The Sun. — London, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEAING, MARCH 19 1867 of those who by the laws we propose are qualified to vote, and I do not think it is our business to act the part of electioneering agents and make estimates, always of the most speculative character, as to the amount of per sons who we think will have a vote. That is not the , business of Ministers in Parliament; we are to see what, under the laws of this country, is the opportunity afforded of voting. And allow me to remind the house of the tone of the arguments always used by those who are great promoters of an increased franchise. They are always counting the number of the population, that there aro so many millions of the population who have no vote at all. Well, now, I say that it is the busi ness of the House of Commons to ascertain as far as they can the number who under these laws will be admitted, and not the number who may be tempted to register their suffrage. Their business is to pass laws under which they can safely determine the classes upon whom for the good of the commonwealth the suffrage may be conferred. I say that under the present arrangement there is not a man, be he aratepayer under £lO, or a compound householder, who may not be qualified under the bill which 1 am now asking leave to introduce to exercise the suffrage. The whole of the 723,000 are qualified. It is their business, if they choose, to invest themselves with that responsible privi lege. Under the new borough franchises, to which I must afterwards revert, the number of voters will be 68,000. As to the number of direct tax-payers who probably would vote in boroughs, the public departments have no means of offering to the house any recent information upon the subject, and it would probably take months to obtain it ; but the number would be very considerable. I should think myself, forming an estimate and making due allow ance for the increase of property and assessed taxpayers, probably at the rate of 23 per cent., since Mr. Macaulay's returns were made to the house, I should think the number that would be qualified in boroughs would greatly exceed 200,000. (Murmurs.) Under the educational franchise I calculate in boroughs 35,000 would be qualified, 25,000 landholders, and 45,000 in savings banks. There is a return now before the house with regard to savings banks which is very instructive, and contains the result whi h I have just anticipated—the number of male depositors of £5O and up wards in saving banks. I remember that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), than whom no one can be better acquainted on the subject, expressed an opinion last year that probably, if that suffrage were adopted, it would be found to prevail more in the country than in towns. It appears, however, that the male depositors of £5O and up wards in boroughs amount to 72,000, and in the counties to only 24,000 ; but iu the number which I have taken, of 45,000, some allowance ought to be made for a spculative estimate. You will therefore qualify in the borough con stituencies more than a million of persons. We are told that they will not exercise the great right which we offer them. I repeat that I regret to hear that ; but I venture to doubt whether the statement is correct. In our opinion it is simply the duty of the house so to deal with this ques tion as that those who are qualified to exercise the suffrage should have the opportunity—(Opposition cheers) -and that the duty of Parliament ceases when we have accom plished that. An Hon. MEMBER on the Opposition side here rose to put a question, but resumed his seat amid loud cries of " Order." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I will now proceed to consider the question of the county franchise. We propose that these new franchises shall be ex tended to the counties ; but, in consequence of the differ ence in circumstances between counties and boroughs, we do not propose that, under any circumstances, anybody shall exercise two votes. And now I come to the amount of the occupation franchise in counties. Sir, when I last made some observations to the house upon this question, I etated that her Majesty's Government thought, upon the whole, that the county qualification had better be placed at £2O rating, being the principle which ran through the whole of the scheme, When I made that statement, I made it with a feeling on the part of the Government that the opinion of the House of Commons ought to bo eon suited on the subject—(hear, from the Ministerial benches) —and they were of opinion also that the house had never had a fair opportunity of coming to any de cided judgment upon the matter. (Murmurs.) When the question was first originated about the reduction of the oc cupa • tion franchiso iu counties, and the hon. member for Surrey came forward with a proposition to reduce it to £lO, the house was always asked to consider it in an iso lated manner. Now, we bold —and I think the house has long come to the conclusion—that none of these questions of suffrage and those of au analogous character can be con sidered only in an isolated manner. They depend on each other ; and therefore I look upon the whole of these debates upon the reduction of the franchise to .£lO in counties to have been quite beside the subject ; and I think the best proof of the accuracy of that opinion is this, that they were barren of consequences. Last year, when a Reform Bill was before the house, and when the mind of the house was ac customed to consider in all its details and ramifications the principle of parliamentary representation, there was a fair opportunity when thisquestion might have been discussed in a satisfactory manner, and brought to a satisfactory set tlsment. But it has always been a most unfortunate ques tion;; and never was it more unfortunate than on that occasion, because it so happened that a great party scene and division took place in the beginning of the evening which had been destined for its discussion. It was brought on in a languid house—(Oh, oh, laughter and counter cheers from the Ministerialists)—and a very thin house, although it was decided by a very full house. That is another thing. It wasdiscussed in a very unsatisfactory and feeblemanner. I am perfectly impartial, because I took part in the debate —(laughter)—but it was altogether conducted in a manner which the largeness of the question did not warrant. A de cision was arrived at, but the majority was a very slight one, and it was decided upon a principle which the result of the session showed was not the conviction of the House of Commons. (Cries of "No, no," from the Opposition, and counter cheers.) Well, if the House of Commons meant anything last year, it meant that rating should be the principle of the franchise, and that was accepted by the country as one of the soundest decisions that the House of Commons ever came to. (Ministerial cheers.) Therefore we should have been glad if the question had been calmly and completely discussed ; and whatever the opinion of the house might have been, we should have felt was a wise and proper decision. But on the present occasion, bringing for ward a complete measure, and wishing, as far as we possibly can, to offer definite and definitive positions for considera tion of the house, her Majesty's Government have consi dered this question of the county occupation franchise very much, and on the whole they believe the qualification that would be most advantageous and most satisfactory to the country would be a £l5 rating, and that is the qualifica tion included in the bill. That would qualify, in addition to occupiers, 171,000 voters. There would be also in the counties 40,000 savings banks voters, 25,000 fund-holders, and 44,000 education franchises, which is a franchise which would be chiefly enjoyed in the country, and a very large amount of direct tax-payers, probably 159,000 or 160,000. There would therefore be—although no doubt many of these might have double qualifications —an addition, at the least, to the county franchise of upwards of 300,000. I have thus brought before the house that which is at no time a very entertaining subject, and especially so at the present time, when the conclusions have been somewhat foregone ; but I hope I have placed before it with some clearness the propositions which the Government have to make. (Cheers.) There is another part of the subject of very great interest, upon which, although I am anxious to touch upon nothing that is not necessary, it is requisite that I should make some observations, and that is the distribution of seats. (Hear, hoar.) Now that is a question of very great interest to the public mind. (Hear, hear.) There are members on both sides of the house who take a very deep interest in it. (Laughter.) The proposition which 1 made on a previous occasion has been described as one quite inadequate to the circumstances of the country, the requirements of the public voice, and the general necessities of the case. (Hear, hear.) Well, I am perfectly ready to meet these objections, nut that I wish to entrap the house on an oc casion like this into a controversy, but I have no doubt there will be other opportunities for going more into de tail. It is said that there ought to hale been a much larger scheme of disfranchisement—that, at the very least, every town with not above 10,000 population should lose a, member. Some people say, " You might have gone further"—(hear, hear)—namely, that a third member should be given to many places, and that by the process of disfranchisement and cumulative votes, at last per fect representation of the people would be accom plished. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, we have given that subject that great consideration which it deserves. My own opinion is that the votaries of this now system are not very numerous in the country, and I doubt whether they are very numerous in this house. (A. laugh.) But they are no doubt many of them men of distinguished ability, of high character, and gentlemen whose opinions upon every public subject will ccmmand and demand attention. There is no doubt that a very great noise has been made. (Hear, hear.) Whatever number has upheld these opinions there is no doubt that a very great noise has been made iu the country as to these three -cornered con stituencies and cumulative votes--blessings only to be obtained by a large disfranchisement of the borough mem bers. Well, sir, I admit that as far as leading articles and letters in the newspapers are concerned the question is settled. But I have always observed with respect tolead ing articles and letters in the newspapers —I speak advisedly, for I have wi itten leading articles m 3 golf (laughter) —that the distinguishing characteristic of them is this, that they always assume that there is only one side of the question. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) And I think they aro very wise in their generation, because I take it that if they did not make that assumption nobody for a moment would read them. (Hear, hear.) If the question of three-cernerel constituencies and cumulative votes be brought under the consideration of the house, will, and there are others near me who will, meet it fully, frankly, and fairly. At, the same time I am sure that those who hold those opinions have a right to know the views of the Government respecting them; and therefore I say having considered the question—l am suro without preju dice, completely and thoroughly tested it on every point, and tried it from every quarter —our ()Pinion is that the scheme is erroneous in principle, and would be pernicious in practice. (Ministerial cheers.) On this question there ar o only two courses to follow, if you wish to improve the representation of the people by the redistribution of seats. There are only two courses; there is no middle course. You must either create a new electoral map of England, or deal practically with the circumstances before you, and follow the line to which I will for a moment advert, and which I think the Government will follow. Now, if the country and the House of Commons do resolve on the first course, namely, that there shall be a complete revision of the representative system, so far as electoral localities are concerned—if I may presume to give advice to the House of Commons, I will say this, "Do not make that an affair to be settled by a Parliamentary Reform Bill to be framed by any Ministry whatever." That is a subject too vastand deep for us to treat or deal with without a preliminary in vestigation pursued by persons of the highest standing, character, experience, and learning in the country. (Hear.) When you possess their accumulated knowledge, and the results of their matured thoughts and experience, a popular assembly may weigh those considerations, and a practical Ministry may embody those results. There is no other means by which you can deal with such a question. But if you are not of opinion that an electoral map of England is to be reconstructed, then you must proceed prudently and practically. When you have the opportunity you must look about and see what places in the country are not represented that ought to be represented, and you should not lose sight of that opportunity when offered of giving to the teeming multitudes of the counties, so far as as you can do so, that direct representation which they want and which indirectly I admit they possess. (Hear, hear.) These are the two practical points which you ought tohave before you. There is no medium between dealing with the whole question in a largo and solemn manner, adequate to the great theme and the prudent and practical method I have indicated. Well, sir, we are not prepared to take the first course. Ido not say that it is not one worthy of deep respect and of the national thought, but it is not one which we are prepared to propose, and therefore we must retain the prudent and practical proposal I have already described. We do say that you will find towns in this country which we think ought to be represented, and whose representatives would bring fresh vigour to this house. We think also you ought not to take the opportunities which periodically offer for dealing with the distribution of political power without considering always the particular situation of the counties—that population of the counties iuvigorated and vivified by the new franchises you are giving to it— that population yin demand to be duly represented in this house; and who can deny their right ? And there fore, as far as you can, I think you ought in that direc tion to meet the counties, so that they may not be said to be represented indirectly by the small boroughs, but by direct representation as far as possible. But these things can only be done gradually. I am of opinion that any violent disturbance of our representative system, so far as redistribution of seats is concerned, is highly to be deprecated. Whatever you do in this matter your re presentation must be fairly distributed over the country, and if by any chance you force a distribution which would give a great preponderance to one part of the kingdom at the expense of the other, you would in effect create two nations, and there would be a want of sympathy and cor diality between the parts, and thus you would subvert the principle of nationality. Therefore, so far as we are con cerned, although I have road these names before, still as there was one omission, and as it is becoming an occasion like this, I hope the house will allow me to read the names of the places which we propose to enfranchise. We pro pose, out of the 36 seats which will be obtained by themode which I before detailed to the house, that members shall be conferred on Hartlepool, Darlington, Burnley, Staleybridge, St. Helen's, Dewsbury, Barnsley, Middlesborough, Wed nesbury, Croydon, Gravesend, Torquay, two members for the Tower Hamlets, and one member to the London University. The counties wo wish to divide are North Lancashire, North Lincolnshire, West Kent, West Surrey, Middlesex, South Staffordshire, South Devonshire, and South Lancashire. I have now placed before the house the provisions of the bill which I ask leave to introduce. I will not detain the house with petty details of the ques tion of the electoral franchise or the redistribution of seats. The bill will be iu the bands of hon. members to morrow, and they will be prepared to form an opinion as to the manner in which the provisions are to b 3 carried out. I hope the house will candidly consider this measure. So far as we are concerned we have spared no pains, no thought, and we have not shrunk from what was of still more importance to us, perhaps, in endeavouring. to bring it before the house. I will not advert to the circumstances unnecessarily under which the measure is now brought be fore tho house—under very groat difficulties and very great sacrifices. Ido not wish to disguise the fact, that I have felt great chagrin and great mortification ; but I believe I have done my dnty—(Ministerial cheers)—and under the circumstances I do not think I could have acted otherwise than I have done. (Hear.) Wo have, in attempting to bring it to this point, lost colleagues whom we more than re garded. We had to appeal to a high-spirited party to make what no doubt was to a certain extent a sacrifice of prin ciple, much of sentiment, and mach sacrifice of interests. But we have not appealed in vain, because they were ani mated by the same feeling which influenced us—a sense of duty and of conviction that the time had arrived when this question must be dealt with, and, if possible, extensively and completely. (Cliners.) Ido hope, therefore, that the house will approach the consideration of this measure in the 8111110 spirit as that which actuates her Mejesty's Go vernment, who believe that it is one which, if adopted in its spirit, will settle long differences, and that it is calcu lated to meet the require:nents of the country. lam told by some, and the objection will probably be repeated—and I must remind the kouse of the distinction we draw be tween popular rights and democratic demands —I may be told that the measure, in providing a system of checks and counterpoises, tends still further to interpose the barriers of class. If it is a measure which involves checks and coun terpoises, we live under a constitution whose boast it is that it is made up of checks and counterpoises. (Ileer., And why should we conceal from ourselves that this country is peculiarly one of class composition ? And o class it ever will remain. (Hear, hear.) What we desire to do is to give to all worthy of having the privilege con ferred a fair share in the government of this country, so far as that may be attained by the expression of a vote ; but at the same time we are equally anxious to maintain the principles on which the constitution is based, rnd in proposing amendments to prevent the preponderance of any class, and to give representation to the nation. I beg to move for leave to introduce a bill to amend the repre sentation of the people. The right hon. gentleman, who concluded his speech about 20 minutes past 6 o'clock, re sumed his seat amidst loud and continuous Miuisterial cheers. Mr. GLADSTONE, who rose amidst general cheers from the Liberal side of the House, said : Sir, in any words which may fall from me on this occasion it will be as far as possible from my intention to impugn the state ment of the right hon. gentleman that he has been acting under circumstances of great difficulty, and that he has followed a course which he believed to be his duty. (Hear, hear.) Neither is it my intention to prejudge the question what course it may be right for any members of this house or which I myself may think it right to take with reference to the measure of the right hon. gentleman. I think that until we have the bill in our hands—(hear, hear)— and it is promised that we shall have it in our hands by to-mor row —it would be impossible to arrive r.t any conclusion such as the important nature of the question and the gravity of the circumstances demand. (Hear, hear.) But having said that, I must at the same time frankly state that the impression made on my mind by the state ment of the right honourable gentleman involves in several points no inconsiderable perplexity, and is not on the whole a pleasing one. We commenced the session in the hope that some measure would be introduced which would tend to a settlement of this question. When the proposal to proceed by way of resolution was substituted we made no opposition, except by the expression of an earnest desire that a definite meaning might bo attached to the resolution submitted. When the right hon gentle man subsequently presented the skeleton of a bill, no diffi culty was raised on this side of the house on principle. That bill never was in print ; but the statement I made, which received general assent on this side of the house, was a hope that when we saw it in print, though we might have points to raise on its various provisions, these might be disposed of in committee. I most frankly own that in this, the fourth state of progress—or I may at least say of proceeding—the course the right hon. gentleman would lead us is, to adopt a common expression, still further into the wood. (Laughter and cheers.) The house will bear with me if I comment on a few of the provisions of the bill so far as we know them, with a due regard to the cor rections of to-morrow. On an ordinary occasion, after hearing a statement from the representatives of the Ad ministration and leader of this house, the course would be to say little ; but on the present occasion the circumstances are peculiar. The main particulars of this bill have ob tained so remarkable a peculiarity that it has become a duty to apply the mind to a consideration of the character of the measure ; aid, therefore, we are the more competent to do this than if we had been simply dependent on the speech of the right hon. gentleman on the introduction of the measure. But three days ago there was a meeting of the more select spirits in Downing-street, to whom revela tions were made of which a portion found its way to us, the mere mob of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear, and "oh.") And I must add, as far as my own experi ence of five-and-thirty years extends of parliamentary Practice, it is rather a novel practice for the Minister of the Crown to give an exposition of his policy two days in advance of the information of the House of Commons. (Repeated cheers from the Liberal party.) I had not in tended to make this the subject of remark - ("oh")—but it is justified by the circumstances of the case. This is an innovation which it is to be hoped will receive more consideration before it is repeated. (Hear.) We have likewise the advantage I grant of information, and it is of a still more surprising c h aracter than that communicated two days before made to a most favoured constituency— (laughter)—so that we have had opportunities fur conside ration to some considerable extent. And yet, I must say, that on those points which may be considered of vital im portance my mind remains in a state of obscurity and per plexity. The right hon. gentleman proposes a .£l5 rating as the basis of the county franchise; but he forgot that he told us that the object of his measure was to proceed on a principle. (Ilaar, hear.) I Wad amaz and I way tray amused, on looking back on the proceedings of last session to find him rest on rating as a criterion and measure of the subject. I pass the question of the redistribution of seats, which, without any great difficulty, 1 think may be dis cussed hereafter, and may not unsatisfactorily be dealt with in detail. I may pass the collateral extensions—l mean the exceptional franchises, as those on education or the posses sion of .£5O in the funds and savings banks—in which there, for some reason, has been an extension of the quali fication without any discussion now of the principle; but I cannot pass the subject without a single remark, that if I fully believe that they are proposed by the right hon. gentleman in good faith, I must decline to accept• his figures. (Hear, hear.) Whatever may bo said on the character of these franchises, I cannot help looking on the numbers estimated as visionary, as so many men in buck ram. The vital and central point is the borough franchise, and to that I will confine the remarks which I feel myself called upon to make. The right hon. gentleman has pro pounded to us to-night—after a preface in which ho dealt in general terms, and I think very unexceptionably fur the most part, with the subject of the British constitu tion —a theory which I confess to me is wholly novel : that the great security of this venerable constitution, `' which has so long been the glory of England and the ad miration of the world," if I may be permitted to borrow these words, which are really common property, as they end one or more speeches at every public dinner in the coun try—(laughter)--this constitution depends on what the right hon. gentleman calls the principle of rating. And he said that the House of Commons last summer by its uner ring instinct—(a laugh)—and without knowing it—(laugh ter) - established this great principle of rating. (Laughter.) And why did the House of Commons "take a leap in the dark," if I may avail myself of a phrase very common last year, in order to arrive at this blind result? By adopting the motion made by my friend the member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin), the effect of which was that the basis of the franchise ought to be founded on admitting to the con stituency any men who were rated to the relief of the poor, and who paid their rates. (Opposition cheers.) These are the two columns of the constitution—(laughter)—and theso two columns of the constitution were built up on the night when my noble friend succeeded in defeating the Govern ment. (Hear, and laughter.) I will venture to assert that the motion of the member for Galway had no more to do with the putting out of their places these columns of the constitution than chalk has to do with cheese. (Laughter.) The motion of tho member for Galway simply provided that the pecuniary measure of the franchise should be founded on rateable value, instead of gross estimated rental. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) It would be per fectly indifferent to that motion whether a man was rated or not- (hear)—and under the terms of the noble lord I will undertake to get rid of all personal liability to rating and all obligation to pay rates. This was not all. This was distinctly stated in the debate—stated by me at the commencement—and was admitted and understood by all who took part in that debate ; and yet the right hon. gen tleman has now discovered that which was contrary to the sense of every person who paid attention to the matter then in hand—the right hon. gentleman has discovered that the House of Commons, without its own know ledge by "unerring instinct," was led to make an affirma tion that it did not understand, and that we did not un derstand, on the great principles of the British Constitu tion. (Laughter.) The truth is, this is a very grave question ; it is a question which involves a great deal of dry detail, but upon this question depends the entire plan of the right hon. gentleman. He says that he is going to enfranchise 237,000 persons who are rated to the poor, and who pay their rates, and he insists upon taking the gross numbers in each class, quite irrespective of the fact that some, whom these numbers include, are upon the register already; that others, whom these numbers include, cannot possibly got upon the register, because they have not been rated the requisite time; and that others again, whom they include, aro naturally and ordinarily, on account of poverty, excused from payment of rates. The right hon. gentleman has certainly shown great tact in marching out on paper his army of 237,000 men. They include a large number of freemen. Mr. BRIG lIT -26,000. Mr. GLADSTONE—And a very large number of per sons in that class of life who cannot be registered on ac count of the rapidity of their migration, therefore making the residences more restricted to that class than to those above them. I will venture to say those 237,000 do not, in fact, amount to 140,000 when we have reduced the gross number to the nett. When you recollect the difference be tween the 641,000 on the register and rated under £lO, and the 450,1200 who are actually on the register, you must at once perceive my meaning. An enfranchising of about 130,000 persons is the real, certain, and immediate effect of the plan of the right hon. gentleman ; but is the effect only eo lung as the plan of the right hon, gentleman occupies the foundation of what he considers to ho the British consti tution. I was astounded when I heard the right hon. gentleman walk down bodily from the pedestal on which he had set himself, and deal with the case of the compound householder. He said the compound householder was as good a men as anybody else, that he was equally comi_etent to enjoy the franchise and to fulfil its duties, and that it was not the fault of the compound householder, but the fault of the community among which he lived, that deprived him of the position for which ho paid his rates. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, seys the right hon. gentleman, we will give the compound householder ever facility, and he bodily proceeded to place upon his list of enfranchised citizens the 486,000 who do not pay rates, and who come under the description of compound house holders. (Hear, hear.) If that be right, where is the principle of the British constitution ? (A. laugh.) What is the value of rating, and what is the privilege of the man who discharges the duties of a citizen, when they set up these ratepayers, and still say that those who are not rate payers ought just as much to be enfranchised? (No, no.) Several gentlemen opposite say "No." (Hear, hear.) If they will give me a little time, I am coming to their way of thinking - (hear, hear) —and to their mode of construing the speech of the right hon. gentleman. I have followed him through two phases of that speech—the first, in which he describes this principle of rating as the basis of the British constitution ; and the second, in which he humanely takes up the cudgels on behalf of the compound householder, who, he says, is as good a man as anybody else, and to whom a vete ought to be given. I will now endeavour to make an approximate estimate of the plan, though on some parts of it I am afraid there will be diffi- culty in construing it, even when we get the bill to mor row morning. The compound householders are to have every facility for being registered. The meaning of that is, that the name of every compound householder, should be upon the rate-book, and when it is on the rate-book, and they are in possession of the qualification that others enjoy, their names should be carried on to the register. (Hear, hear.) That, in my opinion, is the means of afford ing facilities to compound householders. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says the compound householder must make a claim, he must insert his name, and he must pay his rates. (Loud cheers on the Conservative side.) lam astounded. (Great laughter.) lam astonished at those gentlemen. (Cheers.) lam surprised at that ma nifestation. You say it is the duty of the compound householder to go and pay to the parish officer the rate which he has already paid in his rent to the landlord. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition, and No, no, from the Mi nisterial side.) You say that he must. (No, no.) Then you do not say so. lam very well pleased. (Ironical cheers.) Then he ought not to pay his rates. What, then, is the meaning of this provision ? lam afraid the meaning of it is this. Perhaps it is that the compound householder is to be fined in respect of the difference of the rate which he is bound to pay under the landlora's agreement and that which lie should have to pay as an ordinary ratepayer. Whether ho does that or not, I know very well, unless the right hon. gentleman will adopt the perfectly simple method I have pointed out, and which may be road in the bill of last year, his plan comes to this : it' comes to bo a double process, varying absolutely in different towns of the coun try as far as black from white, and depending wholly on the views taken by the local authorities. Has the right hon. gentleman examined the returns which have been in his Lands for a week, or may bo a year ? I mean the re- turns for the borough of Lambeth. He will find in the parish of Lambeth 5,781 compound occupiers on the Parlia mentary register. But go to St. Giles's, Camberwell, and we find this passage in the Parliamentry blue book, at page 52 —I am afraid ho has not read it carefully— this: That there are 4,921 tenements above a .£lO rental which are rated to the owners instead of the occupiers; and that there are at present only five of such occupiers on the register. Why is that the case ? Aro the people of St. Giles's, Camber well, selfish and indifferent to political privilege, whereas the people of Lambeth are so animated by the holy fire of patriotism that 5,781 of them have been to the over seers and insisted on taking all the pains of inserting their names on the register ? Not at all. It is be cause a different process is pursued by the local autho rities of one parish, and they placed 5,781 on the list of voters, whereas in the last only five compound house holders are so placed. Am I to be told at this time of day, after all the stages we have passed through—after turning over and over and over again this question—and after parting with three colleagues because, forsooth, those col leagues were not willing to accept the bill you now propose —that we are to end in adopting legislation which affects two-thirds of the whole number of persons about whose enfranchisement there is a question below .£lO in value— a system under which it is evident it depends upon the pure and simple discretion of a parish officer whether a man is enfranchised or not, as he pleases ? (Cheers.) I think, when gentlemen see that this is the operation of the pre sent system, they will readily follow me, at any rate, to this conclusion—that this is a matter which it is totally impossible for us to leave at the discretion and command of parochial authorities. (Hear, hear.) But is the right hon. gentleman going to take it out of their discretion ? Aye? Does the right hon. gentleman mean to provide that these 5,000 persons shall be put upon the register in the one parish as they are in the other? If he does, well. But then it is most important we should know with regard to the view we are taking, and his speech has thrown no light on that whatever, because he has not told us whether these men are—in fact, I think he has told us the con trary—to go through the same process themselves of being fined; because, in point of fact, call it what you like—we are now speaking in a great measure of the labouring Clatmea—it is neither mere her less than a fine on the la bouring classes—(hear, hear)—if you say to them, " You, by your arrangement with your landlord, have nothing to do with rates, because you pay them in your rent ; but you are to go to the parish officer and claim to be rated ; you are to go to another parish officer, and see whether there are any rated due on your premises ; and if there are any due, you are to render the amount; and then you are to be liable to bo told by the parish officer—as these people frequently are told, and as there is a noted case in one of the metro politan boroughs —" and then to be told, now you have made your claim, and when the revising barrister comes here in November then you may appear before him in sup port of it." (Laughter.) Well, sir, I will tell the right hon. gentleman, in my opinion the mode lie has adopted of applying the principle of rating is a mode that really can not stand. I don't agree with those who think that the principle of rating is the great bulwark of the constitu tion. But I do agree with those who think that if you proceed to enfranchise all householders—and I don't per ctive that the right hon. gentleman has made the smallest provision to meet the difficulty—l do agree with those who think that if you enfranchise all householders, you get into very great difficulty at the lower and of the scale when you come to deal with that class of householder who is usually excused his rates. (Hear, hear.) You then put it into the power of the p•irish officer, who is a political partisan, who anticipates that 100 or 500 men are going to vote on the side opposite to his, to allege their poverty, and obtain an excuse of their rates —(hear, hear) --thereby disfranchising the men. There is a cure for that, when you let in the elec tion agent, who, aware of the politics of the parish officer, and determined not to be behind him, comes down with 500 rates for his 500 men, in triumph, and reinstates those bribed and contaminated men. (Cheers.) I did expect to hear from the right hon. gentle man some indication that he had made a provision for dealing with this class of cases; but, instead of indicating anything of that kind, the right hon. gentleman went on to make disrespectful remarks on a plan not before the house, namely, a £5 rating, which he contended had never been before the house, but which, unless my me mory serves me very ill, was proposed by Lord Russell in 1852, when the right hon. gentleman, speaking on Lord Russell's bill, spoke of it as based on a Serbonian Bog, though he spoke of it in terms of general approbation. Ile has now indicated most darkly and mysteriously that some one has got a plan by means of a rating bill to de prive all below a £5 rating of the privilege of paying their rates, and thus of reducing them to a condition of helotisin which, he thinks, is perfectly intolerable. The right hon. gentleman does not appear to be aware of the real history of the laws which have been passed with reference to per sonal liability for rates. It is all very well to say that the old principle of the borough franchise was that a man should pay scot and lot. Now, we have contrived to im prove at any rate the detail of our social and economical arrangements. I take it, in that state of society a very large number of those who paid scot and lot were proprie tors of their house. But the great mass now, almost the entirety of the similar population of our towns, are tenants, and not proprietors. For half a century Parliament has been under the conviction that it was much better in the case of these small holdings and small rates to deal with the landlords, and not with the tenants. lam addressing myself to the observations of the right hon. gentleman when he clothed with a kind of mysterious horror that somebody proposed that occupiers below £5 might be re lieved from liability with respect of rates. But is this the view Parliament takes of this principle of the British Con stitution, shat every man should pay his rates ? Parlia ment says this in the Small Tenements Act : " Whereas the collection of poor's rates and highway rates assessed upon the occupiers of tenements of small annual value is expensive, difficult, and frequently impracticable, and it is expedient to make provision for the better collection of the same, therefore be it enacted that the owner shall be rated, Arc." This is the great social reform which the right hon. gentleman seems to view with horror and dislike, and which he actually treats as if the application of it to the small householders of the country was in the nature of a public wrong. (Hear, hear.) I must own Iso far agree with gen tlemen who feel great interest in this subject of personal rating, that I should regard it as a fortunate circumstance if the limit of our franchise downward were to cease at the same point of personal liability to pay rates. I think there would be some very great advantages in that arrangement. (Rear, hear.) 1 don't say that it is prac tical, but I say there are advantages. First, I believe it is entirely owing to a dsect in the amount of allowance pro posed that the Small Tenements Act does not run much more generally through the boroughs. Secondly, if we are all sincere—as I hope we are, and as I believe we are-- in desiring to get something like fixity on this question— (hear, hear)—it seems that such an arrangement would greatly contribute to fixity; but this is the very arrange ment which the right hon. gentleman gratuitously selected for his severest condemnation. 1 must ask myself, with regard to this bill, two questions—first, what the bill is, and secondly, what the hill would become if we pass into committee. In the first place, I find in committee there are three safeguards or securities intended by the bill. The first relates to residence, the second to rating, and the third to dual voting. That phrase which the right hon. gentleman seemed to me with an " unerring instinct"— , (laughter) —to eschew as long as ever he could, and at last to pass over with a lightness and delicacy of touch for which I shall be forced to substitute very much coarser language. Let me look at the securities ; first of all comes length of residence. The right hon. gentleman does not here adopt the terms of the Municipal Act, but an inter mediate term, and he adds to that substantially the term now required by the Parliamentary Registration Act. I cannot say for myself that I attach the smallest value to that provision. It will operate in reducing the franchise to people of property. lam quite willing to admit it is considered a valuable admission that will operate to reduce the franchise of the upper classes, but not quite so much as the lower. 1 presume it is to apply to all ; or is there to be one above £lO and one below ? (Oh, oh.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is tku same as the proposal of Lord John Russell's bill. It leaves all existing franchises. The franchises under the Act of 1832 are not touched. Mr. GLADSTONE —That is the right way to do it, if it is to be done. I think you are right to preserve exist ing rights ; but I must say I think it has the effect of limit ing the existing f ran chises, if not some o f the upper as well as the lower classes of electors. Does not the longer term of residence limit the number of the electors ? (No, no.) However, I won't trouble the house more about that, be cause, as I was going to say, I only wish to that extent to enter a protest ;but whore there may be much more sub stantial and difficult matters, I do not pretend to say that that is ono of great consequence, or a matter on which there are any great and vital questions depending. I now come to the question of personal rating, and I m us t say th a t it appears to me that the proposition of the right hon. gen tleman is fundamentally and essentially wrong. (Hear, hear.) I can understand that you might remedy in a cer tain sense the evils of that proposition by alterations which would completely nullify it. If you provide that the 456,000 names of compound householders—l include thos3 who occupy under the Small Tenements Act, although 1 believe that is not perfectly correct in law—are to remain on the register, it would be better to get rid of the rate paying distinction altogether. There is no advantage in adopting a circuitous process for its own sake. But I wish now to point out what I think a fundamental and incurable fault in the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, sup posing it is intended to be a reality. If it is intended to be merely a dream, the question must be considered from a different point of view ; but supposing it to be intended to be a reality, its effect is this: —'We find existing in this country laws and practices of many different descriptions, which have the effect in different modes of limiting the principle of personal liability to rating. The first of these modes is by the adoption of the Small Tenements Act, where the ratepayers of a parish, voting with a very high plurality of votes—(hear, hear)—can, if they think fit, bring in the Act, and disfranchise every man who, but for its introduction, would enjoy the franchise in a direct manner. (Hear, hear.) I am now going to assume that th 3 right hon. gentleman's distinction between rating and non-rating is a reality. Then, the first effect of the in troduction of that act is to remove from the register every man who is registered under £6. I will apply that to the borough of Leeds—a very favourite case for the plan of the right hon. gentleman—because I believe it. will not be pos sible to bring forward any Reform Bill that shall not add considerably to the constituency of that borough. Upon that I congratulate my hon. friend near me (Mr. Baines). There are in that borough 14,600 ratepayers who aro as sessed at .£6 and under. Can it bo right that it shall de pend upon the will of the vestry—aye, and not of the ves try considered as to population, but I say upon the will exclusively of the propertied classes of the parish—whether these 14,600 people are to be enfranchised or not? (Hear.) Then, again, after the Small Tenements Act has been adopted, it is in the power of the vestry to reject and put an end to it, and is that the sort of thing to form the basis of our legislation? IR fact, are we to pass a law with re spect to which we aro wholly in the dark, as to whether it will double the constituency or only add some 100,000, or 120,000, or 130,000 people, and under which it will depend on the will of local persons, with local interests, and upon local officers, whether or not household suffrage should bo established in the land. (Hear, hear.) I protest against that method of proceeding. (Cheers.) If household suffrage is to be established by the House of Commons, let it be esta blished; but don't let us leave it to the wealthier persons in each constituency to enfranchise or disenfranchise at their pleasure, and with reference to circumstances which any of them may choose to import into it, the decision of the cases of thousands of their follow-subjects. (Hoar.) That is one class of persons, and the most important class of per• sons affected by the provisions of the bill. Again, 1 corn back to my point. Is your distinction between rating and non-rating to be a reality or not ? If it is not to be a rea lity, say so—do away with the distinction, and let us get rid of this unnecessary restriction upon the operation of the constitution ; but if it is to be a reality, don't let us leave it to depend upon the mere will of local authori ties to define what the limits of the constituencies are to be. (Hear, hear.) There are two other classes--most important classes. There is a class of to*ns whero special local acts have been obtained, and where the Smell Tenements Act is unknown, but where these local acts establish the prin , oiple of compoluidiug.for rates upon a vtvy large scale. The right hon. gentleman is aware that local acts are to be found establishing compositions for rates on the assessment of the landlord up to £lO, £l2, £l5, £2O, £3O value; and even in certain cases, in London particularly, up to £35 value. I asked the right hon. gentleman whether a com pound householder paying 20s. a year in direct taxes is to be permitted to enjoy the second vote—the vote for direct taxation. He said "Yes," and certainly it would be most absurd that he should not, presuming that the direct tax vote is to be law of the land. But what can be more absurd than this, that recognising his fitness to be made one of the special class who are to be elected, as it were, the keepers of the rest of the community, by means of this second vote ho is put in a position of difficulty in respect to his household vote, as compared with the man rated at £3 or £4 in a town where there do not happen to be com pound householders? There is not a man iu this house with a more lively fancy than the right hon. gentleman. Is it possible even for the house to conceive anything more ludicrous than this ? I will take the borough of Thetford, whore the bill of the right hon. gentleman would go very close, indeed, to establishing universal suffrage. This is just like a great number of boroughs which the right hon. gentleman is often glad to use to do service in his compa risons between county and borough representation. It is a mere assemblage of villages constituting a rural district. There is a population of 4,200 people, end there aro 829 male occupiers —that is one in five —very close upon uni versal suffrage. If you will carry that proportion through Ragland, it will give you a constituency of 4,000,000; and I imagine that will entirely close the mouth of Mr. Beales. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) These people are the mere peasantry of the country—l mean those who represent un skilled labour—(no, no)—unskilled labour. I don't mean skilled agricultural labourers—though they aro increasing iu number, and as the use of agricultural machinery be comes more common they must increase; but in the suf frage, as far as the borough of Thetford is concerned, they are unskilled. We may take Wilton and Westbury as similar examples. If you chess to go into those groups and clusters of villages—as rural as any in the country — and emancipate the whole, you will have—l don't say in committee on this bill, but at an early period—to consider whether this peasantry in other districts are to be intro duced also, and whether that application is to be universal to the rural and village population. I am not one of those who believe that the constitution of the country is depen dent upon the suffrage, as Lord Derby declared the other night when he spoke of the destruction of the British con stitution. I have a great deal more faith in the constitu tion than to believe it depends on a rating franchise, or even upon exact wisdom. (Hear, hear.) We might make many serious mistakes, and the strong good sense of this country would save the constitution. (Hear, hear.) But that is no reason why weshould make mistakes, and estab lish new principles in the dark, as the right hon. gentle man said the House of Commons did on the motion of the noble lord the member for Galway. Before I could acced e to a franchise which is close upon universal suffrage— which is, as I understand, equivalent in the rural districts, where the Small Tenements Act is not in operation, to re sidential manhood suffrage —I should like to ask myself whether, with a view to the maintenance of the diversity of character in the house of Commons of which the right hon. gentleman speaks with great good souse, I am prepared to en dure the application of the principle to the whole county constituency of the country. There aro, then, these local Acts to which I have referred, and nothing could be more preposterous than you should say to the peasant, or the com mon hoclman, or day labourer earning Is 6d or 28 a day, "You shall have the franchise for nothing; your name shall be placed on the register, and you know nothing about it ;" and that you should go into the great communities of tht parishes and boroughs of London, and many other towns, and actually fine, in time, or in money, -or in both the com pound householder—the man whose perfect competency it is proposed to recognise by putting into his hands the second vote. (Hear, hear.) The second of these safeguards is doomed. It may be perfectly possible to make a personal rating a condition of the suffrage; but the right hon. gen tleman has condemned the plan on which it could be done. But personal rating, as a condition of the suffrage—the amount of the rating in the country being regulated partly by pure accident, and the rest either by the will of the local parochial authorities or by the activity of political agents, and their literal use of the purses of the candidates—such provisions as these will not be allowed by the House of Commons to enter into any bill for the amendment of the representation of the people. (Cheers.) Then comes the duality of votes. And here the right lion. gentlemen has made a moderate computation. He did not venture on a higher figure than 200,000, though ho left a broad margin beyond that. The right hon. gentle man knows very well that there most be more than 200,000 of those dual votes. And here I have to make a complaint against her Majesty's Government. Last year we laboured to the utmost of our ability, and spent hours, and days, and many of them, with the best aids we could get, in preparing and throwing into the best form, for the use of the House of Commons, the best information our opportunities would enable us to get. And yet we were proposing the most homely of measures, such as might easily occur to any person without digging beneath the surface, and elaborating refined and philosophical systems like that of the right hon. gentleman. And now he comes forward with the proposal relating to dual voting, of all new-fangled schemes the most new-fangled, and of all innovations the most innovating —(hear, hear) —and yet he does not deign to lay upon the table any computation of the number of these dual votes that are to be created, and are to be put up as arms in the hands of one part of the community to be used against another. (Opposition cheers.) The right hon. gentleman does not deign to supply us with such information— though he has been so long thinking about it—ever since Lord Derby iu August last wrote to him that this question must be set tled, and not with a niggard hand, he has not given us scrap of information, except the statement that the num ber of dual votes must be beyond 200,000. How much beyond? (Hear, hear.) Is it 300,000, 400,000, or 500,000 ? There is no reply. (Cheers and laughter.) I am bound to say that I do pot suffer so much from the want of a reply to that question as might be supposed. To this dual voting of the right hon. gentleman, be the numbers great orsmall, from this moment I for one record an inflexible hostility. (Opposition cheers.) We have observed long enough the language of reserve—(cheers and laughter)—and I would gladly observe it still, if the proposition of the Govern ment were such as to make it compatible with the fulfil ment of public obligations. But I have enough faith in the British spirit of honour, even of those gentlemen who gave me a sarcastic cheer just now, to believe that I should ill indeed study the mode of obtaining access to their good graces if, entertaining the opinion I do of this proposition, I spoke of it in less unmeasured terms. This dual vote is in the first place a gigantic engine of fraud that nothing can control. 1 believe the right hon. gentleman might in some degree have avoided this pitfall if he had taken the pains to confine the dual vote to the house tax. If he had done that we should still be liable to this dif f iculty, that many persons to serve a political candidate won ld get the owners ,of houses whose houses were less than £2O to pay the house tax. But this might have been limited to a considerable extent by providing that all the other rates and taxes to which the man was liable should be paid on the same scale. But when the right hon. gentleman comes to the income tax and assessed taxes, it is equivalent to proclaiming to every man in the country, with a purse in his pocket, that ho may make votes on what scale he pleases for 20s. a year. (Cheers.) A man who chooses to use hair powder must pay 235. 6d. a year. A man who chooses to hand about, not the body but the property of some miserable three-legged jade, may, if he pleases, qualify 365 persons by changing day by day the ownership of a single horse that cost him perhaps £3 (Loud laughter.) Then there is the income tax. In a borough where 100 votes aro wanted, a political agent may make 100 mon sign a requisition to the surveyor of taxes, saying they were not assessed for income tax, and asking for the proper papers. The surveyor has no option, for I presume you aro not going to put upon him the duty of ascertaining whether the persons ought to be assessed, though that would be quite as reasonable as some of the right hon. gentleman's propositions. (Laughter.) At any rate, it is not included in his present bill. The 100 papers go to, the political agent, and he fills them up—say he writes under Schedule D, " Turkish Guaranteed Stock" — (laughter) —he takes them round and they are signed, and the operation is complete. Thus votes are made by these false schedules, and it is impossible to prevent wholesale fraud in the use of the tax. But perhaps the right hon. gentleman will say—he is merciless in making the past errors of other men do duty for his pre sent purposes—that in 1854 we proposed some such plan. That is quite true, and that was proposed on account of the plausible appearance which they bore in our eyes, and which they still boar in the eyes of the right hon. gentleman, and he will not suppose that I mean to say he wishes deliberately to bring about a great system of fraud. But when we had contemplated these measures, and saw what they would come to, we did not propose them in 1860 or 1866. (Heat, hear.) And having thus deli berately rejected thorn, it is no wonder that we should be ready to criticise them when they appear in the bill of the right hon. gentleman. And besides being a gigantic engine of frauds, this dual vote is a great deal more. It is a pro clamation of a war of classes—(Opposition cheers)—it is the first measure in the war of classes. Talk of the Bri tish constitution—the author of this dual vote is the man who strikes at the British constitution ! (Cheers.) The British constitution rests, and has rested from time imme morial upon the mutual goodwill, respect, and good feeling of the people; upon the equality which they enjoyed in the eye of the law ; upon the manner in which they mat in their public assemblages, reckoned as man and citi zens, and enjoying equal privileges iu that capacity. But the day when :you place in the hands of the rich man, under the notion of fortifying his position, this weapon to use against his poorer fellow-countryman, that day you seal the doom of the old British constitution —(cheers)—that day you sow seeds of dissension that can never abate—that day you destroy the confidence that unites all classes of the community. (Re newed cheering.) If you could promulgate this mea sure to-morrow as an Act of Parliament in the terms of the bill the right honourable gentleman now holds in his hands, you would light up a flame the most dangerous and forraiclaDle that has over menaced the safety of the empire. (Loud cheers.) There are certain questions still in reserve, and we must wait to see what those propositions are with regard to the sacred principle of rating, and whether it is really to be applied in a limited manner, or whether the whole 700,000 aro to be enfran chised. But I must observe one very extraordinary omis sion in the bill. The right lion. gentleman, in an admir able passage which I promise to look up and quote at some future day, laid down far better than I could do it the principle of the lolger franchise. lam ashamed to tread the ground he has trodden, and to spoil, by an imperfect and unscientific characterisation, his account of that prin ciple ; but the substance of what he said was, that the existence of a class of lodgers is a necessity of modern civilisation. You have in every great town, and especially in London, owing to the extremely high cost of space, and consequently the high rent of rate, a vast multitude of men living as lodgers. They have the same claims as householders in the country, the same character, the same capacity, the same willingness to pay the rates—the fourth of the cardinal virtues —(laughter) —and you have them in numbers of 10.000, 20,000, and 50,000. But the right hon. gentleman has completely passed by them, and there is no provision for them except the provision with regard to the savings banks. I never heard that lodgers were particularly given to putting money into savings banks. If they are, it seems to show that they are all mm fit to be enfranchised, and I should like to enfranchise them ; but the franchise re lating to savings banks would do no more for them than other men. But unfortunately it is perfectly well known that a very small proportion of those skilled artisans are to be found amongst savings bank depositors. Therefore what I find in this bill is this: I find that the safeguard of long residence—l use the term conventionally—is prac tically of small account; and I find that the safeguard of liability to pay rates cannot possibly be accepted by this house after it has become aware of the nature and particu lars of the operation of the law respecting rating in this country. I presume, therefore, that these limitations must go--that the dual voting must go. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The right hon. gentleman knows as well as Ido that dual voting is dead already. (Renewed cheers.) The right hon. gentleman required to muster and pluck up his courage in order to. speak out—(laughter)—but it was a great effort—(Ministerial cheers) —for a man to propose to the House of Commons that which he must know in his own mind was as completely gone as if it had boon a proposal of Lord Strafford in the time of Charles I. (Hear, hear.) Well, the dual vote is gone ; the lodger franchise is coming ; and behind the lodger franchise come the broad consequences which must follow from enfran ehisement of the peasantry in what you choose to call bo roughs, but which are little towns. Sir, that is a very exten sive change. It may be that the bill does not contain provi sions for such a change ; but, so far as we can see, it looks as if it would assume that form. I am convinced that these safeguards must go, and I am confident that the lodger franchise must come in. Ido not hesitate to say that it is generous on the part of the right hon. gentleman to offer such a bill to hon. gentlemen ou this side of the house. It has been said that it will be highly favourable to them ; and if it be his object to confer upon them a large boon, and to increase the borough representation, I do not mean to say that he will not accomplish that end. But there are other questions than those of the interests of party. (Cheers.) I have not said a word since we quitted office in defence of the course which we pursued last year. The right hon. gentleman said we proceeded last year avowedly upon an expedient. Avowedly we did nothing of the kind. (Cheers.) He is at perfect liberty to call it expedient if he likes, but I don't call it expedient. I call it principle, and our principle was this—to enfranchise the skilled labour of the country. We have been told again from the opposite side of the value of the principle of selection. The last testimony to the principle which I have seen was the remarkable letter from the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Con servative working men of Huddersfield, in which he said that the best of the working classes ought to be ad mitted to the franchise. Certainly, sir, I shall not be a little curious to hoar the noble lord when he comes down here and officially recommends a bill drawn in contempt of the principle which he himself so recently approved— (cheers)•-a bill which utterly ignores all selection of the working classes, which excludes a vast number of the most instructed and skilled of the working classes —(cheers)— and which, when it admits any of them, admits along with them the poorest., the least instructed, the least skilled, and the most dependent members of the community. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I have thought it fair to speak of the bill as I have done. The gravity of the question is much too great for me to presume to decide upon it at once. So large a proposition as this bill would be, if the pretended safeguards—l do not mean to say that the Government do not believe in their sufficiency—but if they fall away, the propositions will certainly require some consideration be fore I, for one, can make up my mind upon them. With regard to the proposition in its limited form—in its dis tinction between rating and non-rating, and the shutting out of men because their houses are compounded for, and because of their living in communities which have availed themselves of the great social improvement promoted by Parliament for the last fifty years -- to that proposition I am inflexibly and utterly opposed. With regard to the general plans and proposals of the right hon. gentleman, he will acknowledge that they require time for consideration, and that it is impossible for us now to judge in what measure to deal with them as a whole. But to that ono which, if the right hon. gentleman means to make rating a distinct reality, is next most important, namely, dual voting, to that prop • osel lem inflexibly opposed. (Hear, hear.) I confess I think that it is quite impossible under any circumstances that any proposal like that, or any proposal conceived in such a spirit, can by any possibility obtain the sanction of the House of Commons. (The right hon. gentleman re sumed his seat amid loud cheers.) Sir W. lIEATHCOTE reserved to himself the liberty of forming a judgment on the bill at a future stage, but at present his impression was unfavourable. Sir G. BOWYER animadverted on the captious and bitter tone of Mr. Gladstone's speech, which led him to believe there was no chance of passing a bill this session, and deprecated any further attempt to make the question a party stalking-horse. He defended rating as the constitu tional foundation of every franchise, condemned the' dual voting, and was of opinion that the proper solution of re distribution was to increase the number of members. Mr. LOWE warned the supporters of the bill that, so far from having touched sound ground in household suf frage, they had lighted on a quicksand which would bo no safeguard against further downward progress. In fact, the present suffrage was household, with the limit or safe guard of £lO rental, and a personal payment of rates would not be found so stable even as £lO rental, for it would be attended with more personal annoyances to the voters, and they would be the more anxious to sweep it away. if the compoun el householders were in tended to have votes, all this machinery ought to be swept away ; if not, the change would dfffor little Irons a £0 rental. Mr. Gladstone's proposal, that the franchise should bo brought down to meet the point where personal payment of rates ceased,Mr. Lowe thought worth the consideration of the house ; but expressed the strongest repugnance for the dual vote, which was founded on the fallacy that the taxing power was the chief function of the House of Commons, was insulting to those who were to be admitted to the franchise, and would create such gla ring inequalities that a fresh agitation must immediately follow. Whatever was done ought to be done freely and frankly, and the house ought-to be told by the Government whether they considered this a vital part of the bill. Mr. HENLEY felt rather disheartened by the tone the discussion was taking. He decidedly approved the pro posal of the bill to connect the vote with payment of rates, and had no doubt that the difficulties as to the compound householders might be easily Bottled in committee if both sides would set their shoulders to the wheel with a firm determination to settle the'question. The figure of £l5 for the counties, approaching closely to the house-tax, mot his views, but the dual vote he regarded as a piece of uemiti gated mischief, which was unnecessary, because the people who were to come in would be as much divided as any other class in opinions. Mr. ROEBUCK saw no difficulty in arranging all the objections taken by Mr. Gladstone on the ratepaying parr of the scheme in committee, and, animadverting on Mr. Gladstone's speech, hinted that the main motive for those objections was a mere party fooling. The dual vote, of course, was impossible, but evidently not a vital point. He urged tho house to bear in mind that if this bill were rejected, and the Government thrown out (for he did not beliieve in a dissolution), a dead lock would follow, and he advised it to road the bill a second time and deal with it in committee. Mr. B. HOPE made some sarcastic observations on the spectacle of a Conservative Government outbidding Libe rals in a Liberal market, and denounced the bill as a two faced business, which might prove so restrictive that it would take away with ono hand what it seemed to give with the other, or else would entail household suffrage in a most dangerous form. Mr. B. JOHNSTONE supported the main features of bill, excepting the dual vote, and spoke in a sanguine tone of the prospects of a speedy settlement., which he greatly desired, as until it came to pass we never could again be a united people. Mr. C. BUXTON intimated that he should take an op portunity of asking the opinion of the house on cumulative voting. Mr. SANDFORD, having expressed an opinion that the bill was inconsistent with the Resolutions, and that the d nal voting was illusory, sharply attacked Sir J. Pakington for his recent speech at Droitwich, and asserted that the Cabinet had not considered a Reform Bill a week before Parliament met. Mr. B. OSBORNE exhorted thehouse not to give way to party spirit, which would strangle the last chance of pass ing a Reform Bill this session, nor to be too precipitate in condemning a measure which it had never seen. He hoped there would be no repetition of the mistakes of 1859, but that the bill would be read a second time and dealt with in committee. On the merits of the bill he expressed himself decidedly opposed to the dual vote and the redistribution scheme. Lord CRANBORNE, alluding to a remark of Mr. Osborne, asserted that the house had a right to know what wore held to be vital points, particularly as this was a bill of checks and compensations, and he did not believe that his late colleagues were the men to pass this bill entirely without compensations. But of the two compensations it proposed —dual voting and personal payment of rates—the first would not only be utterly ineffective, but it was so unpalatable that it had no chance of acceptance; and `the second was certain to be swept away by the very first Par liament elected under it. By tracing the practical opera tion of the security, he showed that the cost to each compound householder for getting his name on the Ito gister would be about ss. a year, and here he predicted the corrupt machinery of the electioneering agents would come in. lie showed, too, how unequally it would work in the boroughs (98 iu number) to which the Small Tene ments Act was only partially applied, and from all this ho concluded that the security would bo swept away immediately, and household suffrage pure and simple would be the result; and this, ho nytint.t.ineff, after their conduct last year, the Conservative party ought not to be the per sons to pass. If the party accepted the bill they would be committing political suicide, but he hoped th, moderato party on both sides would retain sufficient influence to secure that, while skilled artisans were introduced into the electoral body in fair numbers existing interests w.,uld not be subverted. The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER made an animated reply, attacking Mr. Gladstone for his inconsis tency, defending the accuracy of his figures, and asserting that it was a calumny on the working man to assume that ho would resent the connexion of the constitutional obli gation to pay rates with the political privilege of voting Replying to the observation of Lord Cranborne, he de clared with much emphasis that the Government would never introduce household suffrage pure and simple, and he urged the house not to listen to what he hinted was the object of Mr. Gladstone's elaborately prepared speech rejection of the bill before its second reading. speech—the Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it Wits subsequently read a first time. The Criminal Lunatics Bill passed through committee. The Mutiny Bill was read a second time. A long discussion on Mr. Leeman's Sale and Purchase of Shares Bill detained the house until a late hour. A motion by Mr. thenfell to refer it to a select committee was nega tived without a division, but in committee motions to re port progress were renewed so frequently that Mr. Leeman was compelled to give way, and fix the further progress of the bill for Tuesday. _ _ The house adjourned at 20 minutes past one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER-411nm 16. This market was poorly supplied with wheat, but busi ness was better, and the prices of last week advanced fully ls. per qr. Spring corn of all descriptions was limited iu sale at late rates. Wheat, white Ca 70s ) Beane, 81azagan.,....33s 408 red ..62s 67s Middle and sinall. 444 4 88 Harley .. .. Us 56s Peas, white 383 424 Oats .. —a -a 1 grey ..303 428 • NORTHAMPTON-11"mm 16. Now 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 stow , . Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 42s to 45s per 38 stone. Peas , 38s to 42s per 36 stone. CHELMSFORD—MAncu 15. A very fair supply of wheat. For all qualities th° full prices of last week were given,' best qualities making a slight advance in some instances. Barley receded is on late currencies. Beans and peas in good demand at late rates. Wheat, old white....s2s 66 4 Peas, Partridge ...... 41s 435 new .1).8 673 White ...• 328 365 old red SO sis B.iling ........ - 8 „, new. s)s 5Ss Dun.... ..... —.38 8 "' Barley... 26s 33s —a dit o, new....- -8 ~5 , Chevalier - n —s Beans, Tick, 01d......40i3 'x, Grind.ng , 5s 30s new.... 38 s IA 2 : Malt 58s tOa Harrow 1 icks.42s -- Chevalier 6•is 62a Oats •• • 2la 27s Mazsga n n ew ....... • .. 4 :i IS)); 4443: GIIANTHAM-31,mm 16. Old white wheat, 65s to 725; old red, 60s to 68s ; nevi white, 68s to 718; new red, 56s to 64s per 36 stone. B ar.' ley for malting, 38s to 455 per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 34s pe , ': 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s per stone. Beans, old, 42s to 525; new, 39s to 46s per 36 stone• Peas, 35s to 40s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN—MARCH 15. A' our market to-day wheat was in fair supplY m , 3n d the trade rather slack. No quotable alteration fro last week's terms. White wheat Red wheat 45s Od to 4 8s 0 4 54s Od to 58s Od 621 b bushel. Potato oats 24s Od to 26s Odl 401 b 111 bushel. Common oats 23s 6 d to 25 s Od Bore 31 s Od to 32 s 6 d 5316 bushel. ? Barley 32s Od to 33s Od f 2801 b Oatmeal 20s 6d to 21s Gd' 11 boll of - Flour, tine 47s Od to 53s Gd sack of 280. KIRKCALDY—MARcit 15. Good supplies of wheat, barley, and oats to-day. IVbeat is dearer. Other articles brought tho prices of this dal week. Wheat. Barley. Oats. 63s vd ' 34s d 2ls_ed r-econa a sad 1 373 00 2 ;es Od Tuird btis 01 40* Od 2Vs t.d COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. s. d. Holywell Main l7 6 Walls End Hetton llartlepool Trlindon Thomley 2l 6 Stewart's Original Hartlepool... 23 0 Bradyell's Hetton 22 0 Ships at market, 88—sold, 83. Walls End Haswell._ 23 0 Harton 2l Wylam l6 6 Hatton Lyons 21 3 Cowndon Tunstall Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. Aus D tr i a t lia to, and N m e a w rs Z ei e nes alan Apri d, via Southampton...,„Diar. 122 3. - Brazil and Cape Verde, by British packet. .........April 7. Ditto, by French packet Mar. 22 Ca p e of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. ilelena 31 a r- 30 China. Penang. and Singapore. via Southampton Mar. 2 2 - Ditto, via Marseilles IMO. 3 0 Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton ..... Mar. 22. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Ma 2 Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via Southampton. ................ Mar. Ditto, via Marseilles .....M Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via . Sou thampt0n ......... .......... 3laarr.. 2 1 S 5. Ditto, via Marseilles ........................ Mar. ;6 . . Mar. 2, • Mauritius, via Southampton tiewi D o i nn ttc d , t vz d Marseille s. .......................... A pril 10. .... • • April 7. Portugal . . • ................. • •• Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon.. • .......... United btates and British North America, by Bri tish packet . Ditto, oy Canadian packet, via Londonderry err . ; :: 31 2/a 15 ar r: 2% . Ditto. by United States packet, via South*Mp ton .... ........... Ditto, via Cork ................. ........... West Indies and Pacific (except Bahamas and .Arrll 1, Honduras) ........... .• • April I Bahama. via New York. Cuba and Mexico April 1 l 10 Bermuda, via Halifax ...... ....April 3 . West Coabt of Africa, Madeir a, and Tenerife A RELIC OF OLIVER CROMWELL, THE BRBWEg PROTECTOR.-At the forthcoming sale of the effects of the . late Harvey Berrow Tymbe , Esq. , of Worcester, of Bentley and Hill will dispose of a warrant for the pal; m ont of £5OO to Sir C. Wolseley, being his half-years Al lowance for his continued attention to the service 0f the Commonwealth. The warrant is dated De c. 20, 1665"; the receipt of Sir Charles Wolseley is appe nded to it, and at the top it bears the veritable autograph ( Oliver P.) o.l' the Brewer Protector.—The Brewers' Journal. The Gazette des Etrangers says The news of the consrmation of General Dix's appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States to the Court of the Tuileries will be received with sincere and heartfelt sa faction, not only by all his own countrymen in France, but by the many Frenchmen and foreigners w ho have had the by opportunity of appreciating his high qu alities and of p cipating in his genial hospitality. We beg it may bo of derstood that we do not include English under the head foreigners, as we look upon them a s all but, if not entirely, his countrymen." Births. BARING —On the IGth inst., at 38, Upper Brook-street, Mrs. Edward Baring, of a dau g hter. CoLnaAs—On the 18 th inst., at Tunbridge-Wells, the wife of Mr. Si. John Cothran, of a daughter. HILL—Ou the 18 t h inst., at 378, Camden-road , Holloway, of a daught er. the wife of D. W. Hill, Esq., LART—On the 17th inst., at Notting-hill, the wife of E. Lart, Esq., late 18th HUSSarS, of a son. Marriages. FALLEK—MARSDEN—On the 14th inst., at 23,8 ensington Palace-gardens, S. Fallek, of 43, Queenstoroh -terrace, Kensington-gardens, eldest son of Mons. Fellek, of 11, rue Laffitte, Paris, to Madeline, daughter of L Marsden, Esq. n te 16 inst., a t St. Mar tin's -in- INVERSIN—the-FieldsD,EAn—O Louis Invhersin,th Esq., to Catherine Sarah, eldest daughter of Mr. Charles Dear, of Southampton street, Strand. Deaths. ASHTON—On the 16th inst., at Gorstago Hall, Cheshire, Richard Ashton, Esq., aged 68. HARDY—On the 16th inst., at Chi lham Castle, Kent, Chas. Hardy, aged 51. HEMFSON —On the 18th inst., George Hemp t, Esq., sol i " citor, of 5, Alexander-terrace, Westbourne-park, aged 30. HOPE-011 the 17th inst., at 67, Cadogan-place, Dowagoir Lady Hope, widow of Sir J. _flop°, of Craighall arta Pinkie, Bart., M.P. LuzunN—On the 17th inst., a t 5, Howick-place, Eccles' ton-square, George Lilburn, Esq., aged 86. tho 17th inst., at AytOD, Bridge of Earn, Pert h. TOD shire, Win. Tod, Esq., of Ayton, shipbuilder, Glasgow*:, WorrEx —On the 16 th i nst., at Hoadington Hill, Oxford Richard Wrotten, Esq., aged 76. London : Printed and Published by IV IL LIAM AN TAISVIS of No. 112, strand, Punter at TILE SUN offioe, No. 1 12 . Strand, in the PreelaCt of the Savoy, In the COUUti Ot kliddlegeL—Tuesday, March 19, 1867. I Lon , E Dui- by srlir MC of l te❑ ac str I t h , Lc