The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT ' ROUSE OF LORDS.—LAsT EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PETITIONS. The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a large num ber of petitions against the abolition of Parliamentary Oaths by members, and the reading of the names of the places from which the petitions emanated occupied a quarter of an hour. Lord SONDES also presented petitions to the same effect from Feithorpe, Boston, and Easton, in Norfold ; and against the appointment of Roman Catholic prisons and workhouses. Earl DERBY presented petitions from different parts of the United Kingdom against the Parliamentary Abolition of Oaths Bill PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. On the motion of Earl STANHOPE, re t u rns relating to Parliamentary Reform, which had been presented to the House of Commons, were ordered to be laid on the table of their lordships' house. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—West Middlesex 'Water, Devon and Somerset Railway (capital), Morayshire Railway, Dublin Corporation Water, Cornwall County Lunatic Asylum, and Central Wales Extension Bailway. The following bills were read a third time and passed :- Worcester and Birmingham Canal, Ryde Gas, and Alder shot Gas and Water. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL. Earl RUSSELL rose to move the second reading of this bill. The noble earl, who spoke in a very low voice, said that the bill proposed to substitute a uniform oath for persons who were entitled to seats in Parliament, and to repeal existing statutes on the subject. The present s oaths taken originated in the reign of Charle 11., and was decided upon as being calculated to confer permanency on the Protestant succession, and the Pro testant religion in this country. go then proceeded to give a brief historical account of the origin of the present oaths. He contended that they were adapted to a state of circumstances which had no existence now, and that it retain them. was, therefore, unnecessary to The Earl of DERBY said he should confine his remarks to the bill of 1829, which imposed the present oath on Roman Catholics. Last year a proposal was made to re peal the oath on the ground that the declarations contained in it were unnecessary and offensive to those who were required to subscribe them. That bill was passed by the House of Commons, but rejected by their lordships, and this year the present bill had been introduced into the other house by the Government. On all sides it was ad mitted that those portions of the oath which were offensive and unnecessary ought to be retained ; but there was a further question whether that portion which was intro duced for the protection of the Protestant Church in Ire land should be struck out. He concurred in the advisa bility of having one uniform oath ; but he thought that, in whatever terms it was framed, it should express allegiance to the reigning Sovereign and recognise the Protestant succession, and should also m aintain the supremacy of tta Crown. A difficulty however arose as to the manner in which the last sentiment _ shou ld be conveyed—whether it was to be confined merely to the civil and tempral autho rity of the Crown, or to its supremacy also in matters ecclesiastical. He did not propose on the present occasion to offer any opposition to the bill; but he thought it might be amended in committee so as to render it more accept able to all classes of the community, especially with re gard to the matter of supremacy. Lord RAVENS WORTH expressed his regret at the gradual sweeping away of the safeguards which had been imposed by our ancestors for the protection of the Crown. At the same time he was not anxious to provoke a contest between the two Houses of Parliament and should net offer any active opposition to the The Duke of ARGYLL, in supporting the bill, rejoiced that at length complete emancipation had been secured for his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Lord CHELMSFORD did not approve of the omission from the new oath of the declaration that no " foreign prince or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm," and the disclaimer of any intention to interfere with the Church Establishment. In committee on the bill, therefore, he should move a proviso to Clause 6, which would not affect the oath itself, but would simply apply to the acts repealed by the bill, as follows :—" Pro vided always that the repeal of these acts, or any of them, shall not be construed to weaken or in any way to affect any laws or statutes now in force for the preserving and upholding the supremacy of our Lady the Queen, her heirs, and successors, in all matters civil and ecclesiastical within this realm." After some further conversation the bill was read a second time. The County Courts Bill passed through committee. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENDIG. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Aldrington, Hove, and Brighton Gas; Briagnorth, Wol verhampton, and Staffordshire Railway ; Newcastle and Gateshead Water ; and Sheffield Water. THE REFORM BILL. A number of petitions were presented in favour of the Government bill for the amendment of the state of the re presentation of the people. Mr. OTWAY gave notice that tomorrow he should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Govern- ment intended to adhere to their determinatiOn with re. apect to the disfranchisement of the dockyard artisans. Mr. MARSH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government had come to any final determina tion with regard to the promised bill for the redistribution of seats. What boroughs, if any, were to be amalgamated with others ; what, if any, were to be totally disfranchised; what were to be partially disfranchised; and how the seats taken from those boroughs were to be disfranchised. And whether it was the intention of the Government to keep its views on these subjects concealed from the members of the House of Commons until after the division upon the pre sent bill? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with respect to the threefold question of the hon. member, it was not the practice to state the final determination until the proper time arrived. With respect to the second ques tion, that could not be answered viva voce, but would best bo discovered from the bill itself. With respect to the third portion, it appeared to him to be asking the Govern ment whether they would do that which they said they would do. (Laughter.) Ha would, however, take the op portunity of restating the intentions of the Government on the opportunity he should have in speaking to the amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester. ARMY SURGEONS. Col. C. LINDSAY asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would state the reason of the proposed change of system in the promotion to the rank of surgeon in the Brigade of Guards; whether the existing system of regi mental peornotion had ever been known to fail, and that public advantage was likely to be derived from the pro posed change ? The M arquis of HAILTIN GT ON said he couldhardly in the limits of an answer to a question explain the resort for the changes from that of 1860. hon. n The me mber for Fifeshire had given noti ce o f his intention ' • elcv ge the matter under the attention o f th e house , and therefore ' he th o ught it would be better to postp one the: discussion un til that time. i THE MALT TAX. Th e CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQ,puoEn, i asked Sir F Kelly whethe r he would consent to postpone, his motion on the malt duty, now standing for Tuesday, the 17th, with a view to the continuance on that evenig B of the debate on the Representation of the People Bill ? He was afraid there was no hope of the debate on the Re form Bill being concluded that evening, and his sole rea son in asking tho hon. member to postpone his motion was that the debate might proceed without interruption. Sir F. KELLY said he should much regret the post ponement of his motion, • i ho would not stand in the Lay of the Government, provided the right hon. gentle torwa w ould give him an evening on which he could bring forward, said motion previous to the Budget being brought could The C HANCELLOR,otgiv of the EXCHEQUER said he to his make the right hon. gentleman a night previous pledged t o tlle Louse financial statement, because h. stood Government night to brie forward the budget the first Bill. alter the second reading of the Reform Sir F. KELLY • he should bring fosar:ara that, under these circumsta nces, IMPORTATION o tis motion to-morrow evening . DISEASED CATTLE. Sir G. GREY said with respect to the question put t o him relative to smuggling Home diseased cattle, at the instance of Earl Granville and Col. Talbot, he had made the inquiries promised. With respect c h arg e that related to Earl ll t° ll the part of the appeared that the cattle had been tak en to a l e ft entirely to the management of his bailiff, a licenta of his e h av ing been obtained by the dealer for e i moving taro cattle ; he used it for the purpose of drivingc the cer- broug ht by the Dutc h steamer to his lordship'sfarm.wr i n f o rmation ha d been laid against Earl Granville, and had been hea rd that day by the magistrates at Edgewar.c: but they were unanimous in dismissing it against his lord ship, but it was bold that the bailiff and the dealer had broken the law. The cattle had been killed, ti and oCher was unreason to suppose they had spread any in an d With res P ec t to the cattle taken to Col. Talbot's, they had been moved to his farm on speculation by the dealer, and had he driven them back he would have contravened the law. He had not heard the result of the magisterial inquiry into this ca ge- It had not been concluded since his in formation left. TH E REFORM BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The adjourned debate on the amendment of Earl Grosvenor to the motion for the second reading of this bill was resumed by Mr. )lAcr - n, " 4, 4 who in tho course of his observations THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 17, 1866. said both sides of the house stood deeply pledged to the question of reform, and he thought that the present was a very favovrable opportunity for settling the mater. He was of opinion that the bill then before the house was a fair compromise, and a moderate measure which would be accepted by the working class as a settlement of the question for some time to come. He did not think there was any reason for the panic that had been raised in some quartersin consequence of the proposed reduction of the borough franchise to £7 —(hear, hear) —because the house had had on former occasions proposals for reducing it to the extent of £5. (Hear, hear.) There need not be any fear that the bill would weaken any of the cherished institutions of the country. He hoped the Government would carry the bill—hear, hear)—not that he cared much for the Government—laughter)---but he hoped the bill would be carried for the honour of the great assembly of Parliament. The hon. member then alluded to the opinions of the right hon. member for Caine, who , he said, had related his experiences obtained by his journey to Australia, where to use his own expression, he had seen them legislating in their shirt-sleeves. (Hear, hear.) He was altogether op posed to the views propounded by that hon. gentleman, because his (Mr. Maguire's) information, whi h c related to the colony of Victoria, was quite opposed to that of the hon. member for Caine. Ile had said that the proceedings were conducted in a way which was highly objectionable. The voting was by ballot, there was no corruption, and the lowest voters were high above the roughs of Kidder minster and the omens of Nottingham. (Hear, hear.) It was ridiculous ppose that the free trade policy wou ld be swept away if the house adopted the £7 franchise, and he could only say that he was greatly surprised when the hon. member for Wick made the declaration the other evening. He considered the amendment proposed an insiduous amendment, becaus9 it m eant death to the prospects of reform during the present year, and death to the honour of Parliament. He hoped the house would give its assent to the bill ; at all events, he should give his vote in favour of the second reading. Lord DI7NKELLIN expressed himself in favour of the amendment, which he considered shadowed forth a clear and distinct line of policy. He protested against the house being called on to legislate in the dark, and without having before it the whole of the Government scheme, which, when it was considered as associated with the redistribu tion of seats, must have a very different effect to what was now supposed. He therefore preferred to take up a posi tion of antagonism at once instead of giving his friends a support on trust, and probably afterwards taking an en tirely different course. To take any other step was to affirm the principle of patchwork legislation, and to swal low the powder offered, in foolish confidence of having the gain afterwards. Mr. W. E. FORSTER argued that there was an incon sistency between the words of the amendment and the speeches in its support. The former said that "it was in expedient to discuss the bill," and the orators in its favour had all, with the single exception of Lord Stanley, argued the bill on its merits. Although the Government might have gone much further, yet he considered that it was im possible to have brought in any considerable number of the working class element to the exercise of the right of voting in a safer way. The educational franchise which had been proposed was a practical impossibility, because it would simply lead to a picking and choosing among the electors, which would be most unpopular. It had fre quently been stated by the opponents of the bill that it was not the working classes themselves which were so much to be feared as the men who might lead them. This, how ever, was to proclaim the members of that order fools, in stead of rogues. The fact was that all who had much to do with working men knew that they were extremely tenacious of their own political opinions, and were by no means so easily led as some people seemed to suppose. He defended, also, the right of the upper stratum of the mid dle class to the possession of a vote, since the man whose income was two or three hundred a year, with his indirect contributions to the State and income tax, was really the most heavily taxed individual in the country. He as sured the house that not one member of the " dangerous classes" would be admitted to the Constitution by this measure ; while the satisfactory disposal of the Reform question would make way for the consideration of those great social topics about which so much earnest feeling was often exhibited. Mr. M`KENNA intimated his intention to vote for the amendment, since he considered that the medical formula of Lord Dunkellin ought to be reversed, and that the Government desired the country to take the jam first, and the powder—of what sort was not known—afterwards. He trusted the Irish members would not vote blind confi dence in her Majesty's Ministers. Sir J. SIMEON declined to help on what he termed a deplorable act of political suicide, viz., attempting to de stroy a Liberal Government by the help of Liberal votes. He expressed his belief that there never had been a mea sure introduced which was in conception so moderate, and in spirit so determined to do political justice to all classes of the community. Mr. LOWTHER referred to several of the meetings which had been held on the reform question, and the way in which they were conducted, and founded thereon argu ments against the second reading of the bill. Sir F. CROSSLEY, as a large employer of labour, taunted the Opposition with professions of liberality, while in their hearts they were bitterly opposed to any extension of the franchise. The present concession was, in his opinion, a very moderate one, which the education and good conduct of the industrial classes entitled them to possess. Mr. ADDERLEY denied that the Opposition were un willing to entertain the question of a reduction of the fran chise when they opposed the extremely injudicious, in complete, and inconvenient way in which this measure had been brought forward. He complained that the intro duction of leasehold and copyhold voters from the boroughs was intended not to swamp, but to annihilate the agricul tural interest in the counties; and denounced in.severe terms the manner in which Mr. Bright was accustomed to con demn the whole body of landowners, and generally to set class ageinst class . He protested, on these grounds, ' against the Government asking the house to pass in blank a measure dictated to them by Mr. Bright, and of the use to which, the fact of its being passed, it might be turned, they were entirely ignorant. Mr. LAYARD should have desired not to have taken any part in the debate—(loud cheers from the Opposition) —but he owed a debt of gratitude to those who sent him to that house which prevented him from being silent on a subject of such importance to the working classes, of whom lie regarded himself as one of the representatives. Scarcely a member of that house represented a larger constituency than himself, and of the 11,000 voters in that constituency nearly one-half were working men. He had been sent to the house by those men, and by their generous, disinte rested, and loyal aid ho had fought many a battle. Any position be might hold he should owe to them and to them alone. Had the discussion upon this question been limited to the amendment proposed by the noble lord the member for King's Lynn he should not have thought it necessary to speak upon the subject, and he might tell hon. members that upon whatever they might ground their arguments the country at large would feel that the real question was whether the bill of the Government was to pass into law or whether it should be rejected. (Hear, hear.) Did the right hon. baronet the member for Hertford shi re say that he should vote for the a mendment ? No, he wound up his brilliant oration by saying that he should vote against the bill. (Hear, hear.) The member for the Wickboroughs said that if the bill had contained clauses for the redistri it bution of seats he should have voted for it, but at the same time he said that he should not think of voting in favour of a reduction of the franchise. Did the hon. gen tleman mean that he would vote for or against the bill ? Well, had any other hon. member spoken strictly upon the amendment except the noble lord the member for King's Lynn? The noble lord the mover of the amendment, although he professed to be in favour of Reform,would have this question referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, as if it were the Cattle Plague or some other plague. (A. laugh.) This morning he was surprised to see a letter from the hon. member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh), who appeared to have been reminded.by his constituents that he had a duty to perform by communicating with thembefore enter ing that house. The hon. gentleman eame forward and principle, gains t b o lt er because conseie i n t ee was in n F ec ar e l s i sa am ry en t t e a ; said that he would vote against this bill—not as a matter often to o v f otea (Cries of "No!" from the Opposition, s° a m n e d t : m i ;m a d II !" et; tactics. hon. gentleman, in his letter to Mr. Lush, said:— prefer meeting the " There is, as every one knows, in Parliamentary tactics, and to a certain extent is at the present moment, as I should myself the Reform Bill with a direct negative to voting for Lord in Grosvenor's motion." (Opposition cheers.) He could not understand how his right hon. friends the member for Caine and the member for Stroud, and his noble friend the member for Heading tonshire (Lord Elcho), could vote for this amendment, for they had declared themselves against Parliamentary Re,- form altogether. [Lord Elcho—No.] Well, the noble lord had declared against lowering the franchise. The right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, however, had de clared himself against all Reform. Now, the only member of the house who had dealt fairly with this question of the amendment was the noble lord the member fie- King's as the could Lynn, and in a speec h characterised by great summed up the object ions to the bill as well ability he tie y en who possibly be summed up. The right hon. about the . G overnmen t insulting and degrading the house had j us t sat down in his somewhat excitedgsQpneecmh talked -- (Opposition cheers)—and about their audacity in propos ing the measure. (Renewed cheers.) He really could not t al attempt to deal with those excited statements. (Iron cheers from th e O p p os iti on .) His hon. friend the memb er for Whiteha eon (M r. B en ti nc k) an d other hon. gent lemen would the do better if, i ns t ea d o f ma king that violent n oise, were to try to answer his arguments. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn had , no doubt, shown g reat reasons for bringi ng ° in the two measures together. (Opposi tion cheers.) The re were, unquestionably, ralo weighty reasons t weighty for not bringing in thi s m there were reasons equally —(renewed introducing cheersth the two measures separately. After all it b ecame a . question which course was the fairest to be taken, which the most conve nient and the most likely to lead to a p rac ti ca l result. That was the question with which the Government had to -------- deal, and they dealt with it fairly and honestly, as he would show. Now, he wished to meet the objections of the noble lord, for he did not think they had been answered on that side of the house. (Loud Opposition cheers.) If hon. gentle men would only wait they would hear the reason why. They had not been answered on that side because the de bate had gone off on a different issue. Now, what was the first objection of the noble lord? He condemned the Go vernment on the ground that they asked the house to put trust in them, while they refused to put trust in the house. (Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer met that objection in his opening speech, for he said that he t re ated this question as a question of confidence—(oh, oh) —and when the Government asked that (the Ministerial) side of the house, not the other side, to put their trust in them, it meant that they must confide in the leaders of their party, and if they refused that trust it amounted to a vote of want of confidence. That was the simple question. And was it not the case that measures were often brought in piecemeal? Did it not constantly happen that bills which had a natural connection one with another were brought in in different sessions—one in one session, and another, which was part and parcel of the first, in the next? That was the case often in questions of finance. (Loud cries of " Name, name," and " Order!") He must tell hon. gentle men opposite that there was no slight contrast between the conduct of the two sides of the house. Every speech from the other side had been listened to with attention — (hear, hear) —but hon. gentlemen opposite did not show a similar spirit of fair play. (Hear, hear.) The second ob jection of the noble lord was this, that there was a suspi cion of something lurking behind—that some sort of com pulsion was held over those who might vote for or against the bill, that schedules ere very invidious things, for some hon. members might find if they voted against the Government that their boroughs were included in schedule A. And the noble lord said that he had reason to believe that such was the case in the Reform Bill of 1832. But that cut the ground away under the noble lord's own feet, be cause the measure of 1832 included both subjects. The 1 whole question was then before the house, and if that argu ment was good for anything, it would apply to a bill deal ing with both subjects as much as to a bill dealing with only one. (Cheers.) The next objection was that the same Ministry might not be in office next year. Well, that was a difficulty which might be solved by the noble lord and his friends giving the Government a generous support. (A laugh.) Then the noble lord went on to say that if the Government were to bring in a single measure at all, he should prefer one that would deal with the redistribution of seats to a bill for the reduction of the franchise, and he pointed out the danger and inconvenience of distribution if the first bill were passed alone, inasmuch as they might have to appeal either to a constituency already condemned, or to a new one of which they had no experience, and he talked of "a provisional constitution." Ile confessed he could not follow the noble lor d ' s argument, but it appeared to him that the same constituency which elected this house could elect another house to deal with a question which the present house was prepared to deal with, and in his opinion his hon. friend the member for Westminster, in in his able, logical, and conclusive speech, had disposed of that question when he said if the new constituency might elect a Parliament fit to deal with many great questions, why not a Parliament fit to deal with the redistribution of seats ? (Hear, hear.) Indeed, the noble lord's plan would appear to be much the more dangerous of the two ; for if they had first passed the bill for the redistribution of seats, there must either be a dissolution immediately or, if not then they would have ho n. g entlemen not representing constituencies voting in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) That surely would be a source of great inconvenience and danger. But the fact was the argument to which he had alluded had been put forward in order to delay the question altogether. As the hon. member for Westminster had justly pointed out, hon. gentlemen opposite were afraid of a new House of Commons. (Oh, oh.) They were afraid of a new constituency. (Hear, hear.) He would not dwell upon the pledges given by the Government. The noble lord, with his usual candour and openness, had admitted that the Government were bound to bring forward a bill. And here he would say a word upon an argument used by the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, that a member who makes pledges on the hustings to his constituents, if, on coming to Parliament, ho finds the promises he has given prejudicial to the public good, ought not to feel bound by those pledges. That appeared to him a most mischievous and demoralising doctrine. Mr. LOWE—It is his duty to resign. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LAYARD willingly accepted the correction of the right hon. gentleman, and he would therefore say it was the duty of many members of that house to resign at once. (Loud cheers.) This was no small question ; it was a great question of principle. (Renewed cheers.) A person was returned as representing a certain set of principles, and if he deserted thcse principles it must have a mischievous and demoral sing effect upon the country—(cheers and counter cheers) —and must lower the confidence and trust the con stituencies ought to have in their representatives in Par liament. (Hear, hear.) Lord Russell, like other members of his Government, was bound to introduce this bill. Ho would not now enter into the reasons why up to this time he (Mr. Layard) and others for whom he might speak had thought it right to be members of a Government who had not brought forward such a bill. (Laughter.) Hon. gentle men opposite might laugh, but ho had given his reasons to ' his constituents, and they had accepted them. From vari ous circumstances, which he need not particularise, during the lifetime of Lord Palmerston it was obvious that a bill for Parliamentary reform could not be introduced. (Cheers.) Earl Russell, however, would have been desert ing his principles if he had not, immediately on accepting office, introduced such a measure. For what other reason, indeed, was he unanimously selected as the leader of the Liberal party ? He was selected because, identified as he had been with Reform, his party and the country looked to him for the introduction of a measure upon this subject. Earl Russell was not the man either to desert his principles or to introduce to the house a sham. It was his duty to deal fairly with the question to show the country and the house that the Government were earnest in their action upon this matter, and not to bring forward any measure without, at all events, a reasonable prospect of its passing. He believed that the mode adopted by Lord Russell was a fair and honest one. The difficulty in the way of passing a bill for the redistribution of seats had been already alluded to. The noble lord who had addressed the house in the be ginning of the evening had referred to the manner in which hon. members would be fighting over their dead and dying boroughs. In 1831, as hon. members would find, from the beginning of February to the end of October the house was chiefly engaged in discussing the question of the redistri bution of the seats, and no ono would believe that a bill which included the redistribution of seats, the definition of borough boundaries, and the many other subjects which were necessary to make a perfect measure could by any possibility be dealt with in one session. He would now turn for a few minutes to the arguments employed against the bill—for, after - all, they involved the real questions to be considered. It was urged in the first place that the working classes were already sufficiently represented, and that the bill would admit them in such numbers as to swamp the remaining classes of the community. The second argument was that they were not yet fit to be ad mitted within the pale of the Constitution— (No, no, from the Opposition)—and that in admitting them you would be ettending electoral privileges to those who, from their education, mode of thought, and moral character, were un fit for their reception, and who, after all, would be open to corrupt influences. The third argument was that the bill would be conferring the franchise upon those who paid no direct taxes, and who therefore had not the same stake and interest in the welfare of tho country as those who contri buted to our revenue in this manner. Again, it was urged that if the bill were passed, and the franchise lowered in accordance with the proposal of the Government, the con stituencies would either be purchased by wealthy men, or would return demagogues to Parliament ; and the last ob jection was that there was no proof to show that the present system did not work well, and that the house, as at present constituted, was not fit for the performance of its duty. There was, indeed, one further objection, which was urged by the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, and that was that, as all Governments existed for the well-being of the country, it was necessary to show that the country was not well governed before introducing any measure advo cating its alteration. That was an argument which might possibly be applied to other countries, but in this land of ours the people preferred a form of self-government, though that Government might be bad, to any plan of government, however advantageous, carried on by others. A fact so notorious could not be controverted by any number of quo tations from Aristotle or Montesquieu, however excellent might be the sentiments which they embodied. Now, as to the first objection—that the working classes were suffi ciently represented in that house. Its fallacy had been so fully exposed by the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Mill) that he need scarcely dwell upon it at any length. The hon. gentleman had shown that, even supposing the working classes numbered 26 per cent. of the voters, they were not really represented in the house. He had always held the opinion that many of the working men were on the register, but that not a sufficient number of them were in the enjoyment of the franchise. It would, indeed, in his opinion, be a great advantage if some of the working men were returned as members of that house. It was all very well for gentlemen to state that they spoke in the name of the working classes, but he did not be lieve that any man in the house could lay claim to such a commission. For his own part, for instance, though he deeply sympathised with the feelings of the working classes, and though he was always anxious to promote their interests as far as ho possibly could, he could not expect that they would place confidence in him. (Opposition cheers.) Until there were mon in the house who from constant association with the working classes and from intimate knowledge of the people were able to give expression to the feelings and to the sentiments which animated our artisan classes, he maintained that as a body the workmen of this country were unrepresented. The hon. members for Bradford and Birmingham, for in stance, were both employers of labour, and it was but na tural, therefore, that they should not be regarded as repre sentatives of the working classes. The noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire appeared to entertain appre hension lest they should number working men among their body. (No, no, from Lord Elcho.) He should not, for his own part however, view the admission of such men as Mr. Odgers and Mr. Potter with alarm, because the argu ments of the working men would then be put fairly before the house, and if wrong might bo refuted in fair debate, and if right be admitted and the grievances complained of, if there were such, remedied. Even supposing they intro duced manhood suffrage, it had not been shown that the working men would have a majority in the house. Such an alarm was in reality a mere bugbeer, because it was founded upon the assumption that all working men would entertain the same opinions and pull together upon every question, whereas working men differed from each other in their political views as much as any other class of the community. The electors whom his hon. friend the mem ber for Birmingham represented would in all probability, from the nature of their employments, entertain different opinions upon the subject of peace and war from the working men of many other constituencies, and the same fact might be observed in reference to every public ques tion. According to the " Quarterly Review," if this bill were passed the working classes would have a majo rity in 77 boroughs, returning 133 members. In ten of those, however, it seems that the constituencies would be composed of 50 per cent. of the working classes and 50 per cent. of other classes, and consequently they might be left out of the calculation altogether. But unless they could show how far any particular influence might be ex pected to work in these boroughs any argument founded upon those statistics would be useless. Personally he was one of those who did not believe in the existence of any artisan or working-men class, and if they wished to have class representation in the house an inquiry ought to be instituted by the Committee of the Privy Council to ascer tain how far the lawyers, members of the Army and Navy, farmers, and others were represented as separate classes. (Hear.) But he was surprised that gentlemen opposite should entertain such strong objections to class legislation, because for generations class legislation had been the dis tinguishing characteristic of the party to which they be longed. And now with regard to the second objection — that the working classes were unfit for the reception of the franchise. He had no desire to return to the oft-repeated arguments of the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, because they had been subsequenty explained away by the sight hon. gentleman. He wanted to show what was said by the right hon. member for Caine, supposing it bore the interpretation put upon it by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, was what had been said before by the right hon. gentleman, and that when he talked of the unfitness of a particular class of working men, from their drunkenness and impulsiveness, for their exercise of the franchise, he only repeated what he said in that house last year. Ac cepting the right hon. gentleman's explanation of what took place some days ago, would the house hear an extract from a speech which the right. hon gentleman delivered last year ? In this case there was no question of authenticity, for the speech had been reprinted from the Times in the form of a small pamphlet, and he understood that dur ing the elections the speech had been inserted in the columns of the organ of the Opposition as a statement of their views and opinions, so that it had been adopted by them. In the course of that speech the right hon. gentle man read an extract from a report made by Mr. Baker, one of the factory inspectors, who described how certainpersons had obtained houses by their industry, and then said that while they had done this,— " In the same locality, employed at the same work and at the same wages, and without any extraordinary drawbacks, a vast number of those who possess no such properties live on from day to day, regardless of every enjoyment which is not sensual, exhibiting no desire for an elevation of cha racter among their fellow-men." After quoting this, the right hon. gentleman said : "I askthe house upon which of the classes here described will the bill of the hon. member for Leeds operate? Not upon the provident, but mainly u p on the improvident class. For the provident are not only in possession of ot th into the e fran chise—they have soared far ab ove it, and have g r egion of freeholders. It will, therefore, apply to the men who waste their time in these profitless and degrading pursuits, in order that they may be elevated and fished out of the mire in which they delight to grovel, introduced to power, and entrusted with control over the constitution of the country. This statement was received with cries of " Hear, hear," these words b e i ng i nse rted in the re-published report by the right hon. gentleman himself. (Oh, oh. not come ) It was to be presumed that the cries of "Hear, hear," did from the Ministerial side of the house, but from the Oppo sition side, and therefore the Oppos ition approved the so ' timent that the men to be enfranchised were to be fished out of the mire. Having remarked that if men reduced the quantity of beer they drank they could get the franchise, the right hon. gentleman said : "The question for you now to determine is whether you ought to bring down the franchise to the level of those per sons who have no such sense of decency or morality, and of what is due to the health of themselves and their children ; whether you will degrade the franchise into the dirt this , and imperil your institutions ; or whether you will make franchise a vast instrument of good, a lever by which you may hope to elevate the working classes, not in the manner which a mawkish sentimentality contemplates, but by fix ing the franchise at a reasonable level, requiring a little, and only a little effort, and self-denial on their part, a little security that they are able to conduct their own affairs before we intrust them with ours." (Cheers.) Hon. gentlemen opposite now cheered those ex tracts; but the right hon. gentleman said either too much or too little. If he spoke of exceptions, they could not be dealt with as a class ; if of a class, the accusations ap proved by the Opposition were brought against the work ing class. If the right hon. gentleman said, "No, they are only brought against those who would receive the fran chise," he would ask the right hon. gentleman who were his Hyperboreans ; were they beneath the £7 franchise ? If so, he might call upon his right bon. friend to support something like manhood suffrage. It had been said that if the working classes had the control of Parliament, we should be constantly driven into war. But looking back to the last Parliament, bad war been favoured by the working classes or by the hon. gentlemen opposite. (Oh, oh, and no, no.) These denials came from hon. gentlemen who were not members of the last Parliament. During the time of the Danish difficulty did not the noble lord the member for Stamford night after night attack the Govern ment for not going to war for Denmark ? (No, no.) During the American War who was it wished to involve us in a war with the United States ? (Cries of " Ques tion.") It was the question. [Colonel Kxox rose and protested against the Opposition being charged with having endeavoured to involve the country in war.] It had been said what democracies would do, and he was merely showing what aristocracies had done. [Lord CRAN BORIa denied the charge against himself.] Did not the hon. andlearned member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) advo cate the release of the rams at Birkenhead ; and if they had been released, should we not have bad a war with America? (Question.) All the working classes of the country with the exception of those of Liverpool supported Government in their determination not to go to war with the United States. (Cries of " Question," and " The Re form Bill.") The right hon. baronet the member for Hert fordshire (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) gave them an interesting and amusing account of the adventures of a Mr. Smith with a £5 note, and of Mr. Brown with the "Rights of Man ;" but that was only another version of a novel which be produced in that house some years ago in a remarkable speech in which he gave a touching description of poor Mr. Smith, a plasterer, whom ho represented as being assailed by a rising statesman, who offered him £3 to put his house in repair. Poor Smith yielded to the temptation, and his fall was received with exultation by the Opposition. (Oh.) They appeared to have forgotten that there was some ono more to blame than Smith—those who gave the bribe. (Cheers.) If hon. gentlnion were in the same position as Smith, would not they be likely to yield too? The objec tion that the working men had no interest or stake in the country had been completely answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If hon. gentlemen would turn to the recent return of Mr. Tidd Pratt they would be surprised by the enormous increase in the actual state of the working mon in the country. The United Foresters, for instance, had nearly a million sterling of property and 200,000 members. The Manchester Unity had £200,000 of pro perty and 200,000 members. The London Unity had £200,000 and 40,000 members. Then, on referring to the returns of the Savings Banks and Post-office Savings Banks, it would be found that very large sums had been deposited in them by the working classes, and that con sequently they had, at least, some stake in the country. (Hear, hear.) And the very fact of the appearance of the returns in Mr. Tidd Pratt's annual report to Parliament showed not only an enormous increase in the aggregate wealth of the working classes, but that they were better acquainted than formerly with the laws of political eco nomy. At first the working men resented the action of the Government in regard to friendly societies as an un warrantable interference with their concerns, but they now perceived that the principles which they used to act upon were false, and they had gone to Mr. Tidd Pratt and regis tered themselves in accordance with the Act of Parliament. The working classes had a much greater stake in the country than those who occupied higher positions. In the event of war and general commotion the latter would only have to give up some luxury, but the poor would be deprived of the necessaries of life. With the one class reduced rent meant reduced cost in clothing and food ; with the other reduced wages, or no wages at all, meant starvation. (Hear.) It had been stated that if the present bill were to become law the House of Commons would only be entered by rich men or demagogues. With regard to the rich men, he would only remark that the same objection was raised against the bill of 1832, it being asserted that nobody less wealthy than a nabob would be able to get into the house. No doubt the expenses attendant upon an election were very serious, and the house had never been sincere in its desire to lower the expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Ho be lieved, however, that it might be lowered. Last autumn he was in Italy and saw the elections there, and ho might be allowed to remark that in his judgment Italy was the most fitted of all the countries in Europe for constitu tional government. Ho was staying with a friend who had represented one of the largest,most populous, and most Radical cities in the North of Italy. The time was ono of greet excitement, but in spite of this his friend's re-elec tion was carried on with perfect order and regularity, and did not cost him a single sixpence. (Hear, hoar.) If such a thing could be done in Italy, why should it not be done in England ? For his part, he believed the time would come when all legitimate election expenses would be de frayed by a rate (hear, hear," and cries of "no, no), and when all expenses not legitimate would be prohibited, and those who incurred them punished. Until the corrupting of voters was considered disgraceful, that kind of corrup tion would not cease, and, continued the hon. member, you have no right to throw it in the teeth of working men that they are unfit to exercise the franchise because they are corrupt, while you are their corruptors." (Hear, hear, and loud cries of "No, no," and " Order," from the Opposition). Colonel EDWARDS rose to order, and attempted to ad dress the House, but his voice was drowned in the noise and confusion which prevailed. When silence had been restored, The SPEAKER said—The hon. and gallant gentleman is very much out of order indeed. Mr. LAYARD, resuming his speech, said he did not wish to cast an imputation on any individual members. (" Oh !") He was simply speaking of a state of things which was acknowledged to exist, and he maintained that as long as that system continued hon. members had no right to apply the language they sometimes did to the working classes. Ile ventured to say that England was much more conservative now than it was 20 or oven 50 years ago. While other countries were becoming more democratic, this country was inclining towards Conserva tism. Hon. gentlemen would recollect what kind of pro positions used to be submitted to the House not many years ago. The member for Surrey, for instance, used to introduce, almost every year, a Bill to abolish the law Of primogeniture. Then there were measures directed against the Bench of Bishops, and resolutions in favour of triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot. Above all, where was the Charter now ? He represented one of the most democratic constituencies in the kingdom, and he ventured to say that it did not contain a single Chartist. Where was the Northern Star now? Where were the prosecutions for the seditious libels which were once so common in this country ? They no longer existed. Well, then, might not these changes be attributed, to some extent at all events, to what had been done by way of re forming the Constitution? The result of admitting the work ing classes to the constituencies had been, that we were less democratic and mere conservative than We used tobe. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was introduced, many thought the £lO franchise too high, but it: was not to be wondered at that the Reformers of that time, with the events of the French Revolution fresh in their memory, should have been somewhat afraid of reducing the franchise too low. After all, the reduction of the franchise was a mere question of expe rience and expediency. He was glad to hear it admitted by the hon. gentlemen opposite that the possession of the franchise by the working classes depended upon their fit ness to enjoy the franchise. That argument, however, was entirely opposed to the opinions of most hon. gentlemen on that side of the house, who maintained that this was a question of class, and not of fitness. He could corroborate what the hon. member for Bradford had stated in his re markable speech, which was characterised by groat ability, viz., that the working classes in this country looked up to the men of position, and that even in trade strikes they would rather go to a gentleman than to one of themselves. A remarkable instance of this occurred during the strike of last year, when the men, instead of going to some dema gogue, applied to Lord Lichfield, a nobleman well known for his sympathy with working men. They requested Lord Lichfield to arbitrate between them and their em ployers, and though the arbitration was not entirely suc cessful, the men presented to his lordship an address in which they thanked him for what he had done. (Hear, hear.) This bugbear democracy was a very good thing to be used as an exercise for young politicians on the other side of the house. It reminded him very much of what used to take place among a tribe with whom he had lived in early youth. In order to accustom the lads to the sight of a lion, a stuffed one was put in a yard, and the lads fought with it as long as they liked. Much in the same way hon. gentleman opposite had put up the member for Birmingham. It reminded him of a game which was some what classical in fashionable circles some time ago. They took his hon. friend, blackened his face according to the Eastern fashion, put a bill—not the Government bill, but a bill supposed to be the Government bill—into his mouth, and they had then set to work to smash this bill, and also the hon. member, in such a way that he was not to be re cognised by his most intimate acquaintances. That was partly his hon. friend's own fault, for he would persist in frightening hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house. He deserved what he got. "To bring in a lion among ladies is a most dreadful thing, for there is not a more fear ful wildfowl than your lion living." The hon. gentleman might have said, " I would wish you, or I would request you, or I would entreat you not to fear, not to tremble ; my life for yours. If you think I come hither as a lion, it were pity of my life. No, I am no such thing : lam a man as other men are; and there, indeed, let him name his name ; and tell them plainly, he is Snug, the joiner." He would call upon the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) and the right hon. gentleman the. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) not to vote against this bill, as they had, if he re membered rightly, been in favour of an £8 borough fran chise. Let them look at the terrible issuo. It was often said that there was but a plank between life and eternity on board a ship, but in this case there was only £1 between -the Constitution and disfranchisement. It was all very well for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house to talk about their sympathy with the working classes, but were they ready to put trust in them ? No doubt they would be glad to trust the working man of their own making, who had lived in the same house for twenty years, brought up a family of twelve children, and who had never become acquainted with the relieving officer, He was not going to detain tho house—(cries of "Hear" from tLe Opposition) —but he thought that it would be only fair that, at least, the opinions which the working men en tertained should be expressed in that house. Hon. gentle men ou the other side only injured their own cause by those interruptions and by preventing him from expressing what he believed to be true, though he might be mistaken. (Hear, hear.) It would go forth to the public, not that ho was an inefficient speaker, or an inefficient interpreter of the work ing men's views—(laughter)—but that Lon. gentlemen would not hear those views. The words spoken the other night by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche quer,which were not the cold words of a political economy, but generous words, coming from the heart, had touched a chord in the hearts of the working mon of this country, and been taken up and spread throughout the length and breadth of the land : not because the working men were not accustomed to kindness and consideration, but because they were unaccustomed to hear from the leader of the House of Commons such words as those spoken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—words for which, if he knew anything of the class, they would be for ever grateful to his right hon. friend. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition, with hear, hear, from the Ministerial side of the house). Lot hon. members not think that those feelings were tempo rary. Every man at his loom or other instrument of in dustry thought over the wrongs and the grievances to whichthe working men were subjected. (Oh, oh !) He did not say those wrongs and those grievances were real wrongs and grievances, but in the minds of those men they were real, and if the house did not listen to them the work ing classes would become more impressed with the convic tion that they were real. The Government had come for ward with a moderate measure. It was ono which the working classes were ready to accept. Let the house be wise in time. (Ironical cries of "Hear, hear.") The hon. mem ber for Montrose had told them that at a meeting of the working classes only 15 hands were held up in favour of uuiversal suffrage. In the borough of Southwark at a similar meeting only one man attempted to advocate man hood suffrage, and the meeting would not hear him. (Hear, hear.) Professor Beasley had been spoken of as a groat demagogue, but, instead of being a working man, he was an Oxford man and a gentleman of learning. For what Professor Beasley put forward, not the working men, but Oxford, should be responsible ; and he would leave it to hon. members opposite to settle the matter of that gentle man's opinions with Oxford. The working men were willing to accept this bill. They were not satisfied with it. (Hear, hear.) They hoped for more. (Renewed cries of "Hear, hear.") They thought a£7 franchise too high, and they knew that a largo number of the gentlemen in that House were committed to a£6 franchise. They also believed that the proposed lodger franchise was too high— that a lower one would be useful and act as an encourage ment to the working man ; but they were willing to give up their own opinions an d sympathies, and to meet the House of Commons half way. Hon. gentlemen who op posed the bill refused to meet them. The present time was most opportune for a settlement of this:question said , . The he a tmosphere was clear and calm ; but, as had been time might come when the working men would not accept what Parliament woul 1 offer them, and would ask for more. If the House gave them what they now asked for they would thereby settle the question for years. What was asked was nothing very liberal. Lot the House be just and equitable, and they might depend on it that if they responded to the confidence which the working classes reposed in them, and gave them what they now asked, they would strengthen the love which those classes born to the Crown and the institutions of the country. (Cheers.) Sir H. CAIRNS said the course of this debate had shown, and shown in a very marked manner, the ad vantage arising from the discussion of public questions in the House of Commons. During the recess they had heard of meetings held in various parts of the country, addressed by speakers of great ability and great elo quence ; but he was afraid there was a tendency in the human mind that made a speaker, when ho addressed an auditory brought together in support of some particular and preconceived view, where no controversy was intended or allowed, to resort to vague and general decla mation, and to exclude from his remarks both accuracy and argument. (Hear.) In that house, however, theyat all events expected a fair and candid statement of the question that was to be discussed, and arguments fairly addressed to that question. (Hear.) When they found the absence of these arguments, they had good reason to suspect the position which the argument was intended to defend. (Hear.) He feared this was the test which might fairly be applied to the speech of the Under Secretary who had just sat down. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Having replied to several statements of the hon. member, and denied that the . Conservatives had proposed to plunge the country into a Danish war, as stated by him, the hon. and learned gen tl em an said the question under discussion resolved itself into two points which were in one sense distinct, but in another very closely connected. The ono was the manner in which Parliament dealt with the question of the franchise, and the -ether the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the whole question of Parliamentary Reform. But before proceeding to the consideration of these questions ho would have to refer to what had fallen on another occasion from the lion. member for Birmingham. He had great respect for the hon. gen tleman. Ho widely differed from his views, but he ad mired, beyond the possibility of expression, the eloquence which he had always displayed in that house. He, how ever, was perfectly amazed to hear a member of the Go vernment insinuate that after all the hon. member (Mr. Bright) was only "Snug, the joiner." (Much laughter.) He would undertake to speak of the hon. mem ber in more respectful terms. 'Die hon. member had told them that Lord Somers had laid it down that by birth every Englishman had a right to the vote. That was a startling proposition; and if the hon. member had consulted the history of the circumstances to which he referred, he would have found that Lord Somers had laid down no such proposition. If he (Sir H. Cairns) understood the principle of the constitution, it was this—that Parliament should be the mirror of every class of the people, and that no one class should outnumber or outvote the other. Moreover, accord ing to the constitution, mere fitness or qualification for a a vote was not sufficient to entitle a man to its possession. The spirit of the constitution was to preserve the balance towards all classes, and in that case the question of fitness was only a secondary question. They must agree that, if all the working classes of this country were admitted to the suffrage, the balance of power would be overthrown. The majority of the house would agree that there should be a fair representation of the working classes in the con stituency. In the next place, they would agree that there was at the present time a substantial representation of the working-classes in boroughs—then the question, and the only question that remained—and it narrowed the argu ments between them—was there a sufficient representation of the working classes, and ought it to be increased to any extent ? Referring to the periods of 1860 and 1864, they would, if they had legislated at those times, have legislated under erroneous impressions that the working classes were less fully represented than the statistics had since proved to be the case. He had understood the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to say that the Government had avoided any refe rence to classes. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] He attached no blame for that, because the sta tistics were framed themselves on a question of classes. I [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented.] Now, however, they were told it was not a question of statistics, but they were told they were treating the non-electors as an invading army, and were excluding their own flesh and blood, those who were Christians like themselves. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose one year and told them that every man had a right to vote until the con trary was sheen, and when the same gentleman talked of limiting the admission to £7, he ought not to speak of idle mocking words. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman quoted the Chancellor of the Ex chequer with respect to the £6 franchise, to the effect that that franchise would give a majority in the borough constituencies of working men, which had never been proposed before, never had been intended by Parliament, and was not a proposal which her Majesty's Govern ment intended to make. He then went over the cal culations with respect to the £7 franchise, and proceeded to demonstrate that, taking into account the repeal of the rate-paying clauses and the additions by the lodger fran chise, the proposal of the Government would give just the same majority of working men in regard to the present measure as the Government had repudiated with respect to the £6 franchise. It was said, however, by the hon. mem ber for Westminster (Mr. J. S. Mill) that they must not take the question of the number of voters, but of the num ber of seats. He assumed the working class seats to be in round numbers 130. That was not a majority, but if in a bill for redistributing seats 25 seats were taken from one side and added to the other, and that they were seats where the working classes had a majority, that would give 180, which was a majority in the boroughs. Taking the same proportion for Scotland and Ireland, the working classes would then have a majority of seats as well as in the constituencies. Taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of the number of the working classes in the constituencies at the period of the Reform Bill of 1832, being 31 per cent. as against 26 per cent. at the present time, the hon. member said these figures were entirely imaginary ; that there was no basis on which the calculation could be reliably made. Dealing next with the allegation that the working classes would never act together politically, ho asked how it was, if the Government believed that, they had not adopted a £6 fran chise ? He was quite sure the working men were divided, like other men ; but he maintained, whenever any ques tions arose which concerned them as a class, they would do what was done by all other classes and professions. It such a question as the incidence of taxation came on, would not the working classes work together upon that? (Con servative cries of " Hear, hear.") Suppose the hon. mem ber for Birmingham were to advise them that an alteration of the law of primogeniture would be beneficial to them, would they not be likely to take the question up as a class ? Mr. Odger, who professed to be the friend of working men, had stated some time back that if they had a proper repre sentation agricultural labourers would get more than Bs. a week, and that work should be found for every man willing to work. But there was another point more dangerous still involved in the present question, and that was the derangement of the balance of the constitution which would be brought about by giving a preponderance of power to the working classes. (Opposition cheers.) At all the meetings which had been held over the country he be lieved the bill was only accepted as a step towards some further measure. At Montrose, where a strong resolu tion in favour of universal suffrage had been passed last year, the meeting this year contented itself with a resolu tion accepting the bill at the suggestion of the hon. mem ber for the borough. (Hear, hear.) According to an extract from an American paper which he bad before him, the opinion formed of the bill was that it would lead gradually to universal suffrage, and give the hon. member for Birmingham such an increase of power as would enable him to assimilate English institutions to the American standard. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them the work ing classes were unequally divided in the boroughs of the country, but this bill would leave the inequality where it was before. (Hear, hear.) The working classes would have a majority of both seats and votes in the boroughs of England and Wales, and he supposed the same would be the case in Ireland and Scotland. The speech of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) was both unanswered and unanswerable, if indeed he ex cepted the answer of the hon. member for Westminster. He believed the great majority of tho house were deter mined that the Parliament which altered the franchise should also decide the question of the distribution of seats. (Loud cheers.) The hon. and learned grtleman pro ceeded to argue that the re were many questions connected with the Franchise Bill which required a key for their solution, and that that k e y was the Redistribution Bill. The Government, however, kept the key locked up in their box, and refused to let them have it till after the se cond reading. B ut if the redistribution of seats was made by a Parliament elected by the old constituency, it would be quite in the power of another Parliament, elected under a now and a larger constituency, to object to such redis tribution. With regard to the question of time, he con tended there was sufficient at the disposal of the Govern ment to deal with the whole question, inasmuch as they admitted there could be no registration before 1867, and feeling sure that this bill would not pass, he urged them to reconsider the matter before they called upon the house to agree to the second reading. He taunted the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and the Government with their secresy, remarking that although a bill which required for its success a Parliamentary manoeuvre might be a good bill or a bad bill, the epithet bestowed on it by the hon. member for Birmingham was not the best in the world, for it could not be an honest bill. (Loud cheers by the Opposition.) It was because be thought the way the Government were dealing with the question of Parlia mentary Reform was precipitate, rash, and therefore reck less, he should vote for the amendment. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The debate, on the motion of Mr. Graham, was then ad journed at a quarter to two o'clock. The Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill was read a se cond time, and was ordered to be referred to a select com mittee. The Railway Clauses Bill and the Public Libraries Act Amendment Bill were committed pro forma. Tho Postmaster-General Bill was passed through com mittee. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Leave was given to introduce a bill to abolish forfeiture for treason and felony, and also a bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to bankruptcy in England. On the motion of Colonel TAYLOR, A new writ was ordered to be issued for the borough of Cambridge, in the room of Mr. Wm. Forsyth, whose elec tion has been declared void. The house adjourned at ton minutes past two o'clock. COOLIE EMIGRATION.—In the year 1865, 5,975 coolies from India and 2,758 from China were introduced into our West Indian and neighbouring possessions. The majority wont to British Guiana, above 3,000 to Trinidad, and nearly 500 to Honduras. 20,278 immigrants from India were introduced into Mauritius. In the course of the year 462 returned from British Guiana to their own country, taking with them money and jewels of the value of £11,485; 514 returned home from Trinidad, taking with them £14,000 in money and jewels. 3,621 returned to their own country from Mauritius, but there is no account of the amount of the earnings they carried back with them. IADVERTISEMENT.I - Holloway's Ointment and Pills.— Society's Safeguard. Whatever the disease may be, wherever it may discover itself, whether externally or in ternally, its victims may 'enter on Professor Holloway's treatment with hearts full of hope that every day will bring some amelioration of the infirmity. For the cure of ulcers, wounds, sores, abrasions, eruptions, abscesses, glandular swellings, and the generality of throat and chest complaints, the ointment need only to be used according to the instructions to insure a successful issue to the illness, and a desirable restoration to health and strength. In all disorders which have been of long duration Holloway's pills should be taken; they powerfully stimulate the circu lation, rouse the needful nervous energy, and induce re parative action. ITS. eri e ' llj COIJ NORTHAMPTON—APRIL 14. New white wheat, 43s to 48s ; new red, 39s to 47s ; white, 48s to 53s • old red, 43s to 48s per 3 6 stone. Barley for malting, 40s to 44s per qr. ; grinding, 38s to 41s per 3 0 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 345; new, 28s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 46s to 50s ; new, 40 s to 44 s per 38 stone. stone 36s to 40s per 36 stone. CHELMSFORD—APRIL 13. Hero to-day a good supply of wheat commanded late rates, with a steady sale. Spring corn of all descriptions fully as dear. Wheat, old white 468 508 \ Peas, Partridge ...... 365 9! new 438 5, 5 NVlute ...... ....::9 8 375 41. old red 42s 455 ...365 400 new. 36s 45s ~ --5 250 335 dit , o, new..• 408 388 42s }Pans, Tick, 01d.....• 359 39 i Dun _ e ....... .378 988 34s new. • •• 35 „2 42 i 58s Os Harrow ti(10.4,0 40, 6us 62i new. —. 365 4 .8 i —268 lOs Mazagan . ..... 348 Barley , Chevalier, Grind ng Malt Chevalier Oats GRANTHAM—Arm 14. Old white wheat, 52s to 545; old red, 48s to 50s ; white, 49s to 51s ; new red, 44 s to 47 s p er 36 stone. 13'w ley for malting, 34s to 40 s per qr. ; g rindin g , 30s to 33t3rq 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30 0 per -4 stone. Beans, old, 48s to 50 s; new, 43s to 46s per 38 stone' Peas, 36s to 40s per 36 stone. COLCIIESTER—APRIL 14. Only a limited supply of wheat ; but the demand hag improved is on the top prices recent l y quoted. barley s low demand, and rather cheaper. Beans and peas Wel' in favour of the seller. Wheat. white. 40a Ms Beans, Maaagan....• .2' ..., 36# ,7 400 .... re d 36s 485 Middle and small 02' A u Barley •. • 2BB 40 s Peas , w hite .......... 38 13 iiii Oats ... ..... ...20s 251 grey........ ••••361 ABERDEEN—APRIL 13. There is no change in the tone of the market, and " ri r :eell continue much the same White wheat 40 s Od to 48 s Od} 62115 li b u shel. Red wheat 40 s Od to 45 s Od Potato oats 24s 6d to 25s 6d} 40m v bushel' Common oats 24s Od to 24s 6d Bore 3os Od to 318 Od t 531 b il bu sbel. Barley 31s 6d to 32s 0d) 80M' Oatmeal 17s 6d to 18s 6d V boll a 2 ~,0 ". Flour, fine 37 s Od to 38 s Od ill sac k of 28, KIRKCALDY—APRIL 14. .ctrhe Small supplies of all kinds of grain. Sales q uick. and oats is per qr. up. Barley no change. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First...— 43s 6d ' 35s Od 27s Od :Second 44s 6d I 36s Od 1 28s Od Third 46s Od —s Od J 298 Od COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. _d. s. d. 6 1. 3 16 Lambert's W.Hartloy 1 7 0 Hetton Lyons ... . 0 0 _ , N.Staffordshire 17 0 Pensher P r i mr ose ... 0 3 Walls End Haswell... - 19 0 Tunstall ............... „. 9 Walls End Hetton ... 19 0 East Hartlep ool ...... ~- ' 99 F ramwe ll ga t e l6 6 Holywell Main ........• 15 ! T ees 18 9 Hartlepool ............ .1- Ships at market, 28; sold, 28. Foreign Mail Packet List MAILS DUE. k 11 i' Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton... 4,e o . 14 4 Ditto, via Marseilles ! ma 4 , Brazil and Cape Verde, by British packet ...... . • •'•-• Ditto, by French packet Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. ... .. .......... China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. •AP A'P-ti 21 Ditto, via Marseilles Falkland Islands ........ Gibraltar, via Southampton ........ ............ India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton...J .l _ 4 E lO7 Ditto, via Marseilles - 08 • India (Bombay), via Southampton. ................ AP Ditto, via Marseilles ...................... AP. 4 I 19 , Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton ...... 'O h io 0. Ditto, via Marseilles ........................ 14 Mauritius, via Southampton .... • day S. ................. oly Ditto, via Marseilles ..................... _„„f Newfoundland • , ... Portugal ... . . . . . ... .. .. . .....• Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon.. ............. United States and British North America, bY . APr tish packet ...... Ditto, by United States packet, via Southanlr ton .......... .... • Ditto, via Cork •„. . • ..... Ditto, by Canadian packet, via LondonderrY• • " West Indies and Pacific (except Bahamas and kor a a, Honduras) ................ •• •• ............. .An rtl 3, Cuba and Mexico J "" ...................... r o Bahamas, via New York . .......................... ; Bermuda, via Halifax West Coaat of Africa. Madeira , an d Tene;iie... .. .. .. . 0311:1 )3 EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.--Mie,,,144 papers give a return showing the arrival of inlin- . ft sv o r o f from Europe at the port of New York in the first clli' ° 010 the present year ; the numbers are 31,673. 111 ill quarter of 1865 there wore only 13,956. A fO rli ELOPEMENT.—An elopement is reporte- OLI Guildford. It appears that a M r. Routh, 011 ,, e c al to be a clerk in London, and who se father is said tccor a high position in the army , has for some time Dee°'".l lcitor ° responding with the daughter of Mr. Ilockley, 0, fO S of some local eminence at Guildford. The friend° °j, 0 young lady obtained information respecting this , l to te 4 they hoped, put a stop to it. They were rather 5 , i titl l on Saturday by finding that the girl had eloli oitli her lover, who had arrived in the neighbeurhOwitlel a friend. They met at Go dalmin g , walked to lira station, and there booked for London. '113°,, tel disappearance becoming known , her relative3o° g raphed to the station - master at Guildford, and co tri cated with the p olice at Godalming. Wile°, ;be 41 :0 s t o pped at Guildford the station - m aster fount' er e fl' d aways, and prevailed upon them to alight. r cie clof i ":l quite a scene, the girl saying she was of ago, e'l)olice6,o that she would never leave Mr. Routh, and th e r s - ii in efr e her father, who soon reached the station, ne ls to °B' S to persuade her to go home. Her father See r ° a t f °l. t been equally determined, and the young fellevr lie WO. h magistrate to aid him in getting off with his priie: 00131, e was away the father persuaded the girl to V 1 , 1 03 0 0 ° carriage by promising that when they got to 00 t 0 0 f matters should bo quietly arranged. She vi es A tree l l„ ° ,4 driven home, and Mr. Routh on his return tallte' bf rev : " his intentions, declaring that by stratagem, if si ,, (l o t- o ' t ~1 4, oit li ordinary means, he would again obtain posseS o '" 'la' # o° l llockley. There was a considerable crowd t" of Station during the time of the dispute. r liti is [ADvmerisEatENT.]-That the fearful annual It ° ;: $ 0, 1 „e0 62,010 young children and delicate persons of alt itb - ex pow ii; arrested, if, instead of fl ying blindly to pills 10 4 # 1° 11 1 , e ; p which, re though apparently relieving the l o g patiel'": deD' h j o l ft altniieci a l nodpolsuie,wtnsyaidishd, it o t t h h e e r d an tendency aor o tl itthe,a we e that w e re of 0 i i ra n c p r i e; stAo study{ n re p, .4 0 t1; to increase the vital force by imparting new allu_:: le i fib' upon d which the harmonious devopmet of tbe "fo P; iti thousands curesbeen saunccenusaslflyu.llyltprol:ed b y Du bite' 500:,010t and Infants' Food, the Revalenta Art; is el" - A fe r yields meat' Pd " easily assimilated nourishment as the best ,0 015. 0 children it is the best substitute for Wi lli 400 0 ir Routh, physician to the Samaritan Hospital for up Ole o . Children-the best authority on such matters ---1110010 I :00 able publication on Food, says-Amongst the l e g mi ree li "ois: stances, that which comes closest to milk La its '-r00d,,, 0 , is, without doubt, Du Barry's RCValelltS ArabiC: 0,1014011 i aining both phosphoric acid in abundance ellneple f e potassium ; it also includes casein, the same Pr''nder, iliiito is tound in milk in its constituent parts. 14011 - tek t itt fore, that under its influence many children "",,; dev_lte atrophy ( wasting away of the body), and insr'dorc- of have completely recovered. I have given it Wit h m e tree& advantage in such cases ; and so far as I inei it 1 ;0 t' a te. l own experience, practice fully carries out '.010 19- $4 O from a knowledge of its composition, led US t° ,„ .- 0 ; „(10 1/ : In tins, 11b, 2s 9d; 21b, 4s 6d ; 51b, WS; 1 2 •" t Ift" /le Regent - e t ; /ii te oisr 108.-Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, also Phillips, tea (hiders, 8, Icing WilliaM-Eartoolo.4o. 6,1 at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, A„Th - 0 0 " 9 0 street Within ; 63, 150, and 298. oxford-street 'r;o 10:1 6 1 d i 54, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-eo ur b -- I,l l ;_ n e s - 0 . , Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, Notting -- t ert A ol o Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen, sll- ; Or John's-wood. London; and all respectable g 17 : ., bl.-Beware of spurious imitations. ifi fj Births. „, 0 0 EMES—On the 14th inst., at VirolTerton, Due.— 100 of D. C. Elwes, of a son. .. 46 F A ENGLISH—On the 14th inst., at Colehill o°l4--' oL lir the wife of James English, Esq ., of son . street, " H ADDAN —On the 15th inst., at 21, Lupe - I, Belgravia, Mrs. H. Haddam , of a son. , CPI ° LEIVIs —On the 16th inst.,Grafton-squat the wife of Barnard Lewis, Esq., of a son. tc li : Marriages. t' o 0 14 CIIV , si 4 FRENCH— L EA — On the 12th inst., at St. ClelloolPG a, , Y Hastings, Sussex, Wm. French, Esq., of f j3l. is , folk, to Marianna Frances, eldest daughter° or c , C 11 ,,0 Esq., of Hastings. io .nc l4° o or 4 ll ' HILL —PILLEAU—On the 14th inst . at at St. -L of f'll,,'.o' John Henry, only son of H. R. Hill, s(l ,"'f kf t 'sro‘Y' v square, to Louisa, Fanny, eldest daught°rl,- of ' Esq., Deputy Inspector-General of Hospitt'''' square. 1 , fiv 0 Deaths. ir. O' ASIIBY—On the 14th inst., at 7, Aidgate, "' l'. t oo" aged 81. 01 0 tf CLUTTON—On the 15th inst., at his residenco,l3 tfo' Bognor, ff d ',J.. , Sussex, James Glutton, Esq. , fi D e 13 0 ' d' 7.1 isr LOCKWOOD—On the 14th inst., at 75, ...-° ) 0 Mrs. William Lockwood, aged 51. pill, 1 ,, LEND—On the 14th inst., . t Kingston-len- tic a ,. 41 , Leng, age d 83. 96, ' RxxsEGRD— On the 15th inst., at his residencew 6 9 ' of street, Leamington, John Bansford, re side, : 5 4 t, O e a l' STURT—On the 14th inst., at Critchill, D°" ,' L ied, Sturt, aged 71. n • s r 0, SMITH--On the 15th inst., at Plympton, -v. ° ,°10,10..,r G. Smith, late of the 26th Bombay Nat' s "' .AIPI - ° co , — VA UGHAN—On the 15th inst., at mob, Pr Vaughan, Esq., solicitor. zsi ....... ------ T.TSTA 1' 5914 7.1 fr'°f London: Printed and Pubiished by VP114.•-- n ioo o , l . 0) 1 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tits SO s 't,l3o '' Strand, in the Precinct of the Wig 311 fdiddleies.—Tuceday, April 17, 1860.