of opinion that no man by birth had any right to office, yet that by birth he had a right to vote, and that the possession of a vote was the only true security an Englishman had for the protection of his life and property. (Cries of " No.") I do not say that that is my opinion, but it is the opinion of ono of the greatest men in the Parliamentary and historic annals of the country. And I say if you, as a party, are wise, you will not put any obstacle in the way of a bill so moderate as this, and which yet may give great satisfac tion to the people of this country. If this bill is rejected, you will show that you are against all reform. (No, no.) You will show that you have no confidence in that portion of the population who live in houses between £7 and £lO a year rental. If you pass this bill, you will show that you are not cut off from sympathy with the multitudes of your people. I say there is peril in delay, and every day increases that peril. You have a population almost entirely divorced from the land and shut out from the franchise. My hon. friend the member for Brighton (Professor Faw cett) touched on emigration this evening; and the right hon. member for Caine spoke of the intelligence of the people in this way—he spoke of their combinations and associations. Why, we all know they are reading, and debating, and thinking and combining ; and they know that in all our colonies, including the United States, the position of their class is wholly different. I believe, if you don't moderate your tone and your views with regard to the great bulk of the working classes, you will find your country weakened by constantly increasing emigration ; or you will find some accident happening when you will have something more to do than you are asked to do to-night, under the threat, and it may be the infliction of violence. (Oh, oh.) I do not rise to defend this bill. I rose for the purpose of explaining it. (Laughter.) It is not the bill which, if I had been consulted by its framers, I should have recommended. If I had been a Minister it is not the bill which I should have consented to present to the house. (Laughter.) I think it is not adequate to the occasion, and that its concessions are not sufficient. But I kno iv the difficulties under which Ministers labour, and the disin clination of Parliament to do much in the direction of this question. I shall give the bill my support, because, as far as it goes, it is a simple and honest measure, and because I believe if it becomes law it will give more solidity and duration to everything that is good in the constitution, and to everything that is noble in the character of the people of these realms. (Loud cheers.) Lord CRANBORNE contended that the Government had in the main followed the dictation of Mr. Bright in the preparation of the bill, and argued that the first effect of the measure would in counties be to swamp the rural con stituencies by the urban element. With regard to its effect in the boroughs, he had carefully investigated the returns, and found that at present there were seven boroughs re turning 13 members where the working chimes had already a majority; that a £7 franchise would give them a majority in 22 boroughs returning 40 members, and that a reduction to £7 would give them a majority in 47 other boroughs returning 80 members. The sum total of this was that if the bill passed, 133 seats would be at the absolute disposa l ' of the working ammo. F urther r if he rr took into account the constituencies that were likely to be affected by a redistribution, that number would be in creased by 25. Thus, 158 seats, or a majority of the English borough members in the house would be handed over to the working classes. Mr. J. HARDY thought the Chancellor of the Exche (per had begun at the wrong end, and that he ought to have introduced a bill for the redistribution of seats to a certain extent, in the first instance, accompanied by a simple measure for two or three fancy fanchises. When everything was rising in value why lower the franchise ? He was not opposed to the extension of the franchise, but ho did object to its being lowered, and should ever do so. Mr. HIBBERT said that if the statistics before the house were not more correct with regard to other towns than to the borough of Oldham, so far as the working class element in the constituency was concerned, much reliance could not be placed upon them, for in tho return from Oldham persons who were beershop keepers and small traders and farmers were put down as working men. He hoped the bill would be passed by a large majority. Sir R. KNIGHTLEY moved the adjournment of the debate, but the motion was negatived on being put to the house, and Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was then brought up and read a first time, and the second reading fixed for the 12th of April. The Labouring Classes Dwellings Bill was passed through committee. The other business on the paper was also disposed of, aid the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. Birmingham and Midland Freedmen Aid Association. A writer in a contemporary says : The American Government and Legislature have re cently extended the provisions of what is called the " nomstead Act "to blacks as well as to whites. Through this wise measure, eighty acres of the public lands in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida may be claimed by any Freedman wishing to settle therein, on the payment of $5 ; that is, if the rates of currency in both countries were equal, one sovereign in English money. Advantage ought certainly to be taken of this offer by Great Britain, to the greatest possible extent, at once, on behalf of the freed coloured people. While many of them may thus become landlords from their own honestly-earned and carefully-hoarded resources, many others, whc are in deep necessity, will be furnished with means for becoming so by generous friends in America ; and the freedmen's friends in this country will not be backward in helping others—multitudes of whom could not be otherwise helped. We have already materially assisted the freed people "in time of famine "—in clothing their nakedness, and supplying them with blankets during the winter—the worst period :of which, we hope, is over—we have sent out some thousands of plantations and garden hoes and other implements, and hope to forward many thousand more ; and now, just at the right time, an inviting opening is pre sented to the more enterprising and industrious of the freed people, to enter in, possess, and improve the lands above referred to ; and thus demonstrate more fully the truth of what their intelligent sympathisers and helpers have asserted with doubt—namely, their capability and willingness, by God's blessing, to sustain and elevate themselves, their relatives, and their country in the social scale. In 1860 the State of Mississippi contained a slave popu lation of 436,631; Louisiana, 331,726 ; Arkansas, 111,115; Florida, .61,745. It will be thus seen at a glance that these four States—in which eighty-acre allotments of public lands may be secured at five dollars each contained in the aggregate 941,127 slaves (nearly one-fourth of the whole slave population of the United States)—to whose forced and uncompensated labours we have been so deeply indebted for cotton, and other American produce in com mon use in this country. It would pay a further instal ment of that debt, and would confer a great boon on the freed people and their posterity—on America, on Greet Britain, on Africa, and on the world at large—if this coun try were to raise a special fund of ten thousand pounds for placing 12,500 freedmen—plantation hands and others-- who were slaves but yesterday, as settlers on the virgin se ll , of the vast valleys of the States already named. And ten thousand pounds in English money would do this ; for, one sovereign of our money is worth about thirty shillings in American currency. Such an outlay might rapidly result in maintaining in comfort and independence not less than 200,000 persons, and in producing, at the very lowest calculation, 200,000 bales of cotton. Is it too much to infer, therefore, making all proper allowances for personal incompetency and per sonal failures, that, under the fostering influence and co operation of the American Government ; under the whole some stimulus of Northern exemplars and of general com petition ; encouraged by philanthropists, enlightened by the schoolmaster, hallowed by the Christian religion an d blessed by God that 12,500 freedmen, thus located through th© instrumentality of ten thousand pounds' especially contributed by Great Britain with that object in view ; should realise results scarcely possible to be over estimated ; which should reach and affect society, and re act on the benefactors, in a kindred manner and in a Pro portionate degree. The Birmingham and Midland Freedmen's Aid Associa tion earnestly, urgently, and hopefully appeal to the bene volent of all classes throughout the land, to enable them to raise and forward ten thousand pounds for this special purpose. If the comparatively degraded negyoes of the Sea Islands of South Carolina, working at a disadvantage, wrought, such wonders in producin g d ou bl e th e average quantity 0 ' an improved quality of cotton on abandoned and partially exhausted lands there, what may we not hope for from the labours of 12,500 settlers on the rich bottom lands of Dlls sissippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida ? COUNTRY MARKETS. LEEDS—TUESDAY. There is almost a total cessation of business ; buyel hold off purchasing wheat, as they can get French ho d relatively relatively much cheaper ; sales, h owever , are not press e under the conviction our millers will be comp e ll e d ere long to appear on the market again, w h en it ma y be found so easy to meet their require men t s . F ore i gn barley offe in ing large quantities, and all d e s cr ipti ons ar e slow of 0 3 ' , at late rates. Beans, oats, and other articles as before. The average prices for the week ending March 5 were oat", 26s 48s 2kd per qr. ; b ar l e y, 40 s lld ; and 08 '`"' 26s Btd. MELTON MOWBRAY.—TUESDAY. White wheat, Us to 56's ; red, 45s to 52s per 36 s tone. Barley for malting, Ms to 38s per qr ; feed, 28s to 30s P e w 30 stone. Oats 22s to 395. Bean; old, 48s to 5 2 5; 12 40s to 44s per qr. LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY. At our market to-day there was a slow demand f° ,l l : wheat, without any alteration in value. Flour unchsn,g_eto Indian corn pressed at Friday's decline of 3d per qr. u'ed brought full prices. Barley, beans, and peas all ni 01 " slowly. Oatmeal unchanged. MARKET HARBOROUGH.--TuESDAY. 3 6 Old white wheat, 50s to 556 ; new red.:46s to 56s Pg l o . stone. Barley, fine, 388 ; other kinds, 298 to 328 pe r '„id, Oats, new, 22s to 278 ; old, 28s to 34s per qr. Beans , 49s to 528; new, 42s to 45s per qr. TEE TAY.—A snow storm has prevailed here for over 6 week, and there is no appearance of its abating. T he e T i o, sequence is, that there has been little sport. So soon a ' thorough thaw com es th e r i ver w ill b e i n a spate, afteT which good sport should be // ds got. Grandtu been done here of late owing to the frost, which has ° e a the river too small to be of any use for angling. Si nce ° „d last only two salmon have been got between Loch Tay 5 , Logierait, namely, one of 161 b by Col. Murray of Ain ne , e l , in the Findynate Pool, and one of 201 b by the Grandtill boatmen in Clochfoldich Pool.— Perthshire Journal. rADTERTISEMENT. j—Holloway's Ointment and rj ig ' o l Skin ailments are more disheartening a nd s nin ' n-11 mor hprever than ulcerations on the surface of the body. NV-- treated tle they are situated it is difficult to cure them unless has judiciously with some cooling, healing, invigorating sled cation like this never-failing ointment. It has when wonders in making bad legs sound and strong, even A the power of the blood vessels had nearly been destroyed, and and almost entire stagnation of the circulation bad rende r o r every other curative means abortive. No sore, wor n ' . ll be ulcer can withstand its healing influence, wich e to most beneficially exerted when winter is giving P ia r a c ors spring, and the circulation becoming more active and and readily controllable by proper purifying, soothing', strengthening agents. Births. park' - BAx—On the 13th inst., at 2, Sussex-place, 31 Y — .. " gardens, the wife of Captain A. G. Bas, of a son. las, BEAUMONT—On the 12th inst. at Wxn at 4, Chichester 11:.4.. Upper Westbourne-terrace, the wife of •C• nll wont, Esq., of a son. LABY WALKlNGTON— M On arr th i e ag n e t s h . inst ,at lie 111111. b iti Church, Lee, James, only son of the. late J.. T ' to ' Esq., of Archerfield House, Highbury New-Par' , "10, Frances Mary, only daughter of Mrs. Walkingtell , o f Manor-park, Lee, and of the lat R. Walkington, Bsql Kilburn.Mary's SCOTT—MIDWINTER— On the 10th inst., at St. ( Church, Islington, Mr. Joseph Scott, of Keswick, i 14., berland, to Emma, second daughter of the late Jas. winter, Esq., of Islington. Deaths. BISHOP—On the 12th inst ,at his residence, Ire3dingiel' near Leeds, Wm. Bishop,. Esq., aged 71. •f o of CAMPBELL —On the 12th inst., at W oo lwich, Sara h, Lieut.-Colonel Campbell, Coast Brig ade Royal Artil aged 57. , ° Ugh' CARPMAEL —On the 12th inst., at Stanley Cottage , o f yi idow borough-road, Brixton, Elzabeth Carpmael , the late T. Carpmael, Esq., aged 95. HODGE— On the 11th inst„ at Truro, R. M. Hodge, Vsql of Menehay, Budock, Falmouth, aged 61. _,;„ s ter, TABRUM —On the 12th inst., at his residence, II Essex, Wm. Tabrum, M.D., aged 81. ,a 0 London : Printed and Published by WILLIA.iii A N` " -- 7 , 0 02. of No. 112, Strand, Ptiater, at Tits Scat 0 6 c c y p ty of Strand, in the. Precinct of the SuvoY. in the '°- Middlesex, —Wednesday, narchl4, 1E66. L' Them IC Prize It Li aoU !he 4 ()be 11 34,1t1 n t) reet fee c three uhic ot /wid e 15 Yea Cava Alm , IV - . 18. 6d GWs c By NOR , kith Po] s-:__ 441, 460, V 44, 605 vi Thi gnu: The tR4,I; 410 2( For . 4 .treci T' °RAI Ren o . kr. j A D. D. CTri, a. o. Of 1 G...y. J 6 O ; . G . Capta G fi WI . G. 10 /I t Sir s I: it I. D I JCS ei Aif r . / I. Z; Thi 1 4:1 , 1 aritii 1)1, fi at A ssn abl e ; 0' 111, ta: ~o ; °~d s~reF