The Sun. — London, England, 1866-04-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING. The house met at four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given by commission to the fol lowing bills :—County Courts, Cattle Contagious Disease, &c., and Manchester Royal Exchange. The commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Earl Bessborough, and Vilcount Sydney. The house adjourned until five o'clock, when the Lord CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that he wished to state to their lordships, in reference, to certain observa tions which fell from tEe noble lord opposite (Lord Chelms ford) last night, that he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had given notice on Tuesday last of the matter brought for ward last night, and was therefore not at all out of order. Lord CHELMSFORD said it was true the noble mar quis had given the notice as stated, and apologised to him for his remarks last evening. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Holy head Water ; Rathmines and Rathgar Improvement; Leicester Cattle, &e. ; Briton Ferry Gas ; Heywood Water; Newark Gas ; and Leicester Water. The Central Wales Extension Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Some petitions were presented from differe n t pa r ts of Scotland against this bill, and praying that it might not be passed into law. EAST INDIA MILITARY FUNDS TRANSFIX, BILL. Earl DE GREY moved that the house should go into committee on this bill. The Earl of ELLEN - BOROUGH said that the manage ment of this fund was by no means an easy task, and its administration was of great importance to the poor widows and others who were entitled to claim benefit from the fund. He thought the present mode of disbursing the fund should be continued. After some observations from Lord LYVEDEN and Earl DE GREY, the bill passed through committee, and was ordered for third reading. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS --LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed:— Buckley Railway (Additional Powers), Columbia (Bethnal Green) Market and Approaches, London and South Western Railway (Poole and Bournemouth Junctions) and Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Shore Road Purchase, &c.) SITTINGS IN THE HOUSE. Colonel S. KNOX asked whether it was not a breach of the privileges of members for an officer of the house to remove the hat of a member after he had placed it on a seat. The greatest inconvenience arose from such a. course, and he wished to know whether the officer of the house was justified in the course he had adopted. Mr. RUNT said the course pursued by the officer of the house was very inconvenient to members who were com pelled to attend to committees. The SPEAKER said that some time ago a standing order was passed to the effect that a seat could only be secured by attendance at prayers, and an order had been made rescinding it. NOTTINGHAM ELECTION COMMITTEE. Mr. AD.AIR. brought up the report of the Nottingham Election Committee. The committee were of opinion that Sir J. R. Clifton and Mr. S. Morley were not duly elected to serve in Parliament, and that Sir J. R. Clifton, Mr. S. Morley, and Mr. Paget were guilty, by their agents, of, bribery ; that the last election was a void election, and that corrupt practices bad existed. Viscount CRANBORNE said he wished to put a question on the subject before the report was brought up. The orders of the house not allowing this course, The report was brought up. - _ Viscount CRANBORNE said he now had to inform the house that immediately the result of the committee was known, three sheriffs' officers pounced upon Sir J. Clifton and hurried him of to gaol. He was of opinion that a mem ber did not cease to be a member of the house until the report of the committee was brought up. (Hear, hear.) Be thought a breach of the privileges of the house had been committed ; and he therefore moved that the Sheriffs of Middlesex attend at tho bar of the house at 4 o'clock on Monday to explain their conduct. Mr. EDWARDS seconded the motion. Mr. ARYTON thought the Sheriffs ought to be sum moned to the bar of the house forthwith. Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that they should bring Sir J. Clifton with them. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WATKIN said he thought there must be some mis take, as he had met Sir J. Clifton some time after the deci sion of the committee; therefore, he could not be in pri- son. Viscount CRANBORNE said he had made his observa tion on the authority of one of the counsel engaged in the case. Mr. S. LEFEVRE said he had met Sir J. Clifton walk ing down Westminster-hall some time after the decision of the committee. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if such a circum stance had taken place a gross breach of the privileges of Parliament had taken place, but it would be well that the hon. member should satisfy himself of the whole of the facts, because it would be a particularly absurd position for the house to place itself, if, when the Sheriffs attended, they said they had not taken Sir R. Clifton into custody. Sir E. DERING said he bad not seen Sir R. Clifton walking along with a gentleman. (A laugh.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said as it appeared that Sir R. Clifton had been seen in the posses sion of his full personal freedom. (No, no.) He had been seen walking with a gentleman. (Cries of "A sheriff's offi cer.") Under all the circumstances the wisest course for the hon. member to pursue was to withdraw his motion until a later hour in the evening, when he would have time to fully inform himself of the facts of the case. He thought he had only done his duty in bringing the matter under the notice - of the house. The motion for the attendance of the Sheriffs at the bar was then postponed. fikth the Sheriffs of the City of London and Middlesex were present during the discussion, occupying seats under the Speaker's gallery.] THE SUPPLY OF COAL. Mr. LIDDELL asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attention of the Govern ment had been directed to the rapid exhaustion of our coal fields ; whether they were in possession of accurate infor mation upon the subject which they were propared to lay upon tho table of the house ; and, if not, whether they were prepared to direct that further'scientific research be made into this vitally important question ? Sir G. GREY said the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject. They were not in posses sion of any accurate information on the subject, and he questioned very much whether any other person had such accurate information as could be relied on. EMIGRANT SHIPS. In reply to Lord BURGHLEY, Mr. BRUCE said that the sickness on board the Ger man emigrant ship Hertha had been thoroughly inquired into, and found to be small-pox and diphtheria. Sixteen of the emigrants had died and been buried at sea, one three quarter miles from land, while the ship was lying at the Motherbank. Some others had been left behind at the Quarantine Hulk, but that hulk was so anchored that the inhabitants of Hyde need be under no apprehension of anchorage o danger. He f could not hold ou t any 'hope of c h ang i ng th e the hulk. FINSBURY PARR. th f e or Bath Mr. WC. TORRE=NTS asked the h on . member w h e n purchase was likely to be completed, 137 politan Board of Works, of the 250 acres of landth: y letr°- Were empowAred to buy and appropriate for Finsbury_p ar k by the Act of 1857 ; and whether they had agreed to sell, for building purposes, 20 acres out of the 120 acres now p os _ sessed by them, contrary to the intention of the Act re.. ferred to. Mr. TITS said the land had been purchased, but the Board of Works had not parted with any portion of it. POLLUTION OF RIVERS. Lord R. MONTAGU asked the Vice-President of the Committee of C intention to i ouncil whether the Governme nt had any i ntroduce a bill to amend the Public H ealth Acts ; and w h ether pollution it would contain any clauses w hich tion of rivers, in accordance with t he recent report of the Commissioners. Mr. BRUCE said he hopedwitie subject. to be able very shortly to in troduce a bill to deal THE DANttiAli PROVINCES. In answer to Mr. SA)mPou- o, Mr. LAYARD said the Conference at Paris had not broken up, and therefore it would itilbliz, of the house. obviously impolitic to place the correspondence on the AGRICULTURAL Mr. HUNT wished to know when the returns relative to had been af forded might be the county franchise similar to that which forded with respect to the borough franchis ex pected ? If his speech had been correctly reported it appear ed to him that he had hinted to the parochial au thorities not to make the returns without remunerati on . Mr. VILLIER S said such was not his intention. He r; v r intended that his ob servations should be taken in the lighte the hon. gentleman had mentioned. The Government had given remuneration for the statistics with respect to the borough franchise, and the same course would be pur sued with respect to the returns for the counties. Mr. DISRAELI said the returns relative to the altera tion of the county franchise were of the greatest import ance if the bill of the Government for the amendment of the representation of the people ever went into com mittee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHPQUER assured the right hon. gentleman that no unnecessary delay would take place. THE REFORM BILL. The adjourned debate was resumed by Ur. LEVESON-GOWER, who said ho could not com 1 pliment the great party opposite upon the mode they I had decided to adopt with respect to the bill ; instead of meeting it in a fair and open manner by moving its total rejection. He said the Government lad been told that the course they were pursuing with rear ect to the bill was like that of an architect who proceeded to build a palace room by room without any perfect or defined plan. He could not see that ; he thought it was like a person who bad built a farm. A careful person would first con struct his farm-house, and then he would set about putting up his farm buildings. He argued that the question of the extension of the franchise was sufficiently disconnected from that of the redistribution of seats to admit of legisla ting upon them separately. Adverting to the use which had been made by the opponents of. the bill, of what he termed the class argument, the hon. member deprecated the comparison instituted between classes in the course of the debate as fraught with danger, and he urged the house to accept the proposal on the ground of its moderation, warning them, at the same time, that if they did not they might Snd themselves, at no distant date, in the position of being obliged to concede a much larger measure. Mr. GREGORY said that the verdict of the country would be that the battle on the bill was going sorely against the Government. Up to that time no answer had been given, because none could be offered, to the speeches of Lord Stanley and Sir H. Cairns; but instead they had had erratic discharges against anything and everything but the amendment. One speaker had suggested that if the Go vernment were defeated their proper course would be a dissolution of Parliament ; but such an infatuated course would be met by an Address to her Majesty stating that the Parliament was perfectly prepared to deal with the question of reform when it was fairly and frankly submitted to them. It was a painful reflection that Ministers began the session with a working majority of 65 ; and now if they were water-logged with the present bill it was not the fault of Parliament. He characterised the proposal as a spectre, a phantom, a mere outline', and on the manner in which it was filled up depended whether it should develop itself an angel or a monster. He had no objection to the admission of the working classes, but only to the proposed manner of their entry. The franchise proposed was a mere brick-and -mortar one —blind and indiscriminate in its ex tent. It was not even what the working classes desired, for in all their periodicals and speeches they con demned the "occupation" qualification. In this view he concurred, and therefore he would have preferred the bill of Mr. Clay, the member for Hull, embracing an educa tional franchise. The measure of the Government, more over, was intended solely for the admission of a class, and he contended that safeguards, which the measure did not provide, were requisite to prevent their preponderance. Mr. YOUNG (Solicitor -General for Scotland) defended the measure, which, he said, contrasted favourably with Lord Derby's bill of 1859, and with the opinions then ex pressed by some of the most eminent leaders of the Con servative party. He granted readily that the bill was not proposed as a remedy for bad government—the country did not suffer from that. But such was really not the point. The question was that of good self-government ; and without the popular element there was no guarantee for the prosperity of the country. So long, then, as men who through their intelligence and industry were fit to exercise the franchise remained excluded, however good the Government might be, it was not self-government with respect to them. True, there might be ground for a difference of opinion as to the limit to be fixed, and he might be asked, Why prescribe a 7 occupation ? But the house was not invited to affirm the £7, or any other par ticular sum. That was a matter to be settled in committee; and the house was only requested now to affirm the prin ciple that a reduction of the franchise was necessary. He justified the method of proceeding adopted by the Govern ment as the only one which was open to them, seeing that they must know what the body created was before they could see about the distribution of power. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE criticised the views of Mr. Layard relative to the position of the working classes. He denied that their influence had diminished since 1832. If anything, from the spread of education, the higher rate of wages, and the increase of culture and intelligence among them, it had increased, until now they exercised no inconsiderable part in the formation of public opinion. He maintained that the Government could not possibly have had a more favourable concurrence of circumstances than the present for dealing with the question. If they were asked whether by this amendment they meant to express confidence, or not confidence, in the Government, the in terrogation was unnecessary. But as regarded the ability of the Government to effect a settlement, they had a fair right to say that the course of the Ministry was not such as to entitle them to confidence. They had not dealt with so great a question in such a way as to command faith. Neither did their arguments inspire confidence. No men tion was made by them of means being adopted to put down the corruption which was known to exist, or of any endeavour to mitigate the evil of making members the mere delegates of their constituents. On the contrary, the measure would rather aggravate those evils. He entreated the Government fairly to consider the position in which they were placed, and to remember that, by voting for the amendment, hon. members did not express any opinion on the matter of the extension of the franchise. Mr. COLERIDGE was very unwilling to intrude himself on the attention of the house, but he was very desirous to say a few words to explain how it was that some of the Liberal members sitting on that bench, although they felt strongly against the course the Government pursued, and censured the conduct of individual members of that Go vernment, yet were determined to support the bill and the course of that Government against the amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester. It was the more important he should do so, since the speech made last night by the noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire. That noble lord, so far as he confined himself to a defence of the accusations made against him, was perfectly entitled to de fend himself against them. It was no business of his (Mr. Coleridge's) to complain as long as he confined himself to a survey of his own character and conduct. But when he improved on the old story of Diogenes, and holding up a lantern to those benches near him, where it would appear he found nothing that was praiseworthy until he turned the glass fully on himself and there saw an honest man— (laughter)—it was time to enter on some explanation. As he said before, so long as the noble lord defended himself h m e en wa t s h r a i t gh th t, e b y u w t e w r h e e i n al h se e t s : id th t e o ir b p ° o n l e i s t t i c a a n l d co i n n v d i e c p t e io n n d s en in t voting against what they knew to be right he was entirely in error. He for one protested as strongly as words could do against so unjust an imputation. (Cheers.) He was in clined to believe that many of the wrongs which the noble lord conceived he had to endure were the result of an over-heated imagination. (A laugh.) He (Mr. Cole ridge) should vote against the amendment, because he believed it was ill-timed, badly constructed, and if car ried would not tend to settle the great question now under discussion—(hear, hear) —but rather create vexatious de lays and a long postponement of a final settlement. (Cheers.) He did not say that was the object the noble lord had in view, but it would be the result. (Cheers.) He disclaimed anything in the shape of a personal imputation against the noble lord, but he would take the liberty of saying that he never stated in that house that he was in favour of an extension of the 'franchise. (sear, hear.) On the contrary, somewhere or another it was pointed out in that house by an hon. member—and the noble lord did not deny it—that he did not desire reform: (Hear.) The noble earl must be aware that if his amendment were carried the whole question would be once more at sea. (Hear.) He must be aware that if the Government stood by this measure, as no doubt they would as men of honour, and were defeated, they must go out—(loud cheers from the Opposition)—and the whole Liberal party be broken up. (Continued cheers from the same quarter.) All those assertions were not far-fetched, but direct cer tainties, and the inevitable result of his amendment. (Hear, hear.) He would not say if the noble earl in proposing it contemplated those results, nor did he mean to assert that he had not a right to do so. All he should assure him on his own behalf was, that he was not pre pared to be a party in bringing about such a state of things, (Hear.) The noble earl in bringing forward that amend ment, looked around for a supporter, and certainly he could not have got a more powerful supporter than the noble lord opposite, the member for King's Lynn. (Hear.) He was the best judge that counsel ever had the good fortune to practise under. The speech delivered on that occasion was the best he ever made ; but in doing so he pledged himself to some measure at some indefinite time. (Cries of " Hear, hear," and "No, no.") He (Mr. Coleridge)fully r n e e m bl e e me lord rin cr g ed th it e fo e r ld wh ad a a t g h e— e sai wh d e ; n b h u e t se he w co w u h ld e not help the help h were his companions, and Saw him . surrounded by certain right hon. gentlemen —men of t he w hi e g re he w st e h n onou e r no dwn oubt, but but whose opinions o H are , fo u rtn ear.”) There w as th e r i ght hon.co country tr;:ent (Crie s leman t of “ ear, the member for Buckinghamshire, the right hon. and gallant general the member for Hunting.. don, the r igb h .t is ho ( n m . r g . e c n o tl i e e m rid a g n e, t e r h m on em . an ber d lfeoarnr Ileedrtfrifoornda tshheirme'emanbedr for Belfast. When the noble lord talked of reform, a n o d f course it h w e e m n e l a d nt be th o e n sa e me of rreedionromedasus tehreaygoa,dbvuo..t eate, rather. tighter,siadnedelfimithte it house.beyond (H an ea y r t , h h in e, g tr. that t had eoul been b e n e done on their m o r e n t d w m o ent di d gentlemen not pointed e itself to an extension of the suf fra g e, or d o sa u i t d t d h u a t, rin s tgritchtleydaepbeaatkie,nagn, tion of reform in the manner it had been e d th o e n a e edalativtiwthitthhefeqrutehse last 30 years. Suppose it were so, were hon. opposite p re p are d t o em bark on such a course a g a en th tl a e t m , e e l; were they prepared to vote for the amendment in that sense ? (Hear, hear.) Did they intend to deal with itin that sense ? If they brought in a Reform Bill, was it to be such a measure as had been brought in, and founded on the same principles as those on which reform was introduced during the last 30 years ? (Hear, hear.) If not, then he understood why it was they voted for the amendment, and if they intended doing so, th en th ey oug ht t o t e ll th e h ouse , if they were in earnest, why it was they took upon them selves to reject the measure of the Government. (Cheers.) He could not help thinking they were taking an unwise and dangerous course. (Cheers.) It was an unwise course, because the question of reform was not a question they would like to deal with. They could not deal with it with any success in the face of a powerful Liberal opposition. Now, having said so much, he did not mean to disguise , from the house that he entertained certain positive objec tions to the course taken by the Government. (Cheers from 1 the Opposition.) He would argue the matter fairly, and ; was very much surprised at those ironical cheers. (Cries [ of No, no.) He repeated that he had positive objections to the course pursued by the Government, and they could be better summed up than they had been by the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. Those objections must have arisen in the mind of anybody the moment he was told the measure was to be dealt with, not as one single bill, but piecemeal. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the objections to that mode of proceeding were unanswerable, but under the circumstances of the case, and having a choice of dif ficulties, the Government very wisely took that course which presented the least. (Cheers, and cries of No, no, from the Opposition.) That was his deliberate opinion, and under any circumstances a difficulty must have arisen with regard to the question of a redistribution of seats. Those at this side of the house were of opinion that a fran chise of £7 in boroughs, and £l4 in counties was a right and proper limit to which the franchise should be reduced. They thought that, as a matter of fact, that would give them the men who ought to have a vote, and it must not be forgotten that if the redistribution of seats would have an effect on the franchise, the franchise would also have an effect on the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) Then it was said the chief ground on which this question of the fitness of the working classes for the franchise was sup posed to stand was a speech which had been misunderstood and misrepresented ; and the charges brought by one hon. member had been answered by the hon. member for Westminster with an ability to which he (Mr. Coleridge) made no pretence. Then it was said if the franchise were given to the working'classes, the use they might make of it must, of course, be more or less a matter of conjecture ; but conjecture might vary accordi ng t o th e c h arac t er an d nature of the man who made it. For his part, judging of what the enfranchised classes since 1832 had done, he couldsee no ground for gloomy anticipations. He asserted, to the great credit and honour of the English aristocracy, that in the early part of this century they had, to adopt the words of Mr. Pitt, "saved England by their courage and Europe by their example." (Hear,and cheers.) But he said, nevertheless, taking the last 34 years, during which the popular element of the Constitution had greatly increased —the constituency at the same time increasing in force and numbers, and in weight and influence—nothing to surpass or equal it could be named in any assignable period. He hoped hon. gentlemen would bear with him in saying that the leaders of their party had been pretty consistent and constant in their vaticinations, but it did not please Provi dence in its wisdom to bless them with a true race of pro phets. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not believe for a moment in anything like a semblance of danger to the great party opposite or to the great interest which they re presented. He had said elsewhere—and as it did him no particular good, he might repeat it there—that he believed a wiser, a nobler aristocracy than that of England never existed upon earth. (Cheers.) Their wealth, their educa tion, their high honour, their great sense of justice, made them, whenever they pleased, the true leaders of the people. But now and then, chiefly, he believed from ignorance— (cheers and laughter)—ho was sure hon. gentleman would not think he meant anything offensive—he meant igne i:ance on the particular subject matter they had to deal with—he meant the feelings and interests of the classes not belonging to them—made them now and then legislate unkindly, just as the working classes, if they were legislating exclusively for them would now and then do them injustice. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time, that there was anything like a desire of the governing classes, or any desire for their overthrow on the part of the working men, he believed to be "like the baseless fa bric of a vision," and an idle tale. (Hear, hear.) It was said, and with some severity, that it was not so much the people they were afraid of as those who would lead the people. (Opposition cheers.) He did not pretend to speak of persons with whom he had no acquaintance ; but, cer tainly, as far as he could judge, it appeared to him that the one class of apprehension was as groundless as the other. Did hon. gentlemen opposite suppose that those who sat on those (the Liberal) benches could not see the beauty and the dignity of the many forms of social life to which they were supposed to be hostile? Did hon. gentlemen op posite suppose they had no imagination? Did hon. gentle men think they had never read history? Did they think they had no sentiment, which, on. the only occasion on which he had addressed that house, he had said was a very different thing from sentimentalism—(hear, hear)—and whatever :cynical gentlemen in their sublime wisdom might say or think, had always counted, and would always count, as there were hearts and feelings among men, as a great power in the affairs of men. Did hon. gentlemen op posite think they were blind to the charms of association, or deaf to the voice of tradition ? He told hon. gentlemen opposite they were not deaf to the voice of tradition. They cared for those things as much as hon. gentlemen opposite cared for them. They wished to preserve what hon. gen tlemen opposite wished to preserve; but they thought that could best be done by satisfying the just demands of the people, by showing confidence in them, by inviting them in large numbers within the gates of the Constitution, at which they were now knocking to be admitted. (Loud cheers, and cries of "Hear, hear") Guard, if they pleased, the grace of freedom by the majesty of the law; but he said it was hon. gentlemen opposite who were the true revolu tionaries, and not those who sat on his (the Liberal) side of the house. (Hear, hear, and cheers from the Minis terial side of the house.) Honourable gentlemen opposite rejected the moderate demands for popular advance, and instead of deepening the channel and widening the banks of the stream, they would drive it up and hem it in until the accumulated weight of its waters would break down the puny barriers, and bear with them destruction instead of fertility. (Enthusiastic cheers.) Mr. HORSMAN—I have listened, in common with all the house, to the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman with interest and admiration. (Hear, hear.) There has been throughout that speech an earnestness of tone and a clearness of reasoning, combined with frankness and gene rosity of spirit, which must constrain even those who do not agree with his opinions to acknowledge the ability and force with which he has expressed himself; at the same time I must regret to have perceived that the speech of the hon. s p d e e n e s c a h t e i o s n of the of all the e:nar gumentsandlearnwedhgicehnthleamveanmwaraksed the Govern ment members from the first day of the discussion until now. If, it is said, you are not a supporter of the Govern ment Bill you are not a true Reformer. Now, I protest against any Government Bill being put forward as a test of any man's opinion on Reform. (Laughter and cheers.) We are living in an age opposed to all tyrannical and arbi trary proceedings, and I object to any Minister taking a bill out of his box, and saying, " Here is my standard of liberty, every man who conforms to it 'regard as a brother, and every man who rejects it shall be excommunicated as an impostor." We know the days when there was a domi nant Church, which condemned all who did not belong to it, and denied them the character of Christians. We know that historians tells us that, in tho days of the Common wealth, the Fifth Monarchy-men passed two resolutions. The first was that Saints should govern the world; and the second was—" We are the Saints." (Laughter.) Now the arguments and language we have heard in this debate is another example of the tendency of history to repeat it self. The hon. and learned gentleman's speech has not been marked by the illiberal tone and the intolerance, which, if the occasion occurred,'would amount to persecu tion, that has characterised much which has fallen from;the opponents of the amendment. The Government are arro gating to themselves a monopoly of political zeal and virtue, and are heaping the most odious imputations on those who have been associated with them, who have made the advancement of Liberal ideas the labour and love of their lives, who have gone through the ordeal of sacrifice for their principles, which many of those now professing Liberal opinions have not been called on to face, and who only ask for themselves that liberty of judgment which I always understood to be the first and most sacred principle of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.) I was pleased when I saw the hon. and learned gentleman rise to address the house, for 1 was sure he would address himself to the mea sure of the Government and grapple with the amendment. Fairly and courageously he has adverted toboth these sub jects, and if he has not succeeded it was from no lack of ability, but from the difficulty of the task. (Oh, oh.) My hon. and learned friend in dealing with this question had a twofold task to discharge. He had first to show that the suffrage of the bill of the Government was in itself de serving of our support, and then he had to show that the bill, as part of the policy of the Government, was also de fensible, and was not open to the objections made to it by the amendment. How has he addressed himself to those two points ? He began with the suffrage bill, and he tells us that the noble lord urged three objections to the mea sure. Now it was strange that, when there is one obvious and frequently-urged objection, and one never answered yet, that the hon. and learned gentleman should evade that, and shculd raise up, encounter, ani demolish three other objections which were really never urged. What has been objected to is the principle on which the reduc tion in the suffrage has been made. We say the reduction ttt;holeecN franchisev n a i. m t e (drtoewanr: is in a downward direction on the principle of numbers. e (Hear, hear.) This is an argument which has never been met, but which has always been evaded. We sayalso that necessityrhome froma rx. n i . o 7o w lvt to o a er l t e t g l4wl e , dyoa would, o u ru nos that from the ithe t f b y exrs:e mi loweringstill tenilolfurther uer ts pressure,ihneo place in the £7 franchi se, and that, therefore, on that principle the bill is really a measure which offers no s ound of settlement un til you arrive at 'ground universal uffrage. (Cheers.) The same objection was made to the bill of the hon. member for Leeds, and it has never been answered. When we urged it against the bill of the hon. member for Leeds, we were ridiculed and denounced, but since then we have had electoral statistics which show the truth of our statements that by that bill the existing constituencies would have been swamped. The Government admit that, and, drawing back, will not give the same suffrage as that contained in the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. My hon. and learned friend says one of our objections to this bill is, that the working classes are unfit for the franchise. Now, that is an objection which certainly I have never urged. I have always said precisely the contrary. I have had meetings with the working classes for many years— meetings of electors, meetings of non-electors, and mixed meetings of electors and non-electors. I have often ad dressed them, but in no speech I ever made did I ever utter a word that by any amount of ingenuity can he construed into any disparagement of them. My objection to the prin ciple of this bill is consistent with the opinions which I have ever entertained since I entered public life. I have been told that I am inconsistent in my opinions on this sub ject. Now, it so happens that 30 years ago, at the very time I stood on the hustings, I encountered obloquy because on this subject I would not prOfess the opinions of the pro gramme of the Liberals. On various occasions I encoun tered opposition, and on the day of the declaration of the poll a riot took place where many of my voters were in jured. It is a curious thing I happen to know that within these five years on two occasions on the part of those who were anxious to convict me of insincerity, parties have gone down to Cumberland and groped through all the speeches which I have made for 30 years back in order to fix the charge of inconsistency upon me ; but the answer they have given to those who employed them was, that having made the most diligent search they could not find one single opinion I ever uttered about the House of Lords or Commons in the slightest degree at variance with the course lam now pursuing. One discovery they did make. They discovered that after I had been 17 years member for Cockermouth and had lost my seat, the constituency pre sented me with apiece of plate ; and they said as I was then a Liberal and had now ceased to be a Liberal I should return that piece of plate. (A laugh.) I answered that if they found out one single sentence in any speech I ever made which would convict me of inconsistency I would return it the next day to those who had presented it to me. (Hear, hear.) There is one comfort, sir, which my friends and myself have under all the charges which are brought against us. They have various circumstances to comfort them. But I have one substantial consolation. Ours has been the fate not only of great men before us, but of those whose re putation is at this moment of particular value ; and I am going to give the house an instance which, 1 think, will be peculiarly significant. It so happens that the constituency I have the honour to represent has been represented before I was connected with it by very eminent men ; and one of these eminent men, of whom the constituency has reason to be proud, was Lord John Russell, who represented Stroud for some years. Now it does so happen that Lord John Russell is another evidence of the fickleness and injustice with which Reformers may be treated by those who call themselves their best friends ; and he can bear testimony to the fact that with a section of the reformers of his own con stituency he was very frequently in the hottestwater. I was a member of this house when he made that memorable speech called the "Finality" speech, and which was treated with an injustice and political indignity we must look back to now both with regret and shaine. But on that occasion it did so happen that the constituencies which were then most prominently before the public connected with the Reform question are those also which have an un happy prominence at this time. When he made that decla ration I remember Mr. Charles Buller got up and in almost unparliamentary language accused him of bad faith ; Sir William Molesworth made it the subject of an address to his constituents at Leeds, and through them to the Reformers of all England ; then, as now, Leeds and Birmingham were the two centres of Reform agita tion, and took a prominent part in endeavouring to ex cite popular opinion against the member for Stroud. (A laugh and cheers.) I want just to show the house what oc curred on that occasion. The Spectator was at that time the organ of the advanced Liberal party, and in giving an account—l must say a very unfair account of the speech of Lord John Russell—it commented upon it in these words : "And they will not stand alone. There are indications in various parts of the country that the Russell declaration will bring forth good fruit. The council of the Political Union of Birmingham, weunderstand, have addressed their brother reformers of Stroud to require from him who mis represents them in the_ People's House the resignation of his hitherto convenient seat Last Tuesday Lord J. Russell declared that the intent of the Reform Bill was to give the landed interest' the ascendancy in the Legislature of the country, and added, still think that a preponder ance in favour of that interest tends to the stability of the general institutions of th em e country.' The phrase general institutions' is not remarkable for elegant precision, but taking along with it the eulogistic word stability,' w e learn that it was intended to express a preference for the political ascendancy of the squire and farmer class. . • . If the South Devonshire squirearchy do not return Lord John at the next election they will be ungrateful ; but what will the Reformers of Stroud say to their member ? . . • • The Political Union of Stroud, having taken into consideration the address of the Birmingham Political Union relative to Lord John Russell's qualification as a representative of his present constituents, passed a resolution declaring his lord ship an unfit person to represent the borough of Stroud in Parliament." THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1866. Why do 1 read these extracts? It is to ask gentlemen on this side of the house whether they do not now look back with regret and shame to the injustice with which Lord John Russell was then treated, and whether it ought not to teach them some charity to those who are now suffering similar imputations. (Cheers.) Lord Russell has lived to rebuke and shame those by whom he was then assailed and aspersed, and I have that faith in the justice and generosity of the English public that I be lieve the noble lord who has moved this amendment and his friends will equally have justice done to them notwith standing the imputations so unjustly cast upon them. (Cheers.) I will detain the house very shortly. My hon. and learned friend referred to the circumstances in which this Reform Bill was introduced. Se said it was necessary, and that it was inevitable. Now, let us for a moment in quire how far my hon. and learned friend was right in that statement. What are the circumstances to which my hon. and learned friend referred? In the autumn of last year we have been told by some members of the Cabinet that at the very first Cabinet meeting held after Lord Palmerston's death this question of reform was considered. What are the circumstances under which it was considered ? The Se cretary of State for the Homo Department told us the other night that the Cabinet found that at the election the great majority of the Liberal members had pledged themselves to reform on their election. My noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) showed last night that that was not quite accurate. But what was the character of those addresses ? Some one has, I understand, been lately collecting all the addresses of 'the Liberal members at the last election ; but if they had collected those of 1859 and printed them in parallel columns they would have pre sented a remarkable contrast. The dissolution of 1859 was on the question of the reduction of the borough franchise and consequently the address of every Liberal member contained a specific pledge to the advocacy of a £6 franchise. But the dissolution of 1865 took place under very different circumstances. The Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, speaking on this matter, told us distinctly that Govern ment did not go to the country on reform. He said they re ferred that question to the country, and when the country answered they would be guided by circumstances. The Li beral members took their cue from the right hon. baronet, and instead of pledging themselves to a specific reduction of the franchise they spoke of reform in general terms, and left themselves open to deal with it according to circumstances. What were those circumstances? They know very well so long as Lord Palmerston was Minister they never would be asked to support a large and comprehensive bill, because they knew he would consult the feelings and opinions of the public generally, and not take counsel with the member for Birmingham. (Cheers.) Thus, under these circum stances, the Government determined to undertake the ques-: lion of Reform. They had before them a letter written by my noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire, who had given notice to move for a commission. They determined to deal with Reform, and having taken that determination they determined to institute an inquiry, and with what re sult? They were so surprised that, if I am not misin formed, they sent back the statistics to be revised by the clerks; they really could not believe that they showed an accurate state of things. Am I misinformed on that point ? I had it on good authority, which I can state, if necessary, that the Government was so surprised at the effect - of the returns that they could not believe them. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer here said they had been sent back for a reason which did not reach the gallery.] The point is not a very material one ; but I believo the Government were taken wholly by surprise at the nature of the returns. Last year we were all told that some 12 or 15 per cent. of the working classes would be admitted to the franchise of the bill of my hon friend the member for Leeds ; and it was fermi by these returns that they number 25 or 26 per cent. of the town constituencies already. Well, the Government determined on introducing a bill dealing with the suffrage alone, and a paragraph in the Queen's Speech showed that that was their intention; but when we came to the discus sion upon the Address my right hon friend the member for Kilmarock (Mr. Bouverie) objected to that part of their policy, and stated in very strong terms that this side of the house of Commons would not be satisfied with a mere mea sure of that character. My right hon. friend's speech on that occasion rather astonished this side of the house, and it appears also to have terrified the Government. They in stantly modified their policy. It has been supposed that the noble lord who moved this amendment and those who support him were parties to the demand of the right hon. member for Kilmarnock for a more comprehensive bill. Now, I am not aware that any one member on this side who supports the amendment of the noble lord has at any time expressed a desire for a large and comprehensive mea sure of Reform. (Ministerial cheers.) My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech to which, if it were at an earlier hour in the evening, I should wish to refer, and in which he made a charge against me, that Lord tussell, of course under a misapprehension, also repeated—viz., that I was now against a fragmentary measure of Reform, although I had voted for it on former occasions, and that I now wanted a large and comprehen sive measure. Now will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the goodness to tell me upon what occasion either I or any one who supports this amendment have ever asked for a comprehensive measure of Reform ? He cannot mention any such occasion. The right hon. member for Kilmarnock, indeed, asked for it, but we never asked for anything of the kind. We watched with great curiosity the effect of what was going on, and we saw that the demand of the right hon. member for Kilmarnock was calculated very much to embarrass the Government. We know that it has embrrrassed them, but we were no parties to that em barrassment. It was open to the Government to take one of two courses--either to stand to their policy of bring ing in a simple Franchise Bill, or to abandon that line and introduce a bill dealing both with the franchise and with the redistributionof !mtg. Either of these linen 9f actl9ll they might have adopted, and either would have been de fensible or at least intelligible, and if defeated upon either they might have been defeated wihout discredit. But they chose to pursue a third course. They said, "We will give you a large scheme, of which we will show you a part, and you must commit yourselves to that part before you have seen the whole." That was only a transparent device, but of course it offered an opening to the right hon. member for Kilmarnock and those who concurred with him to come back and vote for the Government. Yet I think their re turn has been rather dearly bought, because, although their votes may save the Government from defeat, still they can only carry the division with the aid'of those votes by a narrower majority than any Government was ever satis fied with before. (Cheers.) And, under such circumstances, their victory must be more damaging and more humiliat ing than:any defeat could have been if they had taken a more direct and manly course. (Cheers.) Sir, the Govern ment changed their policy, and then it was that the amend ment of the noble lord the member for Chester came in. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adhered to the Suf frage Bill, he would have heard no objection from us on the ground that he did not also deal with the redistribu tion of seats. (" Oh !" and cheers.) I beg to tell my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am only now stating what is consistent with the course which I have all along pursued; and I will make that clear and intelligible in a moment. What we should have done would have been this :—lf the Government had introduced and adhered to their simple Suffrage Bill, we the supporters of , the noble lord's amendment, would have discussed that bill upon its merits. We have discussed it as we discussed the bill of the hon. member for Leeds last year. It would have been a small scheme, but so far as their policy was concerned, it would have been perfect and complete;_ but when without any demand or any objection on our part they change their policy, and say, "We will deal also with the distribution of seats," then we said, "As you are going to deal with a larger scheme we ask to see it." (Hear.) That was the ground on which the noble lord moved his amendment. The ground was put in a: very simple way by the noble lord who seconded the amendment, who asked what would you say to an architect who offered to build you a room as part of a house without letting you see the plans or estimates for the whole building. Your reply would be " you are not sincere ; you do not intend to build it all." Ministers say thal they do not understand the amendment, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me his attention for a moment I think that I can make it intelligible. Lord Stanley said, "Why should you deal with reform upon different principles from those on which you deal with [finance—why should you take part of the scheme, and ask the house to agree with it, without your submitting the whole scheme ?" Now, in this house there is nothing like dealing with great authorities. In this house we are slaves to authority, and on any grave question of this kind, if any one whom we respect as an authority has enunciated a particular doctrine we respect and abide by it. On the motion for the repeal of the malt tax an eminent financial authority used these words. He said, " This is an attempt to commit the house to conclusions while the house has not in its possession the means of judgment, and the only effect can be to fetterthe future action of the house, and to create embarrassment and disappointment." Now those are wise words, and they were uttered on the 18th April, 1866, on the motion for the repeal of the malt tax, and the great authority by whom they were uttered was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (OppoSition cheers.) I ask him does he understand the amendment of the noble lord, for the amendment is based on his own - words that I have just read? My hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cole ridge) addressed himself to another point of the case with great force and effect and in the spirit of truth, with which we all agree. He said, " This is a party question; remember what you are about; you will break up your party; you will bring in the gentlemen on the other side of the house; that is the result which I cannot myself keep out of sight, and I will not take the responsibility of any such proceeding. Now we must remember that ever since the Reform Act the Liberal party has consisted of two distinct sections, a mode rate and a more advanced section—and although the mode rate section has, during the greater part of that time, out numbered the others in the proportion of three or four to one, it has never on any question attempted to fetter the free action of the more advanced section, whose freedom of action has brought them into cohesion with successive Li beral Administrations, and overthrown more than one Go vernment. The Government of Lord Aberdeen was over thrown by a motion of the hon. member for Sheffield, sup ported by hon. gentlemen opposite, and supported by what I may call the flower of the old Whig party. Only three years after that the Government of Lord Palmerston was outvoted on the China question, on the motion of Mr.Cobden, supported by gentlemen on the other side of the house, who were Mr. Cobden's great supporters on that occasion ? The two most eminent and illustrious names in that division were that of the noble lord at the head of Government, and that of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But my hon. and learned friend says " You must take care whatyou are about; you ought not to bring forward a ques tion in which you have the support of the opposite party, for it may lead to a change of Government, and that is to be deprecated." It does so happen that when Lord Palmer ston was outvoted, on the motion of Mr. Cobden, seconded by the President of the Board of Trade—(hear)--the debate was a remarkable one, it was a remarkable division, and it had a remarkable result. But what it was most remarkable for was a speech that was delivered by no less a person than my right hon.friend the President of theßoard of Trade. The right hon. gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) then told his friends that they were not the less to vote for the amendment because it was supported by hon. gentlemen opposite, the great majority of the Conservative party ; and he went on to say that the motion of the hon. member for the West Riding expressed the views which ho had always entertained throughout his private life; and the right hon. gentleman then went on to show the manner in which independent Liberal members had been treated. He told the houso there had been a meeting of the Liberal party lately at the residence of the noble lord (Palmerston), and he read the report of it in the public newspapers,for it seemed now to be the fashion to publish the reports of these private political meetings. He said the meeting was remarkable more for the absence of certain eminent political men than for those who attended ; for amongst the names he did not see those of Lord Russell and many of his immediate friends. He should like to know what pledges were given, or induce ments held out, and he felt bound to make this statement because he felt that many members for the sake of saving a Ministry would give their votes not in accordance with their convictions. The right hon. gentleman then referred to the disagreeable pressure that had been put on hon. members to induce them to change their views as of a cha racter that couldonly be put on voters at some provincial contested elections in order to compel them to vote in this or that direction; and he concluded by saying that hon. gen tlemen were at liberty,with due regard to the public interest, to pronounce their convictions on the motion of the hon. member for the West Riding. I am only reading all this to show how in these days hon. gentlemen now deny to us the liberty and freedom of action they themselves adopted on that occasion. Those gentlemen were, no doubt, acting conscientiously, but we are now called dirty conspirators. Was not the charge of conspiracy brought against them ? In the list of the names of the Liberal party who voted on that occasion among the most eminent were those of Lord R. Grosvenor and Sir Francis Baring. They repudiated the charge of being conspirators, and the latter said he never came to a vote with more personal pain or after more anxious inquiry, but he never gave a vote with a clearer conscience, and if the time came over again he would do the same thing. Two years later the same kind of thing occurred. The Consfpiracy Bill was brought forward, the motion against it came from this side of the house below the gangway, and was supported by the other side, and Lord Palmerston was ejected from office. I want to know how it was that this was done, and why we should not now be allowed the same liberty of action. Hon. members had on that occasion imputations cast upon them for the course which they took, and they now cast the same sort of imputations against us. I want now to say one word as to the amendment of my noble friend. We are told the issue is changed, that this is not a• question of reform but a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Now the Government have it in their power to convert any ques tion they like into a vote of want of confidence, and the hon. and learned member for Belfast said the other evening that the Government might even make a motion for the adjourn ment of the house into a vote of want of confidence. But in these cases the Government must show their supporters that the occasion is one which renders that course necessary and legitimate. We all remember, with reference to the amend ment of my noble friend, what occurred the day previousto the recess. My noble friend said he brought forward his amendment in no unfriendly feeling to the Government, and he was anxious not to embarrass them ; and he said if the Government would give in substance what they did in spirit, and produce the whole scheme of reform which they had only seen in part, he would gladly withdraw from the opposition. But my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not only immovable but defiant, and he changed the amendment into a vote of want of confidence, the differ ence of opinion being simply this, whether the bill for the redistribution of seats which he had prepared should be laid before the house a day before or a day after the second reading of this bill. Was there over so narrow and so need less a basis for a vote of want of confidence? The right hon.gentleman said, first we can show you what you want, but won't do it; you shall only have that sight when the bill shall be no sooner produced than withdrawn till next session. (Cheers.) But even then the noble lord was anxi ous to explain to the Government and the house that a vote of want of confidence is not what he meant, and ho expressed his sincere respect for the noble lord at the head of the Government, and his concurrence in the policy of it ; and I must say, although I feel strongly as to the manner in which the question of reform was revived immediately on the death of Lord Palmerston, because I believe it has been against the wishes and feelings of this country—(cheers)—still, as to the general policy and proceeding of Government since it came into office, I have seen many things to approve and commend, and nothing justly to condemn. If the Govern ment had been tried by a vote of want of confidence on their general policy they would have been supperted on this side of the house, and there would not have been a single defaulter. (Hear, hear.) Was it wise of them to raise a false issue on the one question on which there were so many dif ferences of opinion as reform, in reference to which they were reversing the policy of the most popular minister of later days, and in a parliament elected under his auspices ? But I will ask again, is this question of reform a particularly favourable one on which to take a vote of want of confidence? Is it not one on which all members of the Liberal party are treading on dangerous ground ? We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the question of reform is now practically in the hands of the same Government who during the last 14 years have produced a series of reform bills, every one of them containing a £5 or £6 franchise, and all based on the repeated, unqualified assertion that the working classes were wholly excluded from the franchise. (Cheers.) But the statistical returns 'lately presented to the house show that has been a mistake, and that 26 per cent. of the pre sent constituencies are of the working classes. (Cheers.) Does not that convict the Ministers of having been legis lating carelessly, thoughtlessly, rashly, and dangerously ? (Loud cheers.) Does this constitute on their part a claim to our confidence ? And as they have leapt in the dark, are we to leap in the dark also ? The error being dis covered, the Government admit that a £6 franchise would swamp the existing constituencies, so they add one pound that they may postpone the process for a few years ? But what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say ? He says individually he has no objection to the £6 franchise. He is prepared to accept it with all its conse quences. Although he does not press it upon us now it is his sincere opinion that no practical inconvenience could pos sibly arise from allowing the working classes to be the majority of the whole of the constituencies. I gather now if my right bon friend were out of office next year, and was to vote according to his opinions, that the friend of house hold suffrage or those of a more extended suffrage need not despair of his support. This may be very fine and very courageous, and it may be very sound and wise, but it is not the opinion of Parliament or the country, and does not establish any fresh ground of confidence. I have no con fidence in the measure, and I have still less confidence in the means that have been resorted to to force it upon a re luctant Parliament. I must say I see with regret a Minis ter of the Crown joining, assisting, and encouraging that agitation. I must say that such a course is unprecedented —that when a minister of the Crown has laid upon the table an important public measure which stands as the first measure to be considered after the recess, and which is deserving of claim and dispassionate consideration—l say it is unprecedented in the history of parliament that that Minister should go down to the provinces—(cheers)— and endeavour to excite agitation in favour of his own bill. (Renewed cheers.) I do not express my regret with any desire needlessly to hurt the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(laughter and cheers) — but I think it is still more without parliamentary pre cedent that the leader of the Hauge of Commons should go down into the provinces and make a speech to the dis paragement of the house of which he is a distinguished member. (Cheers.) Now such proceedings may excite a temporary enthusiasm, but lam sure that that enthusiasm is dearly purchased by the loss of dignity and influence that must follow when he resumes his place in the house. (Cheers.) Imust say that the right hon. gentleman is also unfortunate in the illustrations he has employed when he described the position of the Governlnent, for he said we have broken down our bridges and wo have burned our boats. Well, sir, but these are the acts of desperate men. (Cheers.) They are not usually such as to inspire confidence. They are usages of war, of aggression, of conflagration, and desperation. (Cheers.) Why is the peaceful object of the Government to carry a reform bill to be associated with such appalling images? How is it that in a time of such profound tran quillity, when Ministers have succeeded to an inheritance of peace, when there is an absence of party strife or political passion; how is it, I say, that their position is so perilous, so critical, that the ministry should go into the provinces and become agitators ; and that in the flights of an excited imagination they should describe themselves as political desperadoes, and all this as a ground for claiming our con fidence ? (Cheers.) I can only say let those in whom they inspire confidence follow the ministers whose position is described by broken bridges and burnt ships. I prefer, for my part, the guidance of those whose mission is more peace ful, whose language is more assuring, who can contemplate great constitutional changes with the calmness of states men, and who can win the confidence of the country by appeals to reason, leaving to others the more exciting arts of agitation, and trusting for success to the goodness of their cause, the purity of their motives, and the grateful sympathy and support of an approving country. Mr. BRIGHT moved the adjournment of the debate, amid cries of " Go on, go on." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that they had arrived so near the hour of midnight, and consi dering the protracted length of the debate, he did not think they could press any hon. gentleman who wished to address the house to proceed at that hour. He thought it would be for the convenience of the house if something like an understanding were come to as to when the debate was likely to terminate; and whether the right hon. gen tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared to express any opinion on the subject. He hoped that on Monday or Tuesday they would come to a decision on this important question. (Cries of " Friday, Friday.") Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I am willing to use any influence I may be presumed to possess towards the regulation of a protracted debate like this upon an important subject. I have always sincerely desired to keep in view two objects —the ono was, to secure, as far as I could for both sides of the house, a fair and free discussion ; and the other was, when that discussion was obtained, to facilitate the pro gress of public business, even if I disapproved of the mea sures of the Government. (Cheers.) Now, there is no doubt that the discussion upon the amendment of the noble lord has been protracted for a considerable period— but I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that the subject is one of vast importance—and though not wishing to say anything the least discourteous to the right hon. gentleman, I must remind him that there is in this debate a peculiarity which has given it this pro tracted character, and may probably be extended beyond that period which was at first anticipated. (Cheers.) The house will recollect, and it is but fair to the noble lord who moved the amendment, as well as to those gentlemen who support it, to bear the fact in mind that that this debatewas adjourned during the recess in a peculiar manner ,to another place..(Cheers and laughter.) The consequence of that operation, upon which I wish at present to make no comment, in its effects on the debate in this house has been that a great many speeches must be answered which were not made in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) The Chan cellor of the Exchequer will admit that not contented with the usual speech of Ministers in introducing a measure, not contented with the ordinary expositoryspeech in his place in Parliament, he took the opportunity of visiting the county palatine, where he made no less than six speeches on this subject. (Cheers and laughter.) Underany circumstan ces should not think myself entitled to make speeches to that amount. We on this side of the house are not in the position of the most favourable mortals before us, and as my name has been mentioned frequently in the course of this debate it will not perhaps be thought unreasonable in me to expect that the house will allow me to make a few observations before it terminates. (Cheers and laughter.) The debate will be opened on Monday by an orator of commanding .. powers, w i h n a t te o whatever ta differencesdding someof ofpnienlitonn,thseoldfiorem. entersw who, • •which have debate may without (Laughter.) From communications been made to me not only by gentlemen whek honour me with their confidence and friendship, but by some accounts from the benches opposite I do not think that this debate will be concluded by Monday evening ; but perhaps by that time wo may be able to form some estimate as to the period of its conclusion. (Laughter.) Under these circumstances tke right hon. gentleman will agree with me that it will be necessary, in order to ensure the termination of the debate at some reasonable period, that we must all of us be pre pared to make some sacrifices. All cannot expect on this motion the opportunity which I am sure all would enjoy. (Laughter.) But still I think that on Monday evening we shall be able to see how the debate is proceeding, and I should certainly hope that before the end of the week we may see its termination. (Cheers and laughter.) The debate was then adjourned till Monday. t 4; x CHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL. This bill was recommitted, and, after some discussien, Mr. AYRTON pointed out that by the wording of the clause, while the comptroller was rendered ineligible to sit in the House of Commons he might have a seat in the House of Lords, and suggested that the phraseology should be altered so as to prevent any member of either houso from holding that office. Mr. CHILDERS accepted the suggestion. At a piarter to two the CHAIRMAN, on the motion of Sir G. BOWYER, reported progress. The Local Government Supplemental Bill passed through committee. The Art Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Prosecution Expenses Bill, as amended, was con sidered and agreed to. The Lords amendments to the Cattle Sheds in Burghs (Scotland) Bill was agreed to on the motion of Mr. WALDEGRAVE LESLIE. On the motion of Mr. LowE leave was given to bring in a bill to indemnify William Hamilton Forsyth, Esq., from certain penalties to which he may be liable for sitting and voting as a member of the House of Commons while hold ing the office of standing counsel to the Secretary of State for her Majesty's Council in India. The bill was introduced, and passed through all its stages. The house adjourned at two o'clock. We regret to announce the sudden death of Sir Frederick Roe, well known for many years as chief magis trate of the metropolitan district. He died very suddenly yesterday, in the 67th year of his age. He was/ appointed a police magistrate at Marlborough -street in 1822, and chief magistrate at Bow-street in 1832. He resigned in 1839. IADVERTISEMENT.I Holloway's Pills.—These pills are better for strengthening a debilitated constitution than any other medicine in the world. Persons of a nervous habit of body, and all who are suffering from weak digestive organs, or whose health has become deranged by bilious affections, disordered stomach, or liver complaints, should lose no time in giving these admirable pills a fair trial. Coughs, colds, asthma, or shortness of breath are also within the range of the sanative powers of this remarkable medicine. The cures effected by these pills are not super ficial nor temporary but complete and permanent. They are mild as they are efficacious, and may be given with eQ 11 A(10DCO to delicate females And young children. SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNAL v A4i.. ) ,o TIMES.—The news from the continent which We have to announce to-day will, if substantiated b; subsequent advices, be received by all classes in this country with unfeigned regret. Within the last few days the hopes that peace w o u ld be preserved h ave become strong and general. The scrup l es of tn Prussian King, the natural abhorrence of his pe o pl e e from a policy which would tend to imbrue their hands in the blood of thei r kindred, t h e position r taken by Bavaria, Saxony, and the o ther minor States, and, not least, the reproof which the F r n sian pretensions had met w ith f r om the enlighten t': opinion of Europe, gave reason to believe that .Z more aggressive Power would be restrained Ir u to o violence. pens t r i ß f e u But has,no an araec informed,w hi quarter whence it was least expected. Austria unable to be consistently prudent. After bringw o l the world to her side by the comparative justice he her cause and the moderation of her language, l s neo ellmay co P me ss ft il i n ! t r e o throws away these advantages, and hastens to pi i , e herself in the wrong. Far more important than th e immediate settlement of Schleswig-H o l s tein isl` t i maintenance of peace, and if Austria be content o stand on the defensive in the n ame of Ger man ~, liberty and the rights of the Confederation , t he question of the Duchies may be s e ttled peaeeabl t some future time under the advice of friendly to Powers. But an unaccountabl e fatality seem s A urge the Court of Vienna to take the wrong step the most critical moment. If th e Emperor's 'V; enemies had been at his ear, they could hardly ° given him more evil ad v i ce th an openly t o threat en his adversary, and to seem to precipitate a contes' d And yet this, it is said, he has done. We ar e to o n that at a Council held yesterday at Schonbru the Emperor and Count Mensdorff, again st ' re , is added, the advice of some other Ministers' : aa solved to withdraw Count Karolyi, the Aust i n., Ambassador, from Berlin, and this decision bal l ; been made known to M. de Werther the Prus sian Ambassador at Vienna, it was expected that hew o.wt e take his departure immediately. The inuned l ,l cause of this rupture is said to b e th a t Count } O S; dorff, after receiving the Prussian answer of r, 15th, telegraphed a repetition of the Austriall,l o mand of the 7th, and received a fresh refusal Thursday. A Council was then held, alla "i o opinion of the Emperor and his Minister beinG e favour of the bolder course, it was adopted. .” fear this act must be looked upon as someth ie j , o more than one of those suspensions of diplonla' ns intercourse which are usual when Courts or nat; e o f are irritated with each other. The withdrawal the two Envoys is also, if we are correctly inforlar, e to be followed by a military movement which world will regard as made in anticipation of war, An order was to be despatched t o th e General el.' cer commanding the Austrian troops in Holst e l ordering him to fall ba c k th roug h Hamburg a n Hanover, leaving only a few companies in t ; re Duchy. There will be naturally a tendency to gl ee great importance to this last piece of inteHige, ll . 4 ; If we find that Austria abandons the Duchy Ici a "„f she occupied, and leaves it open for the advanc e ,'" the Prussians, people will conclude that the Eon; ror purposes some military movement himself . ° e that he feels certain that Prussia is about to strr„ a blow. It may be that the latter reason 11 0 4,1 fluenced him. We have more than once remarl bo that the dangerous point in this dispute was, it isolation of an Austrian corps in a position where might be easily overwhelmed. Such a temptatt might be too much for the virtue of an arebitia a Minister. Count Bismark has been able all a l t he to treat Austria as if she were at his mercy in " Duchies, and the consciousne ss o f thi s t en ded to la crease Austrian irritatio n . Wh e th er it b e that Al ifs a ; tria has received what s h e thi n k s to b e pro of of .„„ f intended attack, o r w ithd raws h er unprotec t e d Arl: h d o Corps in order to b e h erse lf a bl e to assume I— t offensive, it is equally certain that the abandonla of Holstein—if it ac t ua ll y t a k es place—will be g a to be an act in anticipation of war, and will ell e general alarm. A fe w d ays w ill b e tt er d e fine t tho course of this unhappy di spu t e. W e h ope that, hi Emperor will not allow hi s counse l s t o b e s wayed anger, and that time w ill be given for reflection a„ d an the efforts of peacemake rs . It may be that, we'l l ' o with the violence and subterfuges of Prussiag, at desires to bring matters to a cr i s i s , believing tu e , the boldest course is the safest a n d th e m ost peo o f ful: But every one will be disagreeably remincle4oo the rashness which hurried Austria into an invas ion of Piedmont seven years ago. At that time ti' e he were not wanting active friends of peace. 'rig course of events might have been notably altere Austria had remained on the defensive, and a' l , dared that her sole purpose wits to defend her O ur rights as guaranteed by treaties ; but f r om the hour that the Austrian army crossed th e Ti c i no theca' was lost. Even if an attack on the Holstein Core, were imminent, it would be better to leave to CO Bismark the dishonour of such an outrage, the s u ji cess of which would bring no discredit on the ma s Austrian force thus ove rw h e l me d. W e ate inclin ed to think that, whatever the temptation, the Prussl o Government would hesitate to seize the duchy wh i the Austrians held it. There are limits to the eoi l l ; tempt which the most high-handed; ruler c a . , show towards the public law of Europe,_ esP ec t , i ally when it is under the guardianship of a gr. e i, military power. Although we cannot but an pate a greate increase of the difficulties of this quF 6 tion from the imp ru d en t ac ti on o f th e Anatri ao Government, we do no t b y any means look upon the peace as broken, or war as inevitable. Th ere + ;a is, happily, a great distance between diploma is rupture and actual hostilities. The act of Aust r will probably be followed by an increase of arms, ments and a concentr a ti on o f f orces b y t h e two „ ponents. There will be fresh despatches and ma n ." accusations and recri m i na ti ons. B ut as long a A ; blood has not bee n s h e d , t h ere i s no reason to i,-; spair of a settle men t . I t becomes, therefore, duty of humane an d conscientious statesmen hot!' in Germany and elsewhere to be more energe_ d t le than ever in di ssua di ng t h ese wrong-headed povirc',„ from the course on wh i ch t h ey seem to hal" entered. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL.—FRIDAY. There was a moderato attendance at this day's market'u and there was very little busi ness pass i ng in wheat, whin t remains at previous rates. Flour dull, and prices all : u nominal. Indian cor n i n good request—mixed Ariler b ' - 28s 9d to 295. DERBY—FRIDAY. 3 6 New white wh ea t , 5 3s to 578 ; old red, 49s to 52s PeAFro stone. Barley f or ma l t i ng, 38s to 40s per qr. ; gr il r g i g to 30s to 32s p er 30 stone. Oats, new, 21s to 26s ; ‘'o 33s per 24 stone. Bean; old, 51s to 525; new, 4 4 $ t ° per 38 stone. LINCOLN.—FRIDAY. 1'3 6 New white wheat, 52s to 55s ; n ew re d , "43 B t o CsP e ws; stone. Barley for malting, 36a t o 44 s per qr ; grk e(l 4o tO 31s to 34s per 30 stone. Oats, 27 s t o 32 5. Beans, *1 51s per 38 stone. S T AMF ORD--FRIDAY. r New white wheat, 47s to 50 s ; re d d o., 42 s t o 47 0 p er stone. Barley, malting, 36 s t o 40 s ; gr i nd i ng, 28 s to no, per qr. Oats, new, 24s t o 28 s ; o ld , 28s to 30s per 24 SO Beans, 43s to 46s per 38 stone. Peas as of late. WAKEFIELD.—FRIDAY. Wheat generally higher, except for damp parcels. -.-0 quiet. Barley unalt ere d. B eans an d oats were 101 - dear. Averages, April 14.—Wheat, 2,282 qrs , a t 47s 7;d; barley, 170 at &s ; oats, —at --s Od. BRISTOL SUGAR.—PRIDAY. The market has been very dull during the week, rutui 3l few sales made. Prices are fully 6l p er cw t . lower. *- sells slowly at late rates. Births. Fowmt—On the 20th inst., at 58, Kensington-gard eo4 square, the wife of B. Fowler, Esq., of a daughter. , 0 HOGG — On the 19th inst., a t E as t- ga t e H ouse , Stafford/ tw wife of Colonel Hogg, of a daughter. frg. HARRIS—On the 20th inst., at Belmont, Twi c kenham, • 0 " --- Ir. P. Harris, of a son. 01 MACONOCHIE—On the 19th inst., at Wimbledon, the '9/ e Alexander Maconochie, Esq., of a daughter. Marriages. ' t i f FLUDYER—HODDER-0/1 the 19th fiat., at St. Georg e OS/ Hanover-square, Captain Fludyer, Grenadier GuL t . eldest son of the Rev. J. H. Fludyer, of Aston Hall, Bu f land, to Lucy, only daughter of Colonel M. H o dder, ° Hoddersfield, county Cork. lIIINTER—TILDESLEY-- On the 19th inst., at Christ Chlir ci !' Ealing, Henry J. Hunter, of the Admiralty, Doctors i commons, to Catherine Louisa, third daughter of SO° Tildesley, Esq., of Castle Bar Park, Ealing. Deaths. g BLATCHLEY—On the 17th i ns t., a t F e lt ons, B arro w, „ 74 „- folk, Edward Blatchley, E sq ., o f 9 , R usse ll- p l ace , x - roy-square, aged 37. CREMEHinst., On the 19th Ann, widow of the late Ca Pt. Cremer, R.A., ag e d 50. ve DUNNICLIEFE —Oll Sunday, at Richmond, Surrey, 3:1 Dunnicliffe, Esq., h.p. Royal Artillery. GREATHEX—On the 18th inst., at Rhyddlan, Flintsllu~+ C- B. Greatres, Esq., aged 79. • t it: JAMES —On the 13th inst., at Rome, H. C. James, J-J' e Colonel H.M.'s Bengal Staff Corps. AgtOlf LEMMON—On the 16th inst., at 15, Portland-square, BA -- W. Lemmon, Esq. MALLEsox—On the 19th inst., at Oakshot, near Eslo• r 1 F. T. Malleson, aged 81. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM AN9 l6 02, of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at Tro: Susi a lee, I C .. . ° " t y Of Strand, in the Preeinet of the Savoy . in COw" middimx,--gaturday, April_2l, 1866. I