The Sun. — London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

the Conserv e fl re p art y had to consider what course to take if Lord J. RV filWll should take up the question again. I be lieve I may fly. that was a subject which was considered by the most em heont and loading men—many now departed or lost to us-1 rem held in the highest honour for their integ rity and Pu' 'elk spirit, like the late Duke of Richmond, Mr. Banks, and others who sat in this house—and many who still live an el were in intimate communication with Lord Derby, and - .they came to the resolution that if Lord J. Russell geese up the Act of '32, nothing would induce them to take up op position to Parliamentary Reform. And their course has been consistent throughout. There never was a bill brought forward of any importance in its details of which the : econd reading was opposed by us. I think I have traced the Teestion now at least to the relinquishment of finality, and. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that there vae no appearance of Reform being made a party question until that period. Many hon. members who sat in the le euee at that time are familiar with what took place with r egaael to those bills. Now, sir, there is uo man whose opinions on Parliamentary Referin are spoken of with more le sriry than Lord Palmerston. One would con elude that Lo Palmorstou was unquestiouably very Con servative in his principles, that he was entirely opposed to any change in on r Parliamentary Constitution, and that it was only for political convenience, and in order to make necessary arrangesnents for his indispensable colleagues— (laughter)—that he ever consented to the introduction of any measures of Reform. Now, there is not the slightest foun detion for any such conclusion. In 1857 Lord Palmerston was at the culminating point of his power. He hed then dissolved Parliament on the China vote, he had scattered all Ws enemies—the Whigs, even those who afterwards became his friends. (Laughter.) The Opposition, with which I was connected, suffered, but probably less than most p ortions of the house, in that penal dissolution. Lord J. Ruseell, a great authority in this question, only obtained the representation of the City of London almost as au act of courtesy, and the most powerful leaders now on the subject of Parliamentary Reform lost their seats in this house on that occ mien. (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston had, accordingly, an indisputable majority. He had none in his Cabinet at that moment—though all men whom he respected—in a position to dictate a policy to Lord Palmerston. The house met in the autumn of 1857 ; Lord Palmerston had, there fore, prepared his schemes, it was absolutely unnecessary for him to introduce the question of Parliamentary Reform, and yet Lord Palmerstonrecommonded it in the Speech from the Throne. What happened in 1858 ? Lord Palmerston, who was supposed to be a Minister supported by the most powerful majority that ever appeared in Parliament, sud denly lost his pride of place. Within 12 months of the dis solution, and when Lord Palmerston left office, ho was so sensible that " some settlement"—as the fashionable phrase was then—was required, that he said if his successor, Lord Derby, would give his earnest attention to the subject, and if he should feel it his duty to bring forward a mode rate, well-considered measure, he might be certain it would receive from him a fair and candid consideration. Well, sir, Lord Derby did not conceive in those days that Par liamentary Reform was exactly a question on which, if he brought forward a measure, he could count upon any en thusiastic support. All parties had not then tried their hand in vain ; and no circumstances had then occurred which could justify a Minister in advising the Crown to appeal to Parliament to consider this question not as a party question. Lord Derby, however, did think that ho was not put ting too favourable an interpretation upon an undertaking that his efforts should receive a fair and candid considera tion, when he concluded that if he did bring forward a measure, prepared with great care and labour, it should at least be read a second time, and receive a fair consideration from Parliament. (Hear.) But that did not prove to be the case. Notwithstanding this declaration of Lord Palmer ston, and notwithstanding the efforts that Lord Palmer ston made, the House of Commons set at defiance his autho rity, and a private member brought forward an amendment which gave a totally different colour to the conduct of the house. And who was that individual? Why, it was Lord John Russell. (Hear, hear.) Lord John Russell then sat below the gangway; he was not a member of the Govern ment that had retired from office; he was not then a proximate Minister. He occupied, indeed, a commanding position, such as a man of his great achievements, high character, and great talents always would command in this house ; but he was then in the position of a private member of Parliament. Well, the House of Commons followed Lord John Russell, so that it was again the House of Commons that came forward, and by that vote made it, I say, a party question. (Cheers.) I do not object to the conduct of Lord John Russell. I am not con tending about the decision which the House arrived at, as far as the decision itself was concerned, on the Bill of 1859 ; but this I do say, that it was a very great responsibility on the part of the House of Commons to throw out that Bill, and then, when they had forced a change of Ministry, to be unable to carry their opinions into effect. (Cheers.) Sir, I have thus shown that the position of the House of Commons with regard to this question of Parliamentary Reform is different from that which exists between the House generally and all other great questions, which are introduced and initiated in this House by a body of men who are in the possession of office, or who are candidates for office, and who, therefore, ought not to shrink from the responsibility of carrying their opinions into effect. I have shown that the House of Commons, as regards the present Ministry and that particular subject, is in a very perplexing position, and this position increases its respon sibility. Fur, with the greatest respect—without the slightest desire of giving offence to any member of the House, which would be foreign to my nature—l must at once say that the country upon this question cannot bears repetition of the manoeuvres of 1859. (Loud cheers.) It cannot endure that a measure should be thrown out upon souse cunning orcaptious point of detail (cheers and counter cheers), and that then those who have incurred the respon sibility should shrink from fulfilling their duty by carrying a measure on this subject. (Hear.) Well, then, we have to consider under these difficult circumstances what is the course that we ought to undertake; and, Sir, it does appear to us—considering that the House of Commons itself disturbed the settlement of 1832, considering that the House itself on five different occasions baffled the efforts of five Governments to secure that re-settlement which they have rendered necessary, considering also that with regard to those who at present sit on these benches the house have prevented any measure which they brought forward from being submitted to criticism in de tail by allowing it to go into committee, and while taking that course have been unable to fulfil the expectations of the country wh en they acceded to power—it does seem to us that in a position of so much difficulty it is wise to re flect whether there is not some course that should be pur sued which, without shrinking from the due responsibility of Ministers, would, at least, insure the house upon this question from such unfortunate mishaps as have on previous occasions been experienced by Governments that have at tempted to deal with this question. (Hear, hear.) It does seem to us that this is, from the causes that I have recapi tulated, one of those cases of great difficulty—no doubt, and surrounded by circumstances of exigency which cannot be denied —which have been contemplated by the wisdom of our parliamentary practice, and that we are pursuing only a constitutional course when we presume to recommend to the house that before we introduce a bill we may be per mitted, upon its main principles, and upon other points of great and paramount importance, to ask the opinion of the house, and see whether they will sanction the course which we recommend. (Cheers.) That, sir, is a course which we believe to be, under the circumstances, strictly constitu tional. It is a course which we believe ought not to be resorted to unless the circumstances are circumstances of exigency, and when we appeal to the house to permit us to adopt that course, we say, without thrusting our in dividual feelings upon the house, that in taking that course we are impelled by a pure sense of public duty as ever influenced any body of men. (Cheers.) Sir, I will not notice the first and sovereign objection which may be urged under ordinary circumstanced to a proposition of pro ceeding by way of resolution in this house, because, if the circumstances to which I have now fully adverted, if the relations of the house to the subject of Parliamentary Re form, if the neccesity of bringing this question to a settle ment, are not sufficient, I have no arguments to urge. But there are other objections to that course which have been offered, and on which for a moment I will dwell. It is said that there are disadvantages in proceeding by way of reso lution, independent of the great constitutional objection which nothing but exigency could override, and the first is that to proceed by resolutions induces delay. Well, sir, in answer to that I say, with great respect, that I do net think proceeding by resolutions does induce delay. (Hear.) I have no doubt that there may be circumstances in which men, or even the h ouse , no t unw i ll i ng to trifle with a ques tion, might lose a great deal of time upon resolutions,and take steps w hi c h would make consequent legislation' iut possible, at least for that session. But, sir, assuming a case such as the ex i st i ng case, and th the resolutions are brought forward b y a Ministry as the basis of legislatiorn legislation, to which they will be prepared to proceed when the reso lutions are pass e d , I cannot myself believe th a t there is anything even in th e t h eory of resolutions which lead s t o delay. It is very t rue t h at you seem to do twico what un der ordinary circumstances it might be necessary only to do once ; but then the house knows very well that the discus sions on principles whi c h ta k e place upon the second read ing of a bill, and upon a ll t h e various ana, i - v e e d s inents which opposition in the case of p u bli c measures g for—that all those discussion s are anticipated by op trie oll unity discus sions on resolutions, and that you m ay very wellell pair the upon resolutions against th e di scussions upon all the vital points of a measure. Practically, moreover, I do not find that proceeding by resolutions upon great and important subjects, where otherwise the, • would be circum stances of great difficulty, has led to delay. The instances are not numerous, because the house has rarely adopted that methodeind of course I am only referring to circumstances of an:extraordinary character, not to cases where we are obliged by the orders of the house to have recourse to it ; but oa looking over the few instances that are recorded in the journals of the house it does not appear to me that pro ceeding by resolutions has induced delay. Of this, at least, 1 ant certain, that it has, I think, in every instance been followed by successful legislation, and that, generally speak ing—indeed, with scarcely an exception —in the very per in which the resolutions have been brought forward. The case of the India resolutions is the last instance, and ono with which we are all familiar; but I may remind those who wore not then members of the house that there was a very strong struggle upon that measure. In that case, if my memory is not incorrect, between the passing of the last resolution and the third reading of the India Bill the interval was only a month. (Cheers.) Therefore, Ido not think that the house upon reflection will object to proceed by resolution on the groundless assumption that it s‘ ill produce delay, if the house should agree to the principles I have previously put forward, that there are circumstances of extraordinary exigency which necessitate that course. Then it is said that resolutions are vague. Well, sir, I admit that resolutions must bo vague to a certain extent and in a certain sense. If you would produce resolutions With all the precision of clauses in bill, there would not be the slightest necessity to go into committee on resolu tions. The object of resolutions is to obtain the opinion of the house upon the main, principles on which your measure should be founded ; and, upon all other questions in which the main principles are not concerned, but which aro of great importance, to obtain the opinion of the house, and defer to that opinion if it does not approve them. With regard to the application of the princ'ples to details, of course it would be the duty of the Government to submits with:pleasure and readiness to all suggestions made by the house which might lead to a more perfect and complete measure. Well, sir, upon the ground of delay, I trust that our course will not be opposed. With regard to the vagueness of resolutions, I will say this, that if a Ministry are resolved, if the resolutions aro car ried,to introduce a bill, there is no body of men more inte rested in the precision of the resolutions than the Govern ment itself. It is not our interest to bring forward vague resolutions. We want to get from the house such a sanc tion of our views, and such assistance by the expression of their own, as that we can bring in a bill which will pass with promptitude. And, therefore, these vague resolutions are exactly what we should avoid, as they would not assist us in our course. I want to meet this question fairly, be cause I am sure it will facilitate our future course if we can arrive as soon as possible, and as much as possible, at a mutual understanding. I will take one of the most diffi cult questions which can occur in the resolutions. Our first resolution probably must refer to the extension of the suffrage. Well, if I bring forward a resolution which merely declares that it is expedient that there should bo an exten sion of the suffrage in counties and boroughs, I should call that a vague resolution. (A laugh, and hear, hear.) The house is agreed, and has agreed, not only in this but in preceding houses, and in an unmistakeable manner, that there should be a considerable extension of the suffrage in counties and boroughs ; but the house, certainly not this house, has never yet formally stated the mode by which the extension should take place. But if a resolution is brought forward proposing the mode by which extension should take place, either by the creation of other franchises or the re duction of existing tenures of franchise, why then you have a resolution which advances the question. If, however, I am asked, as I am told I shall be asked, whether it is not useless to bring forward resolutions on such a question as the franchise without defining and describing minutely the qualification, then I say that is an unreasonable condi tion. (Cheers.) I say it is an unreasonable condition, be cause it is a condition which it is impossible for any Go vernment to comply with. If you come forward with a re solution which declares that it is expedient the franchise should be extended by a reduction—that is a principle which when laid down cannot be misunderstood. Tut how are you to settle the amount of the franchise ? Take your borough franchise—how can you fix in your resolution, even if you agree to the principle of the extension of the franchise, the amount of your franchise, when that must de pend upon principles not less important than the extension of the franchise? (Cheers.) I wish to illustrate this point. The amount of the franchise depends upon many considerations, but it depends mainly upon one principle of the greatest importance, and that is a principle on which this house has given an equivocal and ambiguous decision; yet without a right appreciation and a clear conception of which it is impossible to make any proposal to the house which can lead to a practical result. I mean the basis upon which your franchise shall rest, namely, the pnu ciple of rating. (Hear, hear.) Until you decide what shall be the basis of your franchise, and, if you fix upon rating as the basis of your franchise, until the House of Commons has in a clear and ambiguous manner decided that point, how is it possible in a resolution to come forward and recommend a particular franchise ? I put this forward because it is an important point which may be thrown in our teeth if we do not propose a re- solution in which the exact character of the borough franchise is defined. It may bo said that we are trifling with the subject, but I say that it is utterly impossible if you proceed by resolution. You must have a resolution to decide whether the basis of your franchise is to be rating or not. (Hear, hoar.) I will not trouble the house with too many details of the character of the resolutions, which if the house will give me the opportunity 1 intend to pro pose. They will be, I hope, in tha hands of members to morrow morning ; but, perhaps, the house will permit me to advert to one or two poiuts upon which I think it highly important this house should come to a clear and unequivocal decision. And I must say that lam anxious the house shall decide what principles they mean to reconstruct the House of Commons. Do they mean to reconstruct it on the principles of the E3glish Constitution—(hear, hear) —or do they mean to reconstruct it on the principles of the Consti- tution of any other country ? (Cheers.) I think it very im portant that this question shall be decided. Now, sir, her Majesty's Government intend, if they can, and if this house will allow them, to reconstruct this house on the principles of the English Constitution. (Cheers.) I will not advert to any remarks which I may have made before on that subject, or, at least, I should like not to advert to them, because it. is painful to repeat oneself, but it is better to be wearisome than to bo ambiguous on this subject. We think that the English Constitution is not a mere phrase. We believe that we live under a monarchy, modified in its action by the co-ordinate authority of the Estates of the Realm, and we look upon the Commons of England, whom we represent, as one of those Estates. Sir, I know it has been said that this is merely an archaeological view of the Constitution of England—(a laugh)—but I think I can show the house that they will be very unwise if they quit without duo consideration the ancient traditions of the polity under which they live, and under which this country has so singularly flourished. Undoubtedly, under the great vicissitudes of centuries, the relations between the Estates of the Realm in this country have greatly altered and changed. No doubt the Commons whom we represent have absorbed the greater part of the authority which those Estates once themselves exercised ; but I think I can show the house that this is no reason why we should for get the constitutional scheme under which this country has so long prospered, but rather, if deeply and fairly consi dered, why we should cling to that scheme as our only surviving guide against the impending perplexities that surround us. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the Commons of England, by the immense increase of population and pro perty, have assumed a character with reference to the other Estates which never was contemplated in the days of the Plantagenets and the Tudors. It is a very great error to suppose that it is merely the increase of population and property on the part of the Commons which has brought about the present form of the English Constitution and the present character and functions of the House of Commons. Take ono of these Estates. Take the peerage of England. That is a powerful body. It is probably the wealthiest as sembly in the world,aud it possesses particularly the kind of property which is most popular in England, because it is a tenure connected with the fulfilment of duties - I mean the land. Nor are the power and influence of the peerage to be measured by their property. Their social influence — I use the word in a large sets.—their national influence, is very great. I have often myself felt that the power of the peerage is greater in every part of Englund than in their own House. What, then, has placed the Commons of Eng land in the commanding position which they now occupy ? It is the development of our financial Constitution. It is the claim we asserted two centuries ago - partially recog nised then, and now completely established, which has practically placed in this house the taxing power. That is the cause of the position and character of the Commons of England. The moment that power was established, every class, every interest in this country, sought representation in this house, and naturally, because in this house alone can they defend their rights and their property. (Hear.) People complain of the influence, the undue influence of the Peerage, in the House of Commons. Why, sir, the influence of the Peerage in the House of Commons is not a usurpation of our rights ; it is a deference to our authority. (Cheers.) And so it is with all interests. Here they come because here power is reposed, and it is here only that they can be guarded in respect to the exercise of that power by the presence of their representativse. The consequence is that every class and every interest has sought, and to a certain degree has obtained, representation in this house. That is the cause of the variety of our character. But is it the variety of our character that has given us our delibe rative power ? (Hear, hear.) It is our deliberative power that has given us our hold upon the executive—(hear) — and it is this hold upon the executive which is the best, ayo the only, security for the freedom we enjoy. (Cheers.) Well Sir, her Majesty's Government can counsel and counte- nanco no course that will change that varied character of the House of Commons —(hear)—they will respect and reverence the causes which have elevated a rude popular assembly of the days of the Plantagenets into a Senate which commands the admiration of the world. (Cheers.) We do not find that there is any security for retaining that character unless we oppose a policy which gives to any class in this country—l care not whether it be high or low, whether it be influenced by a democratical or by an oligar chical feeling—a preponderant power in this house. (Cheers.) And therefore, in any measures that we may bring forward, wo shall assert that the elective franchise must be regarded as a popular privilege, and not as a de mocratic right. (near, hear.) If, sir, we wanted to see what are the consequences of allowing one class in a popu lar assembly to have a preponderating influence, what is passing iu the world at the present time is fruitful of in struction. (near, hear.) I never presume to criticise the institutions of other States. Indeed, I hold, and hold most sincerely, as a general principle, that the institutions of every country are pretty well adapted to the population who live under them. But take the instance of our nearest neighbour. There is France, in the very van of civilisa tion, perhaps —if I Were not in the House of Commons and in England, I might even venture to say—the first of E uro poen nations, inferior to none in vivacity of mind, in acute ;intellect, in wonderful perseverance, and in that patriotic feeling which always follows. Well, in France, this gifted nation has a popular assembly, and it is elected by universal suffrage. Does any one pretend that the Legis lative Assembly of France is equal, I will not say merely in European, but in cosmopolitan, consideration to the House of Commons ? (Cheers.) If there be any Englishman who thinks that the Legislative Assembly of France can claim that position, I am sure there is noFrenchman who does so. (Laughter and cheers.) Butit may be asserted that our in stitutions are not sufficiently representative to suit the ad vanced state of our race, and that the constitution of France was suddenly and rudely invented under circumstances of disorder and disturbance. (Hear, hear.) Well, let us take the case of the United States of America. There you have a House of Representatives, framed by the children of our loins, and certainly under the inspiration of as pure a pat riotism as over existed. It is elected by universal suffrage. But does any one contend that the House of Representa tives at Washington can equal in authority the House of Commons ? (Hear, hear.) And what is the cause of this? Why, no doubt the American nation is inferior to us in no point; it is of the same blood, the same brains, the same intelligence, of equal energy, perhaps of more enterprise; but the house is elected by one class—(cheers); there is no variety in it. And so the Legislative Assembly of America, like that of France, can neither of them rule the country in which it is established. I would hardly venture to refer to another case, but them is ono further example for our guidance. You have now a German Parliament instituted. Now, I am proud of our countrymen, but I don't suppose there is any man in the house at thiA moment who will pre tend that for intellectual power we are superior to the Ger man nation. That gifted people have now a Parliament; that Parliament is elected by universalsuffrage, and we find that the ministers of the King are not to sit in it. (Heat, hear.) Thus we have these extremely popular and repre sentative institutions elected by one preponderating class ; and what do we see are the consequences ? Why, that the Assembly loses allthat which we believe, and justly believe, to be the characteristic of the House of Commons. It loses it from the want of that variety of element which gives various wisdom, various knowledge, deliberate power, and, by deliberate power, such a moral command over society that it will intrust to it a great portion of the executive of the country. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, with these views, con sidering the doctrines that are now preached, the violent, the thoughtless, the pernicious doctrines which aro now cir culated—we cannot pretend to enter upon the labori ous and responsible task which we are otherwise willing to undertake, unless the House of Commons will, by some resolution, declare an opinion in harmony with the general sentiment 1 have now expressed. (Hear, hear.) There are other subjects on which I think it is of the utmost import ance that the house should come to a decision, and by its coming to a decision upon which subsequent legislation may be greatly facilitated. I need refer but slightly to the prin ciple to which I have adverted as the basis of our legisla tion on the franchise—namely, the principle of rating. admit that in the year 1859, having endeavoured to bring forward a scheme which founded our suffrage on the prin ciple, I was reluctantly obliged to give it up, the difficul ties were then so great, the anomalies so glaring, and the consequences to which it would have led so absurd. But since that time the course of legislation in this house has greatly lessened those difficulties. A bill introduced by the right hon. member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) on the subject of union rating has greatly contributed to this result. But I hope that to-night my hon. friend the Secre tary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) will have an opportunity of bringing in a measure which will entirely remove all the remaining difficulties connected with this matter. Under these circumstances, we trust the house will assent to a re solution affirming that rating shall be the basis of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are one or two other points to which, if I am not wearying the house, I should like to allude. (Cheers.) Among them is one of the most difficult of all questions—viz., the distribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) Now, upon that subject there are two schools of opinion, which are as much at variance as upon the sub ject of the franchise itself. There is a school that would re construct the electoral map of England. Wo hear some times that the map of Europe is to bo reconstructed. There is also a school in this country which would reconstruct the electoral map of England. On the other hand, there are those who approach this question with very great hesitation. They see an ancient and complex arrangement, but, at the sante time, one which, for a considerable period, has contri buted, as they think, to the representation of a country like England, having a variety of interests, with success. It is impossible in this country to think on this subject and not to be struck by the apparently providential manner in which an almost obscure island in the days of the Norman kings, with but a limited population and slight resources, has developed itself into a magnificent and unparalleled empire. Through the rude institutions of the Plantage nets and Tudors, however, the means have been found of representing interests so vast, so various, so inconceivable as those which are bound up with the England of the pre sent day. (Cheers.) Those impressed with that con viction will, I am sure, concur with me in the opinion that upon the question of the redistribution of seats we must proceed with caution and care. Any attempt to appor tion according to certain symmetrical arrangements the representation of the country would probably end in alter ing the character of this house, and in altering its charac ter, depriving it of its authority. (Hoar.) I think that be fore we introduce our bill we have a right to ask the house to give us their opinion upon, and I hops their sanction to, certain principles tvb u etie p elhte o geg n tnuoei.dhthea which we propose to act. One of those principles is that no borough should, so far as the re distribution of seats is concerned, be wholly disfranchised. (Cheers.) lam in favour of this principle for two reasons. 1 look upon it in the first place as wise and necessary that the representation of the country should, as far as lies in our power, be distributed; and I regard it as unwise and unnecessary to disturb any centre of represen tation, because it is impossible in an age of rapid growth, when communities so rapidly rise and vanish, when the changes and alterations of social arrangements are so evanescent, to proceed with too much circumspection. Speaking, then, for myself and my colleagues, wo are of opinion that no borough should bo wholly disfranchised so far as the redistribution of seats is concerned—for I ant far from saying that if bribery be proved to exist in a borough, as we have reason to fear and believe it may be in the case of some —we ought to show ourselves more deficient in spirit than our predecessors, and I trust under such circumstances we should know how to act. (Cheers.) Our main —mind, I do not say our sole—consideration, in bllttowhs iucphp are, ly from representativesa variety o t f o c au places ses altering the apportionment of the representation would, in he n t efsw h eanoeh e ntwl iicettstluhhieeon entitled sanction et n weipv d srietteiin.gpeltdsirelpi place, d guided se e h n a e ut " w e t aho a me r p e eciont t i dn h e mt e sst e t i noWa. question 0 1 oo p onfu ri tr n th c he i e p s l e e e s on b y d redis tribution of seats, and unless we have from the house their arrange ments must prove perfectly useless, for hon me m bersmust reading of the • bill which we might introduce, founded, perhaps, on the case of some obscure borough, but so in geniously worded that the fate of the measure mig ht de end upon it. I hav e t o apologise to the house for ha 13 so much into d e t a il —although I have endeavoured in to gone co fine myself to th ose resolutions which appeared to n me to involve large principles; but there is another • • - • which I think it my duty to touch slightly --a point withon which it has been found difficult to deal, whicrismat important element in the settlement of this.questiovnerOff Reform, and upon which I venture to say a greater amount of misapprehension exists than almost upon any other —I allude to the subj ec t o f b oundaries. (Hear, hear) Now, I have myself on more than one occasion not completely, but casually, expres se d th e v i ews which I entertain upon this subject. It is really a v it a l su bj ect, and one, it appears to me, on which no dissension ought to prevail, for if clearly understood there would b e, 1 i magine, scarcely any room y for a difference of opinion in regard to it. Unfortunat e ly , however, it is not clearly un d erstood, and it has had raised in connexion with it objections which have had a very considerable effect on the h ouse, a l though they are objec tions based on false data, and supported by false reasonng. If I again remind hon. members of the salient facts of the case, it is because I am anxious to place a distinct picture before their minds. The amount of the population dwelling in counties is 11,500,000, and that population is repre sented in the House of Commons by 162 members. Nine and a-half millions is the population that live in the bo roughs, and they are represented in this house by 334 members. One would naturally say, at the first glance, that there is nothing unreasonable in the eleven and a-half millions asking the House of Commone that, as they have such a very small share of the representation, they, at least, should enjoy the privilege of electing them, and that a portion of the nine and a half millions in the boroughs should not interfere with their enjoyment of their rights. Well, sir, we know that practically they do not enjoy them —we know that, since the Reform Bill was passed in 1832, the population of the boroughs has greatly increased, and that it has passed the borough boundaries to the amount of millions. The population of the counties has also it is true increased; but the same remark doesnot apply in this case. Now, if you, as we are going to propose, greatly reduce the franchise, and in counties, many portions of the population of these boroughs will become county eleetors. Well, the eleven and a half millions, having the 162 members, think this rather hard (Ministerial cheers). They naturally think the surplus of a population ought to be contented with being represented by 334 members (hear, hear). It is not an unfounded complaint, on the other hand, that if you reduce to-morrow—as you will if you follow our advice— the county franchise, one half of the town of Halifax—not distinct front the other half any more than the city of \Vestminster from the City of London —will supply a large band of county electors for the county of Yurk. Is this, under any circumstances, a desirable thing ? It cannot, I think, bo held so. Why, let me repeat, should these eleven and a half millions, possessing only 162 members, be visited with an invasion which still further diminishes their privi lege of seeing representatives to this house? (Cheers.) I think you will agree with me that the question is one de manding attention, and that there should be no contro versy a bout it. But there is a controversy —a great con troversy, a bitter controversy and like all great and bitter controversies, it is occasioned by a total ignorance of the subject (laughter and cheers). It is said that this cry of having the boroughs revised and re-arranged is highly w - THE SUN, LONLON, TUESOAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12, 1867. desirable and must not be on any account permitted, and for two reasons : the first is, that it is difficult and not desirable, but certainly difficult, to rigidly and severelyde fine the boundaries between the boroughs and counties. Sir, this is an erroneous impression. It is not difficult to define the boundary between the borough and the county population : it is impossible ; no one ever contemplated it. They must to a certain degree blend, and it is desirable that they should blend. But acts of great injustice like the case I have mentioned, and twenty others I could mention, should not pass without a remedy, and the remedy is perfectly consistent with a natural blending between the populations of the counties and boroughs. But the great objection that is urged is this— and I put it, I hope, fairly, in its naked form—it is said the scheme of revising and readjusting the boundaries of the parliamentary boroughs of England is a plan which, if adopted with other schemes of an analogous, but not so important a uature, such as giving representation to other boroughs, would give the 162 county members en tirely into the hands of the landlords and their tenants. You accept that proposition ? (Laughter.) lam sorry for you that you do, for it is so fatally erroneous. (Renewed laughter.) This, sir, is a case of the utmost consequence. I do not believe that any part of a future reform bill can really be so important, and it is the interest of both sides of the house clearly to understand it. I have reminded you of the eleven millions and a half of population. If our pro positions are admitted, there will be, no doubt, a consider able diminution of that amount of population. I do not wish to conceal the fact. We should propose to enfran chise boroughs which may diminish by hundreds of thou sands that amount of population. There will still remain in England a vast number of towns that by no scheme —no wise scheme—of parliamentary representation can be or ought to be represented. There will still remain in Eng land, as appears by the evidence on your table, but which the hon. gentleman who interposed a remark unfortunately has never heard—(a laugh)—there still remains in England what in the technical language of statistics is called a scat tered village population, a population that does not live in towns—even in small towns of 1,500 inhabitants—and which is equal in amount to that of all the represented boroughs in England. (Hear, hear.) But you say here are to be found only landlords, farmers, and farm labourers, and you ask, " Who cares for them ?" Sir, the landlords, farmers, and farm labourers, and all connected with the land, are referred to in your statistics, and still form, alone, in property and numbers, a most important class in Eng land. There numbers amount to 2,000,000. Take away all the landlords, farmers, and farm labourers, and what are your duties to the 7,000,000 of the population who re main ? What are these seven millions ? They are the backbone of the country. (Hear, hear.) I say that for inde pendence, for industry, and for the comparative simplicity of their lives, whatever may be their creed—whether they be Churchmen or Dissenters—for their sincerity and the deep religion of their lives, I say that no portion of the population of England are more esteemed, or more to be respected. (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, on this subject of the population of counties there exists in this enlightened metropolis a degree of want of information which is per fectly astonishing. Ido not like to refer to an opinion that has been circulated by one who was always my poli tical opponent in this house, but whom I always respected, and more than respected ; who was a great honour to this house ; who lived long in it, and whose memorable achieve ments can never be forgotten. I was astonished to find him state that the farmers of England had been enfran chised 30 or 40 years ago. (Conservative cheers.) I think I have indicated to-night in the beginning of my remarks that the real cause of dissatisfaction at the present day was the Reform Act of 1832. That measure did not enfran chise the farmers of England. It disfranchised the work ing men of England. (Hear.) Ido not think there can be any doubt as to who is responsible for that measure. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, on the subject of our county representa tion I was adverting to the extraordinary want of informa tion that exists. Look at these seven millions of your population. Who are those seven millions ? They are re presented by all the ancient freeholders of England. I say, even of the latest great event, of that event which when I entered this house, was never mentioned except with enthusiasm, but is now mentioned with contumely, I say it was the counties of England that carried the Reform Act of 1832. If you look to the growth of the county con stituencies, and take away the occupying tenants—if you take away the 100,000 occupying tenants, and all those freeholders who vote for counties in respect of freeholds existing in boroughs—take away all these, and you take away two-fifths of the electoral body, and leave more than 300,000 freeholders who exist among these seven millions, who aro utterly unknown, and are a minority in this house. If I have asked for justice for these men, I have been told by persons holding the highest position in this house that 1 am seeking to eliminate all the independence and en lightenment from the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) I say that these are circumstances which require the grave attention of Parliament. I have never attempted any violent disruption of our electoral scheme o: parliamentary seats that could give an adequate represen tation 2 y t t,Lyroc irnofogipopulation nuoetiittsn: trtagtwo: members populationhent sicounty these ohnouennti drhlt noel persons. runnooos(ltta,yo:si:t bt bilvyrtcehui rensbosts l i mytoi ir k hnoeya n u. inoognmuwh borough shoulden, otajn t evobre h odteedeslop a net. rthb:serte, principles n tputeecchuctert it4licepr t eedt ooye h tlndvfeuhdt a cf ssoei course trhsteytoloh d en.soof n.ei Government pe s ajroln t ruoted u o(jhosn, a r pitp3ioetiy b risopn_uchi a seojpnata n e3o, hsratvd c 6yyi. ra:e e . also prepared a resolution which will propose a course do-' ing justice, we hope, with respect to this long -vexed ques ttiioonn.l will 10l And nbet : ho t s eff i offered principles. e i s d founded a t hoifs t o rhnuo house h s. e e hope, on calm consideration, it will be found to be esta blishedand that we shall at least reconcile a great portion of the people to our new arrangements, feeling that they now en joy those privileges which the constitution has given them. I hope, at least, the house will do justice to the great body of freeholders of England, who have been utterly forgotten in those discussions. I saw a proof of this the other day. I was amused to find that a rampant lecturer has been going about the country maligning men and things. (A laugh.) He attacked the House of Commons x a p u g e naturally r h i ) e under the very thin veil of a dissertation on the reign of eeoxfpexpect lifect asked, t where o h fi e n r c e l Charles 1., and alluding to two illustrious men who then e existed, and going out of his way to attack men, and he are the 4,000 freeholders of Buckinghamshire? Why, sir, could obtain no better e p t h t ee e ir r . he subject—(a u, Pe h e wa t so — un ( lo a d e l ytthhooeuymnga—remtheaexny:tlttvrlhleoin the county of Buckingham. (Cheers and laughter.) I could forgive such an opinion from a wild beyond his college, but I cannot pardon grave and eminent states men who always treat the population of counties as con sisting of tenant farmers. That is an error which, proceed. ing from such quarters, cannot be passed over so easily. There is no subject on which so much exaggeration exists as the subject of occupying tenants of counties. They never at any time exceeded one-fifth of the constituencies, and that has to be divided between the two great parties in the State. How is it possible they could exercise the influence ascribed to them ? In my own county, which, according to the lecturer, contains nothing but tenant farmers, from a constituency of 6,000 there are 1,200 registered occupying tenants. But you will not do justice to the county popu lation if the extraordinary view is to prevail that nobody lives in counties but landlords, farmers, and labourers. (Hear.) I have thus placed before the house, not only the course which her Majesty's Government proposes to take on this question, which has been so long discussed—not only the course which her Majesty's Government propose, and which they earnestly hope this house will adopt—but I have also endeavOured to convoy to them as far as I could without reserve—(a laugh)—l say without reserve, because I could easily have signified some other policy and evaded the discussion of this matter ; but I thought it best without reserve to express to the house the general principles on which we propose to act. (Hear, hear.) Do not let the house suppose we are attempting to cast upon them the burden of this great question, or that we are angling for a policy. We have certain distinct principles to guide us, which we wish the house to sanction. But there aro certain other subjects besides those I have indicated which, if not equal, are still of great importance to the happy settlement of this most difficult question, and on which it is desirable that the opinion of this house should be given. On those sub jects we shall defer to the opinion of the house. Ii wo go into committee for the discussion of resolutions applicable to those principles we shall consult the sense of the cone , mittee, and we shall be prepared to bow to their decision. And though we are not prepared to shrink from the great leading principles which we shall submit to the house, and which we hope this house will sanction, we believe that even on questions of paramount importance, if the house will deign to co-operate with us, suggestions of great value may be made which will add to the fulness and completeness of the measure. I may say, on behalf of my colleagues, that these suggestions will be considered with candour, and if generally approved by the house they will be accepted even with gratitude. We shall enter into committee anxious to avail ourselves of all that the learning, the genius, and the experience of this house can suggest for the solution of this question. To all such suggestions we will give our earnest. and candid attention. The course that -we adopt is one not very flattering to ourselves. (Hear, hoar.) But it is more flattering to every man's ambition to assist, how ever humbly, in effecting what he thinks to bo for the pub lic good, than to bring forward a mock measure which he knows the spirit of party will be sure to reject. (Hear.) The hon. member for Birmingham marks this with an ironical cheer, but there are others beside him who wish the question settled, and who wish to have it settled in accordance with the genius of the English constitution. It would have been much more agreeable to us to bring for ward a complete measure, backed by a confiding majority, and to enjoy the fame of having settled satisfactorily the question which has so long occupied the attention of a from nation. No ne o f m y c olleagues pretend to be free " This last infirmity of noble minds." But this is not a time to defer to the self-complacency of a Ministry or to the pride of party. I earnestly hope that the House of Commons will rise to this occasion. I earnestly hope that the House of Commons will, in unison with the gracious Speech which her Majesty has delivered to Par liament, divest themselves of all party feeling, and will give the Ministers ou this—we do not ask it on any other occasion—their hearty co-operation and their cordial help. Some sharp things have been said, not referring merely to its present character, but to its past conduct in matters which I thought had been accepted, and sanctioned, and embalmed by history. I do not doubt that as a human in stitution it is not free from the imperfections of humanity It is possible there may have been periods when integrity of the House of Commons could be successfully impugned. I know well—we all know—that there have been times of violence when its conduct was unjust, violent, and even tyrannical. If you search its records, unquestionably you will find it arrived at conclusions on many subjects which are at variance with the doctrines, with the sentiments, or even with the happiness of our more enlightened age. But there can be no granter error than to judge of the morality of one ago by the manners of a subsequent age. Tiers can be no greater error than to decide on measures adopted in perilous times with the philosophic calmness of assured security. There can be no greater error than to gauge the intellect of the past by the deficiencies of the present, though that past has bequeathed to us our glorious and magnificent patrimony. (Cheers.) Those who take a larger and nobler view of human affairs will, I think, re cognise that alone among the countries of Europe England has now for almost countless generations by its Parliament exhibited the fait exemplar of a free government. She has maintained, by her House of Commons, and she has cherished that free spirit which is the soul of common wealths, without which empire has no glory, and the wealth of nations is but the lees of corruption and decay. (Loud cheers.) Sir, 1 move that on the 25th of February this house n ill resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the 2d and 3d William IV., chapter 25. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid general cheering, having been exactly two hours and a quarter addressing the house.) Mr. GLADSTONE rose amidst Opposition cheers. He said —Without for a moment wishing to derogate from the ability of the speech which the right hon. gentleman has now delivered, I may venture an observation in which I am sure many in this house will concur—an observation not neces sarily one implying censure—that the house has now been placed in a peculiar position. We are approaching the dis cussion of a subject of unparalleled difficulty—one that has been embittered in other times by proceedings which, whether justified by the spirit of party and the ordinary usages of Parliament or not, has in a certain and even in a high degree obstructed public progress. We approach this subject, on the invitation of the right hon. gentleman, in a manner that is altogether novel. I am not about to discuss at any length the propositions of the hon. gentleman, which we shall best consider when we hold them in their express terms in our hands. Still loss am I about to submit to the house a single remark which may diminish the expectation or the hopes any of us may enter tain that the proposition which the right hon. gentleman is about to make may happily settle the question. Still there were certain remarks made in the speech of the right hon. gentleman which I am not able to pass over altogether in silence. The right hon. gentleman, in the early portion of his speech, placed on certain terms not commonly found in a speech from the Throne an explanation as to the temper in which the house should deal with the question of reform. The signification which the right hon. gentleman—no doubt a great authority in the definition of such words—put on those words was that the subject of Parliamentary Reform was no longer to be a question on which the fate of a Ministry is to depend. ,(Hear, hear.) Now, no more grave or difficult question can arise for the consideration of the responsible Ministers of the Crown than to determine what are and what are not the occasions on which the failure or rejection of their propositions constitutes a sufficient cause for resignation of office ; and if that general proposition be sustained, as I think it is, both by opinion and experience, there follows from it immediately this consequence, that the Executive Government ought on every occasion to re tain in its own hands an unimpaired and unfettered power of considering the most difficult questions in reference to its own dignity, and the interests of the country, according to the circumstances that may arise. These circumstances, sir, it is impossible to define ; and I entertain a doubt whether the right hon. gentleman has oven conduced to the more easy settlement of this question by announcing something like an abstract resolution resting on the pro position that the result will not involve the fate of the Ministry. (Cheers.) The principle announced by the right hon. gentleman is of so much importance, and is open, in my mind, to so much doubt, that I could not allow it to pass without a remark against it. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to give us a lengthened his torical disquisition on the transactions of previous sessions with regard to measures of Parliamentary Reform. I wish, sir, to give the right hon. gentleman the opportunity of correcting on a future occasion any misrepresentation I may make of what he said, as I was unable sufficiently to apprehend what he said. I did not clearly gather from his speech what precise result he intended to draw from that recital. It appeared to be to show that there was a special responsibility in this house as distinct from the Govern ment with reference to this subject of Parliamentary Re form. If that bo so, I have no difficulty in subscribing to the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman, for although the opinion, when I expressed it, was objected to, I did enter tain the opinion that the house itself—from the action of various causes and of independent members --had incurred a special responsibility with regard to the question of Re form. (Hear, hoar.) But I understood the right hon. gentleman to go further, and to leave it to be implied that there beingan increase of responsibility on the house, there ',Was a diminished responsibility on the part of the Govern ment, and that it was obligatory almost on the house to approach the settlement of this difficult question under the guidance at least and leadership of the Government, but with a responsibility of a different kind from that which usually attached to the advisers of the Crown. I confess I am doubtful whether such a proposal will add to the weight and authority of the Government, and whether it will not, by lessening the responsibility of the Executive for the propo sals which they make, also diminish ono of the great pro pelling forces by which measures are carried in this house. The right hon. gentleman haaannounced what I had heard from various quarters, that he intends proceeding by reso lution. I shall not enter into any full discussion as to that method of proceeding. I frankly own that my preposses sions are against it. It might be justifiable and necessary in certain cases where it is necessary to obtain a simultaneous concurrence of both houses, but I do not think this is such a case. I will not ask what the precise nature of the resolu tions are, but I am satisfied that the plan of taking the ,opinion of the house twice over on the same subject has a tendency to produce delay. (Hear.) A second point of more importance is the vagueness which is almost inherent in the nature of resolutions, the opinion being that such re solutions may be passed with greater facility than the same propositions embodied in a bill. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman has shadowed forth the principal points to be included in the resolutions he intends to propose. I wish to state with the utmost clearness whatin any opinion ought to bo the course of independent members on this question. I do not ask, under the circumstances, how far the Government, in making their proposals, have the general confidence of the house. Notwithstanding their mode of procedure 1 will not stand in the way—and I ought not to stand in ,the way—of a settlement of the question, if that can be obtained by the adoption with alteration of their proposals. (Hear, hear.) I will cast whatever doubt or scruple I have as to proceeding by resolution behind me, if I find it possible to make an onward movement. (Hear, hear.) What we are bound to do is to avoid every thing that tends to adjourn this question, whether it be impracticable propositions or measures that must require a long time to carry into operation. The right hon. gen tleman has referred to the reconstruction of the law of rating, and if I interpret rightly the terms of the notice on the votes an important change in that law must be contemplated. Such a change cannot be made in a mo ment, and when it becomes law it cannot come into opera tion immediately. Is the settlement of reform to depend on the previous attainment of what the right hon. gentle man calls a perfect system of rating ? (Hear, hear.) I understand him to say that he cannot fix the amount of the reduction of the franchise in the first resolution, as that must depend on points to be disposed of by subsequent resolutions. But does not the right hon. gentleman see that many members mayrefuso to commit themselves to an abstract principle of reduction, and justly, until they know what thatreduction is to be ? (Hear, hear.) If the amount of reduction is to depend on the subsequent resolution as to rating, I hope I may dismiss my apprehensions that the re-adjustment of the system of rating is to precede the settlement of the question of reform. (Hear, hear.) At any rate I beg of the right hon. gentleman, if he should think it worth his while to consider what I say, to recol lect that the very same motives which would lead me, for , one, with the utmost earnestness to co-operate with him in building on his foundation, if I thought it pos sible it would load to a speedy settlement of this ques tion, would likewise lead me, I frankly own, to offer a de termined opposition to any proposition, or any method of proceeding, which would appear to me to be likely to east it into the far future. (Opposition cheers.) We cannot afford iu this country to go on much longer as we are now acting. It is time that this discord of class and class, or this tendency to discord, this appeal to separate interests to which I must say the speech of the right hon. gentle man—whatever may be the merits of the paragraph from the Speech from the Throne—is not altogether free, it is time, I say, that that lino of proceeding should cease. Until this question is altogether removed from the arena of controversy we cannot expect to see the people of Eng land in the position in which we desire to see them— namely, a happy or united people. (Hoar, hear.) The right hon. gentleman has told us to-day the course in which he proposes to proceed with his resolutions. I think it better we should give an opinion on the important question whether the resolutions of the right hon. gentle man do indeed constitute a plan. If they constitute a plan to which we may assent; if we should agree in them, or join issue with the right hon. gentleman if we do not agree with them, so as to raise fairly and promptly the great question which is in fact raised for our decision, no objec tion will be taken, as far as I know and as far as I hope to the mode of proceeding proposed. But that is the ques tion, after all, to be determined by us, and according to the mode in which we ahall treat it our conduct will be judged. Our object being to make progress on this ques tion—a progress which the country is entitled to expect— we shall gladly assist the right hon. gentleman if lie concur with us in this view of the matter, in giving effect to his idea so far as we are able consistently to do so. But ho will not I am sure expect us to be parties to a course of pro ending which would amount in effect to an absolute betrayal of public duty—that is to say, to be parties to the adoption, not of measures, but of a declaration preliminary to the conside ration of measures—a course tending to produce doubt and uncertainty in the public mind, to diminish the confidence of the people in Parliament, and to adjourn a conclusion which on every ground it is desirable that we should with out delay arrive at. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman has asked the question on what principle was it that the House of Commons was to be reeonstituted ? With considerable force the right lion. gentleman laid down the principles of our constitution, and thi), spro:ulinz his wings for •ui ex tended flight, be travelled both Eastward and Westward, and gave us an account of the representative chambers of various foreign countries. Now, I confess I am very doubt ful of the wisdom of this self-complacent reference to our constitution, when contrasting it with other constitutions. I do not think that our review of them under such circum stances is altogether accurate, and it is not expected that it should carry on it the stamp of impartiality. (Hear, hear.) Were this the proper time and place, indeed, I should be inclined to challenge some of the particular statements on this point made by the right bon. gentleman. But even if they were perfectly accurate, I doubt whether much could be gained by comparisons of this nature, especially when I think that the right hon. gentleman is, to a certain extent, engaging in a combat with a phantom. I entirely deny that any party or government in this house has at any time pro posed to deal with the question of Parliamentary reform otherwise than upon the principle of the British constitu tion. I assert that we have been ready at all times, and never more so than last year—to contend that it is upon those principles we take our stand. It is true there may be diffe rences of opinion amongst us as to various points of detail, but, however widely we may differ upon questions of general policy, I do not believe that any one member in this house would be willing to depart from the principles of the British constitution. (Hear, hoar.) I frankly own it appears to me that in the expression of his opinions the right hon. gentle man himself has somewhat departed from the principles of the British constitution ; but am I to rise in my place and assume that I have the exclusive possession of the key of those principles ? Or am I to charge the right hon. gen tleman or any other member of this house with the aban donment of all regard for them? (Hear, hear.) I ask the right hon. gentleman to enlarge his toleration so far as to believe that even those who have differed from him on former occasions, and who may ultimately differ from him in the latter development of this question—to believe that whether they differ from him or not, they are animated equally with himself by a regard for that glorious consti tution, the rich traditions and noble inheritance which it has left us, and that whilst upholding their rights of free dom they claim for themselves and their opinions that consideration which they gladly and freely accord to others. (Cheers.) The motion was then agreed to. Leave was obtained by Mr. Hunt to introduce a bill to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of Government and local taxation, and to promote unifor mity in the assessment of rateable property in England and Wales. Mr. CHILDERS and Mr. SCROPE expressed their approval of the measure. Some returns were ordered, and the house adjourned at a few minutes past 8 o'clock. Miscellaneous American News. Another sad steamboat accident has occurred. The Plato Valley, which left Memphis for Vicks burg on the 17th January, struck the wreck of a sunken gunboat, and sank almost to the hurricane roof in about three minutes. It is estimated that 100 persons were drowned. Amongst them was Judge M'Bride, of Missouri, and his family of 15 persons, bound for Texas. The,. steward and about 20 of the crew are supposed to be lost. Some 40 women were on board, few of whom were saved. A tug took the survivors to Memphis. The entire board of lowa State officers, including the superintendent, commenced the new year by signing the temperance pledge. The importation of firecrackers is forbidden by the new Tariff Bill. Mr. Fessenden inserted the clause because the great fire at Portland was caused by crackers. According to the news brought by the City of New York, which is up to the 26th ult., the Judi ciary Committee of the House of Representatives will not report upon the impeachment of President Johnson until the close of the present Congressional session. It is reported that John Surratt will be summoned to give testimony in reference to Mr. Johnson's alleged complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln. The Indiana and Nevada Legislatures have ratified the Constitutional Amend ment. The Maryland Legislature has abolished the law permitting the sale of negroes into plavery for crime. The Tennessee Legislature has amended the franchise laws so as to admit negroes to vote. The Supreme Court of Tennessee is considering the consti tutionality of this step. It is stated that the Canadian Council has determined to pay all claims for damages by the Fenian raids and to present the bill to the United States. The 43d, 60th, and 25th Regiments have been ordered home from Canada. The Philadelphia correspondent of the Times says that General Butler, always anxious for some thing to do, has devoted his attention of late to Canadian affairs. Ile has written a letter to a French gentleman at Montreal, which is published in Le Pays of that city, in which he expresses his opinion of the annexation or absorption of Canada by the United States, regarding it as both neces sary and inevitable for the future welfare of the latter country. Butler says that every American statesman appreciates the question, and can only come to one conclusion respecting the advantages which its solution through annexation would confer on the country. The Hampshire county receipts for 1866 were $39,843, an excess 0f:52,949 over the expenditures. The profits of the dog fund were $949. The Persia brought intelligence from New York o the 23d ult. Resolutions had been introduced into the House of Representatives, declaring that Civil State Governments do not exist in the South, and that the South is not entitled to a voice in rati fying constitutional amendments. The Indians in the •Western plains were become very troublesome. At Toronto two more Fenian prisoners had been ordered to be hung. The advices received at New York from Mexico report various successes by Juarez, and assert that he holds such a position that, in the event of a successful fight with the Im perialists, he would be able to occupy the capital. COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE. NEW Your., Jan. 26. The Stock Market has been highly excited, and the " bears" have been hi the ascendant, most securities ex periencing a heavy fall. A few failures have been the result, but none of any great importance. The danger of impeachment has been made the most of, and the growing hostility between the Executive and Legislative is, inde pendent of rumours concocted by those interested, suffi ciently alarming. Most of the failures aro among the brokers. Some speculative companies have experienced a very severe fall, but none of real sound merit have mate rially declined. The Now York Central went from 108 to 99, and the Hudson's River from 130 to 118. The Pacific Mail Ship Company is now at 157, although lately quoted at 170. The total receipts of the Hudson River Railroad for the year ending with September, 1866, were $4,827,562—an increase of $500,762, and the total transportation expenses $3,050,426, a decrease of $126,186. The dividends paid during the year amounted to $615,427, an increase of $286,022. The receipts of the Harlem Railroad in the same time were $2,783,699, an increase of $273,974 ; trans portation expenses $1,661,330, a decrease of $210,317. Other yearly earnings wore as follows : Reading $4,164,072; Michigan Central, $4,260,125, decrease $244,421; Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana, $4,643,422, decrease $183,300; Chicago and North-West ern, $9,088,994, increase $1,128,013; Chicago and Alton, $3,677,795, decrease.sl62,296 ; Rock Island and Pacific, $3,478,325, increase $164,811. The New Jersey Central Railroad will pay its usual quarterly dividend of 21 por cent., and the Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati Rail road a quarterly ono of 4 per cent. An investigation has been proceeding into some difficulties between the Now York Central and the Hudson River and the Harlem Railways, which has shown a curious state of affairs. The Hudson River Railroad has been used by the members of the New York Common Council, from the evi dence of Mr. Horace P. Clarke, as a free lino. That gen tleman states that ho has known as many as 1,500 Now York officials tohave free passes. It appears that the pro perty has been subjected to heavy fines, as fees to the Common Council. The action now taken will probably have a beneficial result. Money is at 7 per cent. for call loans, but lenders prefer loaning for short periods. Gold has been weak and de clining. The import of specie during the past week has exceeded the export, the California steamer bringing $532,000, while Saturday's steamers for Europe took out only $156,000, and Wednesday's only $76,120. The ex ports (exclusive of specie) from New York for the week and year are $2,724,291 against $4,860,386, and 810,697,573 against $13,955,536. The corresponding figures for im ports are • 40,229,355 against $6,450,688, and 811,291,547 against $13,317,871. These figures testify to the dullness of trade, everywhere so much complained of. Foreign exchange is quiet at 109 g. Official statements show that the total issue of 5-20 Bonds under the act of March 3, 1865, was on the Ist of January, 1867, $268,665,350, of which amount there had been issued in conversions, viz. : of compound interest notes, $53,778,750; of 5 per cent. notes, $6`20,700; of 7-30 notes, $108,255,400 ; of certifi cates of indebtedness, $257,000 ; total, $162,911,850 ; leav ing to be accounted for as sales $103,753,500. The avails of the Bonds have been used in the purchase of seven thirty notes to the amount of $41,212,250, and the balance in retiring compound interest notes, certificates of indebted ness, and the temporary loan. The premium on the 111,212,250 of seven-thirty n& - es purchased unik,r Oro acts of JULIO, 1&.;1, and March, 1865, was $1,724,399; interest on the same, $763,286; total, $13,704,935. The sales of five-twenty bonds amounted to $103,753,500; premium, $5,946,315; total $103,699,815. The total issue of national bank currencylast week was $47,720, making $298,652,680 now in circulation. The disbursements last week for the war, navy, and inferior departments were, respectively, $536,065, $586,852 and $962,280. The total receipts of internal revenue last week were $2,226,789. These re ceipts are falling off so much on account of the small busi ness now doing in the country, that Congress will hesitate before reducing the taxes, fearing that the Government will not in that case get sufficient income. The railroads have lost during the winter by the dulness in business and the severity of the weather, which has led to unlooked-for expenses, the July dividends therefore will probably be injuriously affected. The following aro the latest quotations :—Stocks closed exceedingly heavy, Ame rican gold 1341, United States Five-twenties (1862), 1071, (1864) 1051, (1865 new) 1041, United States Ten-forties 991, United States 7 3-10 loan 1041, New York Central Rail road 991, Erie 621. Hudson River 118, Reading 101, Michi gan Central 1021, Michigan Southern and Northern In diana 71, Cleveland and Pittsburg 821, Cleveland and Toledo 1181, Chicago and Rock Island 951, Illinois Central 1121, Chicago and North-Western 36, Chicago and North-Wes tern preferred 70, Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago 931, Adams Express Company 65, American 68, United States 661, Merchants' Union 131, Wells, Fargo, and Co.'s 701, Western Union Telegraph Company 45, Pacific Mail Steamship Company 157, Atlantic Mail Steamship Com pany 1021, Canton Company 44, Quicksilver Mining Com pany 381, Mariposa Mining Company 101, Boston Water Power Company 261. (From Bowleg, Drevet, and Co.'s Circular.) PARIS, Feb. 7. The principal, and, we may say, the only important event of the week has been the failure of the firm of L. Pollet Aine, at Lille, heretofore considered one of the richest and most firmly established in Franco, bringing down with it several of the best houses of Lille and Rou baix. The Banque de France is involved in this disaster for an amount estimated at four millions of francs. Never theless, such is the Bank's credit that the effect of this heavy loss upon the value of its shares has been insignifi cant. The market is somewhat more animated, prices upon tho whole being rather higher. French Three per Cents. are decidedly better, and close to-day at 69c. 50f. Ex change on London, 25 11 to 25 15. American 5.20's have fluctuated between 82} and 821. Since our last issue there was at first an improved movement, but on Monday a reaction took place on account of unfavourable financial news from New York, and also as the result Of persistent speculative sales, and transactions have become less frequent; still, as may bo seen from the above figures, the variation has been inconsiderable, proving that the growing confidence of capitalists is not easily to be shaken: We have in this circular called the especial attention of our Continental friends to the opening on January of the great steamship route between San Francisco and China. It is one of the most important signs of the times, which our European world has not yet fairly appreciated. As this übject is of universal interest, we seek to give it the lreatest possible publicity. (From E. F. Satterthwaite and Co.'s Weekly Circular, February 6.) The advices from New York by the Persia are to the 22d ult., they report a continued steady demand for Go vernment securities of all descriptions at prices fully up to previous quotations. Railroad shares had fluctuated almost daily, the latest prices showing a slight decline on the week. For both State stocks and railway mortgages there has been more inquiry than for some time past. Gold was steady, and money still in demand at 7 per cent. on best securities. The advancing premium on gold in New York has operated against the price of United States 5.20 Bonds in the London market, the decline on the week being about to 4 per cent. Illinois Shares have been very steady, but Erie Shares have fluctuated between 39 and 401, the price hero being almost entirely ruled by the quotations re ceived by telegraph from New York; they close firm at 391 to 40. In Atlantic and Great Western Consolidated Mortgage Bonds a considerable business has been done from 30} to 311 ; they close 31 to 1. There is some inquiry for Pennsylvania Second Mort gage Sterling Bonds, from 89 to 90; also for Illinois Central Six per cent. Bonds, from 83 to 84. The Seven per Cent. Currency Bonds of this company are in good demand, from 72 to 73. COUNTRY MARKETS. NORTHAMPTON-FEB. 9. New white wheat, 58s to 655; new red, 46s to 64s ; old white, 62s to 68s; old red, 61s to 66s per 36 stone. BarleY for malting, 42s to 51s per qr. ; grinding, 29s to 36s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 26s to 33s ; new, 23s to 32s per 24 stone• Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 42s to 45s per 38 stone. Peal', 38s to 42s per 36 stone. COLCHEST 'ER-FEB. 9. Wheat. white 64 70s Beane, Blazagart......3Bs 40s red 62a A7s Aliddleandsniall_44s 48s Barley ... . . .. Oats l2a Ns Peas, white. 38 8 42s em —s a grey —as 42s CIIELMSFO The market was fairly sup and merchants showing no in ness was done at 2s under t and beans firm. MAW, old white.... 523 6/14 new , s 67s old red fAs new. Vs 5S Barley.... 26s 338 Chevalier - s —s Grind.ng ' , 58 30s Malt Chevalier 60s 62‘ Oats •• 2lB 278 I RD-FEB. 8. )plied with wheat, but miller! iclination to buy, a dull bug the rates of last week. Oats Peas, Partridge 41s 433 White 323 363! iling - 8 Dun.... 385 403 dit'o, new Beans, Tick, old 4os 45s new 38s 428 Barrow ticks 428 463 new 403 445 Mazngan. . 393 430 GRANTHAM-FEB. 9. Old white wheat, 65s to 725; old red, 60s to 68s; neW white, 68s to 71s ; new red, 56s to 64s per 36 stone. B ar.. ley for malting, 38s to 455 per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 34s pe r 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s per : 2 "k stone. Beans, old, 42s to 52s ; new, 39s to 46s per 38 stone. Peas, 35s to 40s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN—FEB. 8. At our market to-day wheat was in fair supply, b ut the trade was inactive, at lowor terms. White Wheat 52s Od to 60 s OD 621 b bushel. Red wheat .4Bs Od to 55s OdC Potato oats 24 s Od t o 26s Od 23s Gd to 25s Od Common oats Bore 31s Od to 32s 6d t Barley s3lb V busbol• 32s Od to 33s Od j Oatmeal 20 s 6d to 21 s Gd V b o ll o f 280Ib• Flour, fine 43s Od to 50s Gd V sack of 2 8010. V KIRKCALDY—FEB. 9. Small supplies of wheat, barley , and oats. Sales slo W• Wheat and barley is down. Oats as before. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First- s6s Od ' 34s , d 23s Od r_econd sOd I 37s 6 i 26s Od Third COs td 4 s Oct 29s Od COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. (I s. d. F. 6 West ILI ',ley . 94 - o Cowpen Hartley Original Hartlepool l9 0 Bradyell's Hetton...... 1 4 6 Hetton Lyons I '' Nelson ' 17 0 Walls End Haswell... 6 Tees 1 5 9 Framwellgato l6 6 Trinidon Thornloy... -- ships at market, 106—sold. 76. Births. ADAMSON—On the 10th inst., at Rushton Park, Susses' Mrs. Adamson, of a son. DAVIES—On the 11th inst., at Camden House , Lee Gl ebe ' Blackheath, Mrs. Edmund Davies, of a d a ughter. CAmrioN—On the'lOth inst., at Redhill, Mrs. F. CaEnP ic)/1 ' of a daughter. HALL—On the 10th inst., at Northwi c k, Harrow, D. Hall, of a daughter. Marriages. HAY—HIINT—On the 7th inst., at Great Bowden, g 31 , 1 11 : 1 ; rine, only daughter of W. Hay, Esq., of Great:Be"' Hall, to Charles Shea Hunt, Captain 108th Regillte lit ",,,,, SABEL —MOLYNAUX—On the 7th inst., at Compton, Su rr- i'o Lieut.-Col. Henry A. Sabel, H.M.'s 17th Lancers, re Phyllis, youngest daughter of the Rev. Georg e Molyneux, rector of Compton. Deaths. 0 00' CONNELL—On the Bth inst. at at Fort Broekhurst , ‘-' ° T Ar- Francis John, infant son of Lt.-Col. Connell, 105.3" tillory, aged 5 days. CHATTO—On the 9th inst ,Granville -square, the 1: Robert Chatto, A.M.,M:R.1.A., some time vicar of 11°c field, near Monmouth, aged 60. ComProx— On the 9th inst , at 14, Connaughtf he jaw Hyde-park, Lt.-Col. D'Oyfy T. Compton, son o Sir Herbert Compton, aged 47. o re, MEYER— On the Bth inst., at 45, Baker-street, L lo y d -S,l Mr. John Meyer, aged este r ' TANNER—On tho 10th inst ,at The Limes, virenc Mr. Joseph Tanner age.BKan t, WARD —On the 10th , inst., ds at East-hill, Dartford, Kant, Georg© Ward, Esq., aged 79. ..ro ol WOOLLEY—On the 10th inst., at 33 , St. MarY''3 Canonbury, Mr. E. Woolley, aged 63. London : Printed and Pubtuated by W LL L LAM ANT16)';11".;: Of No. 112 , Strand, Printer at Tun SUN Oroc. 1.41 1 - nt Strand, in the Preebet of the Savoy: in the CouglY - Middlesex—Tuesday, February 12,1967.