The Sun. — London, England, 1867-03-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the sale of spirituous liquors on the Sunday. THE COLONIAL CHURCH. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY stated that, in answer to a question from the noble earl opposite in reference to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Colonial Church that he (the Archbishop) had said that there was a bill proposed by the bench of bishops, but he had, however, now the opportunity of informing their lordships that they had abandoned the intention of bringing in a bill. (Hear, hear.) THE TORNADO. Earl DERBY said that with reference to the question of the papers relating to the Tornado being laid upon the table, on which subject the noble marquis (Clanricarde) had put a notice upon the paper praying that they might be laid upon the table, that as there were some obstacles in the shape of obtaining them, in consequence of circumstances that had interfered with Lord Stanley's arrangements, and as he (the noble earl) had no doubt that they would be forthcoming in a day or two, he hoped that the noble marquis would post pone the notice. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE agreed to this. It was subsequently understood that the question should stand over till Monday next. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took tho chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Barnley Gas, Crystal Palace and East London High Level Junction Railway, East Gloucestershire Railway, Garstang and Knot End Railway, London and North Western and Midland Railway Companies (Huddersfield and Halifax Railway), and Stratford-upon-Avon Gas. THE REFORM BILL. Mr. COLVILLE gave notice that in committee on the Representation of the People Bill he should move the in sertion of a clause, the effect of which would be to reduce the copyhold qualification for the county franchise from £lO to £5. Mr. DILLWYN said, in committee on this bill, ho should introduce a clause to the effect that in the event of a person possessing a vote for both the county and the borough, he should only give one vote for one member. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. Sir J. C. JEaVOISE asked whether attention had been directed to an action, tried at the Oxford Assizes in March, 1866, in which £lll was awarded as compensation to the plaintiff, in consequence of his being obliged to dispose of twenty-two cows at considerable loss, the rinderpest having been communicated to them by a cow sold to him by the defendant ; and whether the case of " Mullet v. Mason" would constitute aprecedent in compensative claims for loss sustained through infection ? Mr. WALPOLE said the attention of the Government had been called to the subject. The defendant falsely le presented the cow was not diseased when he knew it was. Without similar cases arose it could not bo drawn into a precedent. ROYAL COURTS OF JERSEY. In reply to Mr. LocKE, Mr. WALPOLE said there was no intention on the part of the Government to bring in any bill to reform the constitution of the Royal Courts of Jersey. 'TIE NANTLLE RAILWAY COMPANY. In reply to Mr. SA3ftELSON, Mr. CAVE said the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the opening of a portion of this railway before it had been inspected. He had sent for information on the subject, which, if not satisfactory, an inspector would be sent down to make a report. CASE OF MR. CLARE. Mr. BAZLEY asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if ho would place upon the table of the house the document handed to his predecessor in November last, seeking a settlement of the claims of Mr. John Claro for the use of his patents in shipbuilding. Mr. CORRY said ho did not think the country ought to be put to the expense of printing returns of no public ser vice. Mr. Clare had been decided to have no claim upon the Admiralty, and therefore he hoped the hon. member would not . prose for the production of the document in question, which was one of a very voluminous description. METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE asked if it was intended to proceed, on Thursday next, with the Metropolitan Im provements Bill, which had been brought in by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets and the hon. member for Bath. Lord JOHN MANNERS said it would not bo possible to proceed with the bill on the day named. He thought the bill would not, in the proseut state of public busiuoss, be taken till after Easter. PORTUGUESE WINES. Mr. AKROY U asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he bad received any comaiunic.►tiou from the Portuguese Government favourable to the negotiation of a treaty of commerce upon the same terms as the French treaty, provided that Portuguese wines, although of a higher degree of proof than French wines, be admitted at the same rate of duty; and whether he would lay the correspondence upon the table. Lord STANLEY said negotiations on the subject had taken place, but had not succeeded through the Portuguese Government demanding what, in fact, amounted to an abolition of the alcoholic test. The Government were willing to make a moderate amount of concession, but it was not sufficient for the Portuguese Government, and therefore tho matter had fallen through. Ife had no objec tion to produce the correspondence. WAGER THE MURDERER. Captain ARCHDALL asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state the reasons which induced him to advise her Majesty to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy in favour of the murderer Edward Wager. Mr. WALPOLE said the murder was indeed ono of the greatest barbarity. The case came before him, and he felt it his duty to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission for the Abolition of Capital Punish ment, which was to the effect that where a murder was committed without premeditation or malice aforethought, under certain circumstances the punishment of death should not follow. When he first read the circumstances of the case he felt it was one of unusual barbarity and brutality ; but he had also to pay attention and take into his consideration the recom mertdation of the jury. He applied to the learned judge who tried the case, without expressing his opinion one way or the other, and he received a com munication in return, in which it was stated that the crime did not appear to have been a premeditated one, and although there hat been an unusual amount of violence, it was thought that there was no premeditation, and, therefore, not an unfit one for the exercise of • the royal prerogative. He did not think he could have taken any other course than that he had adopted, which had resulted in the respite of the prisoner and a commutation of the sentence of death to penal servitude for life. SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL. This bill was read a second Limo. THE REFORM BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, _ _ Mr. B. JOHNSON resumed the adjourned debate. He thought the Government had mistaken their duty in framing the bill, as they had introduced into it an egre gious and stupendous blunder of the dual vote. There were some portions of the bill, ho thought, called for the deepest consideration; but if, after that, it was not possible to produce a perfect measure he thought it would be the best course to pause before they gave their sanction to any measure, more especially an important one. It had been said that great disturbance would result on the rejection of the bill, but he for one preferred revolution to national disgrace. Sir It. PALMER agreed with Mr. Hardy that this was not a Household Suffrage Bill, though ho had formerly declared he was not averse from household suffrage, be lieving it to be both a Liberal and Conservative measure, and to contain the elements of finality, and he was not afraid of its effects if it were established pure and simple. But if it was to be accompanied with checks and restric tions they ought not to be such as would introduce new differences, new causes of discontent, and new obstacles to a settlement as this bill would. Taking as a criterion of the bill the position in which it would place the new voters in relation to the old ten-pouuders, he examined critically the enfranchising clauses, arguing that they would draw au invidious line between the old and new bodies, that they would impose on the new voters " fines." such as longer residence, the necessity of qualifying for an entire dwelling-house, and the personal payment of rates, and the payment, too, on the full rateable value, to none of which conditions the ten-pounder was subjected. On this Lost point, and referring to an argument of Mr. Hardy that the tenant who paid his rates could recover them from his landlord, lie maintained that the £lO compounde r who chose to pay his own rates had only to pay the amount of a the landlord's composition, and to enact that he s h ou ld hereafter pay the full rate would be to reverse the whole course of Previous legislatiou. The bill entirely miscon ceived the nature of these compositions, and, whatever arrangement was adopted, must involve this dilemma— that it would put the new compounders in a worse posi tion than the old LEO compounders, or the landlords of the old compounders would be mulcted of the difference between the full rate and the composition. The dual vote ho pronounced, by the light of the Solicitor- General's proverb—" Half a loaf is better than no bread," to be an attempt at mere half enfranchise ment, and though it must bo thrown overboard it would for ever stamp the character and intentions of the bill ; and, in the same way, after pointing out that the county franchise would be open to the same objection as the borough franchise, that it drew an invidious line be tween the old and new voters—he condemned the fancy franchises as contrary to o ur present pr i nc i p l e o f l oca l re presentation and local franchises. Though heartily desi rous that something should be made of the bill in com mittee, to pass it substantially as it stood would be a use less attempt to settle the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maintained that the act of 1832 must be the starting point for any changes in the franchise, and argued that a ratepaying household suffrage would bring in the best men, and formed the best basis of a lasting settlement, or, as he defined it, comparing it with the suggestion on the other side, that the ratepaying oc cupier of a house was a better man than the occupier of a rated house. Ile made light of the difficulties started by Mr. Gladstone and Sir R. Palmer, pleading that there would be very little difficulty when the house had once assented to the ratepaying principle in devising clauses to carry it out ; and to the " fine" objection he replied that it c-iounted simply to the payment of the difference be tween the f:!11 value and the composition—but this would work itself right in .`" year or so, though the question of requiring the full payment rates might be open to con sideration in c3mmittee. The .4_ t torney-General con cluded by arguing against the lodger franchise as impracticable and unnecessary, as the same classes R 71.- be included by the special franchises. Sir F. CROSSLEY, though believing that the Minis terialists had deserved little quarter from their opponents by their treatment of the bill of last year, nevertheless re commended a co-operation between the two sides to ex tract from this bill a permanent settlement. Hs preferred the bill of year, because it selected the best of the working classes, but there was much to be said in favour of the principle of this bill, though it would be necessary to make a Small Tenements Act compulsory down to .£5, and the personal payment of votes compulsory also above that point. The dual vote and the voting papers he con demned unreservedly, the county franchise ought at least to be brought down to the point settled last year, and his chief objection to the redistribution scheme was that it did not go far enough, though he preferred the proposal to divide counties to allotting them a third member. Mr. LIDDELL, being unprepared for house hold suffrage, examined closely the securities and compensations of the. bill, dismissing the dual vote at once as impracticable, and approving the personal payment of rates, which, he said, was strongly recommended by the experience of the muni cipal elections in the b 8 boroughs under the Small Tone nients Act. At Great Yarmouth, for instance, the act had been rescinded solely to got rid of the corrupt practices prevailing under it at municipal elections. Mr. Gladstone had much overstated the difficulties in the registration of compound householders, and it would be easy to draw clauses to carry out the principle ; but before making rating the basis of the franchise the laws of rating ought to be improved. The lodger franchise he objected to as unnecessary, and the redistribution scheme ho was of opi nion did not go far enough, and was faulty in not attempt ing to redress the under-representation of the counties. Mr. Liddell concluded by a strenuous exhortation to mu tual forbearance and sacrifice of opinion to attain a perma nent settlement. Mr. H. LEWIS, though strongly opposed to the dual vote, voting papers, the omission of the lodger franchise, and of the claims of the metropolis to increased represen tation, urged the house not to follow an obstructive policy, but to take the bill in a forbearing spirit and to make a settlement out of it. Mr. P. WYNDHAM warned the house that its conduct on this matter had excited grave dissatisfaction in the country, and intimated that, though as a party man he should vote for second reading and for going into coma tee, ha should vote for each proposition in committee ac cording to its merits, and would be no party to passing a measure which would not satisfy the country, and would lead to further agitation. Mr. LAING summarised the result of the debate up to this stage thus—that the majority of the house thought the bill to be a bad bill, that it began to see its way to an alter native scheme which would be satisfactory, and that all were agreed, if possible, to pass a bill this session. He agreed with those who thought the bill a bad bill, and in demonstrating this he went carefully through it, com mencing with the redistribution scheme, which he showed would leave numerous glaring anomalies both in the county and borough representation, and he insisted that all boroughs under 10,000 population ought to be deprived of one member; that boroughs under that number shouid be more or loss grouped, by which 30 or GO members at least would be gained to increase the representation of large towns. As to the enfranchising clause; it depended on the application of the securities whether they would lead to a democratic invasion, or would be merely of re stricted action—whether 500,00 or 120,000 new voters would bo admitted to the franchise. Of these securities personal payment of rotes alone needed consideration ; for two years' residence could not b 3 maintained, and the novelty of duality was an insuperable objection to it. But to personal payment as a security there were these objec tions—that it was to be applied at the caprice of the ves tries, that it might be evaded by corrupt election agents, or by combination of trades' unions—and it, moreover, could not be maintained as a permanent barrier. Consequently household suffrage, pure and simple, must be the result, half a million of voters would bo admitted, of whom 300,000 would come in at the lowest point. To this he could not accede, and ho gave his adhesion to the £5 rating scheme, coupled with a lowering of the Small Tenements Act, necking it compulsory, and to arrive at that solution he recommended that before going into com mittee on this bill the broad outlines of that scheme should be submitted to the house in a formal manner by some in fluential member. Mr. BRIGHT—On the last occasion when I offered a few observations to the house, I concluded by quoting from what 831116 might consider a demand, and others might regard as a prayer, uttered by the working men, when they said, "Deal with us on the square." We all know exactly what that means, and we are all conscious in the vote we shall give at some future time as to whether we shall be doing that which every working man in this sentence asks us to do. (Hear, hear.) Now, looking at this bill as it has been described by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer—looking at it as it was afterwards described by the chief of the Poor Law Board—looking at it as it has been described by members of both sides of the house—does it not present itself as a puzzle, and will it not be regarded as such by those it is intended to affect ? Ac cording to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exche quer, it is a measure of wide dimensions as an enfranchising scheme. According to the view of the President of the Poor Law Board it is a bill of many restrictions, compen sations, and limitations, and therefore a bill of a totally dif ferent character from that introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) No hon. member in this house knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question we are now discussing is more entirely a working man's question than any other, and being a working man's question, after what we have seen during the last nine months, I think the house will be of opinion the matter is ono on which it is desirable, if even it were safe to delay, we should not be afraid to deal in any other but fair and honourable terms. It is to my mind a most unfortunate circumstance in regard to the Reform question. (Hear, hear.) Their position apparently renders it almost impossible for them to deal with this matter with the straightforwardness which the question demands. (Hear, hear,) Now, without going over every detail or entering into recrimination with regard to what took place last year —for I am too serious on the matter—without going over the details of last year, I should like to road ono passage from a speech delivered in the course of tho debates of last session by a member of the present Cabinet, who has lately been promoted to one of the most responsible positions in the Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) He said he preferred to remain at a £lO franchise; that he would be willing, if he consented to make any change, to go very much below that ; and re ferring to the opinions of the late Attorney-General and to my opinions he proceeded as follows : "And now we must part company with the Attorney-General and the hon. member for Birmingham. He was obliged with the utmost sharpness and definiteness to say that ho thought to descend to household suffrage at once or at any time with any safeguards whatsoever would be the most mis chievous and reckless innovation on the constitution. Upon these grounds he should oppose, and should always oppose, any general lowering franchise beyond tho present limit of £10." (Hear, hear.) And then he added, " that being so, how was he to deal with this bill ?" Well, that being so, I have to ask how has he dealt with the present bill ? The extract is from the speech of the present Mini ster for India. (Hear, hoar.) I have not seen him in the house to-night or last night, but no doubt he will be able to explain the position in which ho stands. lam not quoting this for the purpose of upbraiding the right hon. gentleman, but of pointing out to the house the extreme difficulty of the position of the Government, and the ex trreme difficulty which attends the question in the hands of a Government pledged to a policy last year decidedly opposed to the policy of the present bill. If we look back to the year 1839 we find the question of Reform was in the same hands, and met with the fate which probably may attend the measure of this year. The scheme of reform then proposed was the reduction of the county franchise from a £5O occupation to a £lO occupation ; but by way of compensation ho asked us to exclude 70,000 whose qualification was found within the limits of boroughs. With regard to the bill before us, while certain newspapers aro preaching democratic doctrines outside the houss, the President of the Poor-law Board has disavowed them. His doctrine of limitations is the real pith of the bill. This was a dealing with political flssh notes. (Laughter.) In my remarks on this occasion I shall mainly confine myself to the borough franchise, for I say, as I have said before, that it is the first question for consideration, and which it is necessary to come to some conclusion about. The hon. gentleman, in introducing the subject to the house, dwelt on the anci en t constitutio n of our country, and, by the way, I think I shall b e one of the few persons' left in favour of and to support that constitution. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty amused me once by tolling us that he was the only extant Peolite, and it seems as if some of us here only will be left to defend the constitution of England. (Renewed laughter and cheers.) What does the right hon. gentleman say of the constitution ? lie says that in ancient times the franchise was based on the payment of taxes and the occupation of houses. No doubt that was trao. I have urged that sometimes in this house, much more frequently in other assemblies ; and ill-judging persons have said that 1 was preaching revolutionary doctrines. But in the old times, which we all love to look at, though THE SUN, LONIJON, WEDNESDAY EVEAING, MARCH 27, HO. we should not care to go baAit to, there was no such thing as a landlord paying rates or compounding for rates. All occupiers were compelled to pay whatever taxes fell on them, as inhabitants of the parishes or the boroughs in which they resided. Now at that time nothing could be more reasonable or wise than such a system, because, as the house will see, the only persons left out would be that extremely poor class whose members were unable to pay, and who, being unable to take their share in tho public burdens, must be asked to abstain from taking part in the right of election. Bat everything is changed, the parishes are differently managed, the land lord has become more important, the tenants a more nume rous class, and for the convenience of all three another and entirely different system has been established, so convenient and so good in itself that it is spreading to all parts of the country. It is a voluntary contract, where the tenant is benefited, whero the landlord has no objec tion, and where the authorities have likewise an interest in seeing it carried out. The right hon. gentleman says he will make use of this system to work out his plan. The President of the Poor Law Board says so in words, Chancellor of the Exchequer in effect, for the •lisentitling two-thirds or three-fourths of purpose 01 " 'A old times would have been ad those persons who in . mitted. (Cheers.) Why is it does this? I forget the phrase he used, but he referred to the diameter of industrious uen, leading au orderly, giaalgd mode of life, and announced that those who preferred to pay itliAr taxes indirectly through their landlords are not to be en titled ; that this difference is to be the grand test between Englishmen entitled to register and Englishmen in whom the House of Commons have no confidence at all. Could no ether test be found ? Could not some difference be tween an agreement to repair or not to repair have been instituted as well ? It would surely have been a good a test of fitness as that founded on the arrangement whereby the landlord undertakes to pay the rates of his tenant. There would bo many other tests quite as good as this, and most of them worth nothing whatever. I take it that the man who has a house, who has a wife, children, furniture, whose life is markeel by steady industry from dawn to dusk almost throughout the year ; who obeys the law . , the men who need so little of government as the people of this country—is a thousand times better for a test than any miserable difference in the amount of poor rate, or the per son by whom it is to be paid. (Cheers.) Look at some of the facts. It is estimated that there are 723,000 male householders not on the register ; and the deduction of 50 per cent. made by the President of the Poor-law Board would bring it down to 360,000 in any case. The provi sion in the bill with respect to personal ratepaying will limit this to the small amount of 118,000 men. I am not quoting from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; I am not quoting the Pre sident of the Poor-law Board. The amount to which it is proposed to extend the franchise will not exceed 118,000 men. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and hem I might draw some contrast between the speech of the right hoe. gentleman and his colleague —has said that the greatest facilities would be introduced into the measure to attain the franchise ; but the President of the Poor-law Board did not hold out the same explana tion. In 1851, when the Act 14th and 15th Viet., cap. 14, was introduced by Sir Win. Clay, that.measure, but for the introduction of lines, might have been reckoned entirely a failure. From the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 down till 1851, the revising barristers, acting upon this view of the law, refused to pass the names of those to the re gister who paid a composition rate. When Sir Wil liam Clay introduced his bill, I went to Earl Russell, at the head of the Government, • represent ing the grievance, and he said that he did not think that it was intended by tho framers of the Reform Bill to ex clude that class, and he recommended me to see Sir W. Page Wood, then Attorney-General, who, mainly at my suggestion, drew the last clause of that Act, providing that the occupier shall not be bound to pay more than the amount payable under the composition. Now, the house can see what w ould bo the result of the proposal of this bill. In Manchester over 4,000 persons were placed on the register, in accordance with that provision. In Birming ham, in Brighton, and in some other towns, considerable additions have likewise been made. It is easy to transfer from the rate-book to the register those persons above £lO. Can there be any more difficulty in dealing with others when we go lower in the social scale ? (bear.) I ask, there fore, and in all sincerity, if the Chancellor of the Exche quer and his colleagues intend, so far as regards,the person s below £lO, to repeal in principle, and withdraw in fact, the right which this House of Commons has deliberately given to persons above £lO. (Hear.) Let him tell us why, when the bill for the member for South Lancashire proposed to admit 204,000, this measure will only admit 118,000, This measure reminds me of a story told by Dr. Livingstone. In the course of his travels he fell in with a tribe called the Bechuanas. Now the Bechuanas were stingy to the last extent, but in their professions loud to the fullest extent (Laughter.) When the travellers wished to obtain seine food, the Bechuanas said, " Behold an ox," and they found it was but a miserable goat. (Much laughter.) That, I think, is not a bad illustration of the professions of the right hon. gentleman. The real end of his measure is to establish a franchise equivalent to one of £B. I believe it would not be more extensive. If this be so, then why talk of a household suffrage? Why should the chief o a great party talk to the assemblies in St. James's square and Downing-street of household suffrage—the groat and generous enfranchisement—when, after all, what they mean is only tantamount to an £8 rating. If this be so, call it an £3 bill. Tell the truth, and defend it if you can. You are about to re-enact the exclusion of 1832 of the working classes. (Oh, oh, and counter cheers.) The honourable gentleman having referred to the opinion expressed on the subject of household suffrage said : I believe that the honest and solid basis is that all persons rated to the same tax should be admitted to the franchise. In 1859 in speaking on the bill I had prepared, and I ven ture to say in opposition to the character given of the pre sent bill by my right hon. friend the member for South Lancashire—(laughter) -that was the very beet bill— (laughter)—that ever was proposed -in speaking on that bill I stated that there was this class which I thought it would not be any advantage to—tho class itself, to the constituencies, or to the public—to admit to the franchise. I should not have mentioned this subject except to observe that the hon. member for Caine, in the preface to a volume of his speeches, has inserted a paragraph in which he links me with himself—(laughter)—in a wholesale—or perhaps I should not say wholesale—but what 1 regard as a whole sale application of this character to the working man. Speaking- of the class at the very bottom of the scale, I made this observation : "I put it to every man—l don't care what his political opinions are--whether he believes that throughout the boroughs of the United Kingdom it manyroi aemgnmeeys intemperate, among u t o n e fm d hundreds e ed r s aut es class snoooaftmmhweeerlhoys would be advantageous or beneficial to the constituency as a whole to include some scores in very small constituencies, s la rtpxhere areung s u i igv n a eutdl profligate, tosome perhaps ournaotre i n y the too a tti ny em of , it may be, only unfortunate, some of them naturally incap able, but all of them in a condition of dependence such as to give no reasonable expectation that they would be able to resist the many temptations which rich and unscrupulous men would offer them at periods of election, to give their votes in a manner not only not consistent with their own opinions and consciences, if they have any upon the matter, but not consistent with the representa tion of tho town or city in which they live." Now, I am prepared to repeat that. (Hear, hear.) I hold that in every borough with which I have any acquaintance, even with the £lO franchise, there are a few men whose ab sence from the constituency would be an advantage to that fi,caththhf eetemwh there constituency, and, I believe, an advantage to themselves. (Hear, hear.) But these remarks did not and do not apply to working men between £lO and £7 rental, but to that small class at the very bottom of the scale ; and therefore I must say that the member for Caine did me an unfriendly sort of an act-(laughter)—when he hung up my picture alongside his own for the observation of the working mon. (Cheers and laughter.) In that bill to which I refer I made this proposition : that all those persons who were rated, whether they paid rates themselves or Lot—in all cases if they paid the rates themselves—and in cases where the landlord paid a composition rate down to the point of £1 rental or £3 rating, they should find their way to the rate-book and to the register. (Hear.) Now, I am not about to say that is the exact limit that should be fixed. Tho house may think a £4 rating or a £5 rental, or even a £5 rating, low enough. On a great question like this, when you offer to the working men a real and generous measure, you will not find them—l am sure you will not find me—intolerant of any reasonable proposition that may be made. (Cheers.) Now I have never changed from that view. I hold it now as strongly as I held it then, and 1 am willing to allow that at this moment I do not believe there is a majority in this house who are in favour of household suffrage pure and simple. (Hear, hear.) But we might take this course of drawing a line which would exclude, as far as we could judge, all those who should be excluded by their own non-payment, if no such thing as compound householders existed. (Hear, hear.) And this seems to me the true policy of the house. If the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would accept some proposition like this, I do not doubt that we might proceed with this bill, and so far, at least, as this great and vital part of the question is concerned, wo might come to some conclusion during the present session. Now let the house understand tile—you would have the household basis with limitations corresponding as nearly as you can get to the ancient limitation of the nop-paymeut of rat, s, and that, I think, would satisfy the demands of our ancient constitution, and therefore the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Ilea; hoar, and a laugh.) Now, sir, if such a measure as this were passed, I should hold it to be a real and generous extension of the frati chisa ; and I give you my word—whatever it may bo worth —of this, that I believe it would be felt that no class of the people were intentionally excluded, and that none who could bo expected to be in were shut out. And, if with those yon would admit those who aro entitled dwellers in apartments within the districts of the metropolitan boroughs, yon would at once close the offices of the Reform League and give general satisfaction to the whole of the people. (Cheers.) I have two or three observations on other parts of the bill, and I will dismiss them in the smallest possible space, and in a few moments. I want to put to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, and to the house, this i point in regard to the county franchise. in 1859 they brought in a 1.:_o which I presume most of you were as senting, parties ; with a £lO franchise. In 1860, under the Government of Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell intro duced another bill with a XlO franchise for counties. Last year the right hon member for South Lancashire —his mo deration is now known to all men—(laughter)—introduced a bill offering a £l4 franchise, to which the house on a great division assented. Now, if you are about to lower the borough franchise considerably, as certainly the house will do, whatever becomes of this bill, is it not otvious that the persons living in the counties--those millions the right hon. gentleman is always talking to us about—and the people living in those villages, for whom he expresses such a strong affection when it suits him, but for whom ho cares little when they ask for tho franchise. What will they say if you leave them at a £l5 rating, being from £l7 to £2O, when you are going to bring down the franchise in boroughs to a rating qualification of £5 or £6? I say that a settlement of this kind would be no settlement at all. I say that it is not a democratic proposition, and I trust the honse when we come to that part of the bill will act courageously and ra tionally, and adopt a measure at least as liberal as Lord Pal merston—by no means a democratic Minister—adopted in 1860. I will say nothing about voting papers, gve r ybody who speaks to me about them says-there could be no more effective means of corruption, and I could recommend to the consideration of the house merely this opinion, that this system would withdraw all the influence of the public eye witk i nt, sptting up the dominion of conviction or of con- Beienee, Thel?Pge MetcfhPr fQ I. Vi T i9 l El44s stated a moat ex traordinary fact, but not etraordinefy to me, for I have gone through this eahooling many a time with respect to the ye distribution of seats, liefesring to the speech of the hon, member for King's Lynn lest year ; ho said, when town, like Birmingham, which has now 15,000 electors, shall have 30,000 ; when Manchester, which now has 34,000 shall have 44,000 : and when other constituencies are nearly double, what will they think of borough, like Arundel and Caine ? Do you think they will leave those boroughs ? There is also another proposition to which the attention of the house should be called, that is the proposition to dis. franchise four boroughs. Ono is Lancaster, with 2,672 male householders, and another is Yarmouth, with 6,660. If this bill passes it is clear that in these two boroughs would bo created as nearly as may be an entirely new con stituency. it seems to me, therefore, strange that in the preamble of this bill nothing is said about the disfranchis ing of those boroughs that have sent members to Parlia ment for 500 years, and there is not a word to indicate the period at which they were swept away from our represen tative system. I wish only to say this, if the house will bear with me for a moment, that I am as much against cor ruption at least as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) It has always been held in this house, since I have been here, and for a much longer period, that it was a grave matter to disfranchise any constituency; and I say that you are cutting off in Lancaster and in Yarmouth, not only the population who would come in under this bill, but their children and their children's children who would be enfranchised and represented if the clause were not passed. I say it ought to be brought into the house by a special bill; and the question ought to receive careful discussion and deliberate consideration ; that it should not be put into a ohm° of a bill like this, to enable the right hon. gentleman to give seven more members to counties than he could otherwise do. Now, sir, 1 have said to the House what, at this stage of the bill, I think it is necessary to say. The bill, as a whole, I regard as very unsatisfactory and as very bad. I think it has marks upon it of being the product not of the friends, but of the enemies of reform. (Hoar, hear.) It is wonderful what clever men will will do when a dozen of them are shut up in a room. Now, look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Loud laughter.) Why, he is a marvel of cleverness, or else he would not have been for twenty years at the head of hon. gentlemen opposite to lead them into this—what shall 1 call it ?—great difficulty at last. (Laughter.) T:4lre the right hon. member who sits next to him, representing a very learned university, Cambridge. Take the president of the Poor-Law Board, who represents the wisdom, and it may be to some extent the prejudices of Oxford. (Laughter.) Take the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwitch. (Laughter.) I fear to speak of so potent a personage. (Laughter.) Why, at this moment ha directs the whole of the armies of the empire. There is not a soldier who shivers amid the snows of Canada, or who sweats under the son of India—(cries of " Oh") —but shivers and sweats under the influence of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers and laughter.) Why it was only the other day he was Lord High Admiral of England. (Laughter) Why, in metaphor, "his march was on the mountain wave, his home was on the deep." (Loud laughter.) But all these gentlemen retire into a mysterious apartment in Downinp-- street, and they set to work and concoct a Reform Bill, and with all their capacity it seems to mo to come out a bill marvellously like that which would have been made by the hon. member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope.) (Loud laughter.) That hon. memberlast night gave us an account of his conversion. Anything more affecting sr more truthful there could hardly be in any class meeting. Dut he spoke of " we " all the time—what " we" did, what determinations " we" had come to. In thinking over it to-day I have come to the conclusion that he is the author of this bill. (Loud laughter.) Now I complain of this bill, and I don't do it in anger. I hope I have not said a word to-night which can be considered anything but fair and just. But I say it is a bill, to me, in which, looking at the working class question, there is no thing clear, there is nothing generous, there is nothing statesmanlike. I believe that if the house were to proceed to pass it there would be universal Ctissatisfection through out the country. (Hoar, hear.) I believe it would aggra vate the wounds it is intended to heal. It would leave the greatest question of our time absolutely unsolved. (Hear.) Well, now I am grieved to say this, but it is true. I tell the house frankly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will believe me when I say there is not a man in thishouse who would be more glad than I to giro the warmest sup port, whatever it Inas be worth, to a fair and honest mea sure on this question. (Cheers.) I regret what hon. :son tlemen opposite did, led by the Chancellor of the Jache quer and his friends, last year. (Hear, hear.) I shall never cease to regret it, and never cease to blame them— but still I would help any Government to bring this ques tion to a just condoner'. But, sir, it seems to mo impos sible to Resin a Government which will not tell us frankly what it intends, what it stands by, what it will get rid of —which asks us to go into its confidence, and yet is pro bably the most reticent Government that ever sat on those benches. (Hear, hear.) If any gentlemen on this side were to treat you as you treated us last year, I should de nounce them with the strongest language I could use. I and ha c hate the re w ) a_ys, an l d irscornlatmhedrpinvsznseosw, or at any st age of, of faction—(" Oh," this bill, to oppose the Government, it is because the mea sure they have offered to us boars upon its face marks of deception and disappointment, and because I will be no party to any bill which shall cheat the great body of my countrymen of the possession of that payer in this house on which they have set their hearts, and which, as I be lieve, by the constitution of this country they may most justly claim. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : Sir, ;the hon. member for Birmingham has commenced his speech with his usual protest against gentlemen on this side of the house presuming to deal with the Liberal monopoly. (Hear, hear.) So long as the hon. gentleman and his friends are allowed to remain the only ameliorators of the condition of the people, then we may receive from the hon. gentleman all those encouraging remarks which in his milder moments he knows how to confer upon us. But I have always protested against this opinion of the hon. gentleman. I hold that wo have a full and constitutional right, by any means which wo think best, to improve the representation of the people in this House of Com mons, and I will assert that right at all times against the dogmas of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentle man tells us to-night that I have brought in a bill on the part of the Government which is full of false pre tences. (Cheers.) He imputes to me statements which I never made, and opinions which I have never pro fessed. But how easy it is to show the utter fallacy and want of foundation, on the part of the hon member, for any statement which he has made in this respect. The honourable member said, " You made statements which gave an impression to the house that you were bringing in a largo amount of franchise for the people." My statement must bo still fresh in the recollection of the House. What did I say ? I sa id, if the measure which I proposed was passed, if all the persons under the £lO line were now rated to the poor and paid their rates, the number of 210,000 would be qualified to avail themselves of this opening—(hear)—if they complied with the constitutional conditions which I expressed. Now, what happens ? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer —(meaning Mr. Gladstone, the right hon. gentleman's lapses causing great laughter) I can only say I hope that is not a prophecy. sure on his part en ti re l y by (Renewed laughter.) The right hen. gentleman, I have n o d ou bt we ll informed, having, I am a misapprehension, im puted to me the statement that 240,000 men would be added to constituencies, will take from me that it is not the statement which I did make. I said they would be "qualified." The statement is now adopted by the hon. member for Ilirrning,hain that half of those would be added to the constituencies. I won't impeach his accuracy. We will assume that it is true. But how is it that half the amount is taken from the 240,000 who will be qualified ? We know the reason—that one moiety are either of a mi gratory character oroupers, We have evidence of that. I am not speaking of compound householders now ; I am speaking of those who pay rates, sad who would be qualified by this bill. Does the hon. member for Birmingham wish this moiety, whoaro migratory paupers, to have the suffrage or does ho not ? (Cheers.) lie knows very well ho does not wish a migratory pauper ts, be an elector. Weil, then, what becomes of the charge against me, that I am bringing in a bill which excludes men from the right of voting. It is utterly shallow. If it is true that you must make these deductions from the 21.0,000 who are at present rated to the poor, why it is equally true that the same deductions must be made fronithe great bodyof thecompound householders. (Hear, hear.) I never heard anybody dispute that. The hon. member knows it is perfectly accurate ; lie knows that the deductions must be even greater. Would he give the suffrage to those who would be deducted under these circumstances and for these causes ? What, then, becomes • of his charge of this revolutionary meat:ere? it ie so ti's:? tad one night, and on another night as end of extreme restric tion. Why, str, it is a reeiteure founded upon a popular and rational principle ; it is of general application, without any restriction whatever; and any person who fulfils the conditions, which I believe aro entirely approved of by the great body of the people, may possess and enjoy the suf frage. (Hear, hoar.) This subject has been very little discussed, considering the importance of the bill before us, considering the great attendance that has always been in the house when any reference to this question has been made; and it is remarkable how anything like Parlia mentary discussion has been, as it were, evaded. When I asked leave to bring in the bill, what happened? The right hon. member for South Lancashire rose and delivered a speech of invective against a measure which ho hal never even seen. (Cheers.) He founded many of his conclusions on assumptions which, when ho had the bill in his hand, ho saw had no foundation at all. (Cheers, and oh, oh.) lint if the right hon. gentleman, cu the motion for bringing in the bill, made a speech which was adapted to the second reading, when the second reading was moved, instead of allowing general discussion to take place, the right hon. gentleman jumps upat once and makes a speech which was only adapted to committee. (Cheers.) If the course which the right hon. gentleman indicated last night had been fol lowed get the dieeriealon would he ended that evening, and probably at a very early hour. (Hear, hear.) Is that a ?ro per way to treat a question like this, when the attendance of the house has shown how deeply interesting to the house and the country the subject was, and are these the means by which to discuss a very important and interesting sub ject, and of course Tiary ilqlcirtallt to the Government which introduced a measure of this kind, by which alone they can obtain cognisance of the judgment and opinion of the house? Is that a fair end proper way to treat the question? The eight lion, gentleman said last night, in a very solemn tone if this were a proposition for the third reading, the measure involves principles that it would be impossible to pass. (Hear, hear,) eta if that is not the fate of every bill, if you were on the second reading, and it was to be treated as though it were the third reading; and as if any Reform Bill, of all bills in the world, when the second reading was moved, it could be expected to pass the third reading in the shape in which it was presented to the house. (Hear, hear.) This is not a fair criticism. And then the right hon. gentleman gets up and addresses me in a tone which is very unusual in this house—not that I care for any tone which anybody uses towards me—(laughter)—but which, coming from any gentleman who usually conducts the business of the house—(oh, oh, and choors)—l do net like. I do not like that the right hon. gentleman op posite, divided as we may be, should address me with a tone and air of a familiar of the inquisition. Ho puts me to the question, and says, " This must be altered, this must be rejected, this must be amended, and this must be done." (Opposition cheers.) I can fairly say that I neither wish to accept conditions from the right hon. gentleman, nor to offer them ; I shall endeavour to treat the house, as I at the first of this business said her Majesty's Government was perfectly willing and anxious to do. I never supposed wo could bring a matter like this to any conclusion without the candid and cordial 00-operation of the house. It is only by discussion that we become acquainted with the different views of members, and by mutual concession and arrangement that any eonclueion whatever can be attained. The right hon. gentleman made yesterday a very stern ap peal to me on the subject of tho lodger franchisee He said, "the lodger franchise must be conceded." (Hoar, hoar.) I thought that was a very extraordinary tone to address to ono who certainly, on the subject of the lodger franchise, cannot be supposed to have any great prejudice against it. I believe I am the father of the lodgerfranchise. (Laughter and cheers.) I certainly was the first Minister who ever proposed its adoption to this house. (Hoar, hear.) We hear a great deal of abuse of what are called "by-franchises," or "special franchises." Wo are obliged to the right hon. gentleman for giving a decent epithet to describe them, after the phrase of the hon. member for Birmingham. (Laughter and cheers.) We hear a good deal against these special franchises, but I believe the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons—though it may sometimes jest about them—is in their favour. (No, no, and cheers.) I believe the calm opinion of the country is in their favour. (No, no.) Who is the author and who are the great patrons of these special franchises ? They emanate not from me ; they do not come from this bench. They were suggested by a Whig Prime Minister, a coalition Prime Minister, and a coalition Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter and cheers.) One of these franchises has re commended itself to the ardent sympathies of the people, but flint was never inducted by a Whig or coalition Minis ter. It is this very lodger franchise which now, I am told, must be conceded, as if it were asking ins to make an enor mous sacrifice. (Laughter.) I have had considerable diffi culty on the subject of the lo Igor franchise—l speak can didly to the house. I brought the subject before my col leagues, and I do not know that any of thorn were particu larly averse to it ;• but of course it is inconsistent with a bill founded on the principle of rating. (Hear, hear.) Thut is a very important consideration, but it is not ono which may not be overcome. (Cheers.) My colleagues would not have been prevented by that consideration alone from tak ing into consideration the question ; but there happens to be this : They said, " It is inconsistent with our principle we have no p re j u di ces on the subject—bat it is inconsis tent." (A laugh.) What there is to laugh at in that 1 do not know. It is inconsistent with the rating principle. In 1859 several members of the present Cabinet brought for ward a lodger franchise ; but the right hon. member for South Lancashire, the leader of the Opposition, said last year that the :odger franchise was an insignificant affair, and would produce but small results. If that is so, what is the use of our deviating from the principle of our bill ? (Cheers.) But now we find tho lodgerfranchise is the great question of the day. (Ministerial cheers and laughter.) There were 7, or 17, or 27 points—l forget which—of which we hoard last night, and which were mentioned at some of those meetings of what is called the mob" of the Huns° of Commons. Laughter.) Butthis is put forward as the great point—the point upon which the fate of the Go vernment depends—on which secretly-prepared resolutions aro to be moved, and upon which we are never to go into committee. It is a great first clause. The lodger franchise must be conceded. Well, 1 dare say if we get into commit tee it will be discussed with groat candour and calmness and i: a proposition should be brought forward which recom mends itself to the house, no doubt the house will adopt it. (Much laughter.) But, says the right bon. gentleman, in the second place—and this is most important—" means must be taken to prevent traffic in the lowest class of house holders." I should like to know what that means. I should like the right hon., gentleman to have been more specific. Of course we aro all very anxious to prevent traffic among the lowest class of householders. It would be very expe dient if wo could establish some means which would con trol the conduct of a higher class of householders. (Hear, h ear .) But what surprises ins most is the assumption of the right hon. gentleman that the persons to be introduced :nto the constituency by this bill are anxious to bo bribed. (Hoar, hear, and No, no.) No, says the right hon. gentle man. Well, then, a magical line is to be drawn, as if those wicked vestrymen and cunning electioneering agents would not soon convert the £4 householder into the £5 house holder. If these people are what you assume them to be, but what I don't believe them to be, this imaginary line would be, as the great counsellor of those who profess manhood suffrage says, a very feeble barrier against demo cracy. Some years ago, when the militia was about to be restored, the Government of the day determined to estab lish the militia on the principle of the ballot. Lord Palmer ston opposed it Tory much, but the Government said, " If you have the militia, you must have recourse to the bal lot." " All those arguments," Lord Palmerston said, " are irresistible, and all this display of parliamentary force is very impressive ; but the arguments of my friend rests upon this assumption, that the people of England cannot be trusted." And it was upon that issue that he took the opinion of the House of Commons, and the Government was changed. (Hear, hear.) Was he right or wrong? Why, you have the militia established as a voluntary principle, and you find that tho people of England can be trusted. (Cheers.) In like manner the remarks of the right hon. gentlemen the member for South Lancashire are based ou a like assumption. He assumes that every body is anxious, and is already prepared to be bribed — (cries of "No, no," and "Hear,hear") —and that ovary gentle man who expects to be a member of Parliament is prepar ing to be a briber. Let me remind the right hon. gentle man of the extreme difficulty and cf the extreme cost of bribery under tho bill. Why, it would exhaust all those fabulous resources which have recently been the subject of investigation by committees of the house, and with the efforts of whi c h the member for Birmingham so peculiarly sympathises. I take the 57 boroughs whore the Small Tenement's Act is entirely in force. In those the average number of occupiers is 2,415 ; and are the wicked vestries or artfal electioneering agents likely for two years to pay their rates ? (Cheers and laughter.) Nay, more, if you take the average exigence of Parliaments—three and a half years—they would have to pay the rates for a longer period ; and then when they had paid them, what hold would they have upon the parties ? (Hear, hear.) And y e t , sir, this is the sort of argument that is used—this is the appeal to the impossible, to show that that which is politic and necessary ought not to be adopted. (Cheers.) The third measure of the right hon. gentleman was of this nature— that distinctions between the different classes of rate-paying householders must be abolished. Well, sir, that is a very serious question, and ought not to be decided in haste. I very much doubt the policy in a country like England to attempt by artificial means to obtain anything like a simi larity of suffrage at the sacrifice of what I may be permit ted to call natural circumstances. The difficulty has been felt before. A distinction was drawn between the £lO householders and the new classes proposed to be enfran chised iu Lord Aberdeen's bill, and that was made, mark you, when a xx, rating was the limit of reduction, instoadof the great reduction which we propose. The right hon. gentleman says that I am happy at remembering the mistakes of my predecessors. Well, that may be a taunt, or it may be a philosophical observation. (Laughter.) But referring to the immortal subject of the lodger's franchise, why oven in the bill of last year that favourite offspring of the intellect and passion of the right hon. gentleman—(laughter.)—a lodger fran chise—was introduced; and it was strictly enacted that there should be a qualified term of two years. (Ministerial cheers.) What becomes, then, of all this idle rhodomontade • about our now-fangled schemes and principles which the people of England cannot endure? (Cheers.) I impress upon the house that this is a most important question ; and I can assure them that, in the many communications which we daily receive from the working classes, amongst others, there is expressed a readiness and willingness to accept as a condition of the fra nc hi se t h e municipal term of residence. (Hear, hear.) It is recommended to their good sense, and accepted by the integrity of Englishmen ; and I believe that we shall make a very great mistake if we depart from that proposition in the bill. I admit that there may be something invidious in the distinction, but if you can make any proposition in committee which will remove its invi dious character, we of course shall bo perfectly ready to consider it. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It has been proposed that the term with regard to £lO householders shall be increased to two years. That is worthy of consi ration—(hear, hear) ; but depend upon it the house will commit a great error if they suppose that by reducing the term of residence as a test of fitness for the exercise of the franchise they are doing that which the working classes desire or approve of. (Ministerial cheers.) I now approach the fourth head of the impeachment. As to the contem plated savings bank franchise with which so much fault has been found, I can only say it is a franchise which was proposed by previous Administrations. It was first pro posed in 1852 when Lord John Russell was Prime Minis ter. In that year Lord John Russell had to prepare a Re form Bill. Generally speaking, it was an easy task to him; but wishing to mix some novelty with it he framed a fran chise upon the payment of taxes. He consulted the most experienced men in tho Inland Revenue Department, and acting upon their advice he proposed the franchise which has been so severely condemned in the present bill. Mark what happened in the two years between 1852 and 1854. The question of the income tax became the ques tion of the day, and the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for South Lancashire gained great and deserved dis tinction for the manner in which he dealt with the income tax. He was a man remarkable for his knowledge of finance, but still more remarkable for his knowledge of direct taxation. (Laughter.) Tho right hon. gentleman himself seemed to have drawn up the proviso in the bill of Lord Aberdeen's Government with regard- to the rights of £lO householders. It is in his style. (Much laughter.) 1 say it is difficult to reconcile the part then taken by the right hon. gentleman and his language that the proposed franchise will create fagot votes. Such is not the opinion of Sir C. Pressley and others conversant with the subject. At the same time, I do not say but it is a franchise which may be improved in committee. (Laughter and cheese.) But what is the use of going into committee, if not to enable the house to improve the proposal of the Minister. Well, to come to the sth article of impeachment, with regard to the redistribution of seats, we are told in language peremptory and authoritative, that the scheme must be enlarged. (Hear, hear.) The gentleman who cheers is bound to tell us what his plan of redistribution is. (Laughter.) I will not do what the right hon. gentleman did last night, in calling upon a gentleman to make his maiden speech as a paren thesis to his own observations. (Laughter.) I want to see the right hon. gentleman's plan of enlarged redistribution ; for when we are trying to settle the most difficult question of the day, I think wo have a right to expect from him what his enlarged views of redistribution are. We may be contracted in our views and limited in our application, but our plan is known, whereas the right hon. gentleman op posite conceals his scheme from his followers and friends whom at the proper time ke may stab to the heart. (Loud laughter and cheers.) It is impossible for him to proceed without destroying his most intimate friends. I can under stand how persons may say that there are new views which cannot bo adopted without changing our whole system. I respect such opinions; but is a mau representing a groat party to tell us when a groat question is brought forward that our redistribution is to be enlarged ? With regard to the county franchise I have not heard that any much greater reduction is proposed; but this is a matter of secondary im portance. (Opposition cheers.) If it is the opinion of the house that there ought to be a further reduction, it will re ceive our best consideration. The hon.member for Sheffield, who ought always to be described as The member for Shef field, said he saw nothing objectionable in voting papers. [Mr. Roebuck—l never said anything of the kind.] Then it must have been a pleasing illusion on my part. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Brighton very properly said that the great question is that of the borough franchise. You have been trying to deal with it for 15 years. Five Governments have attempted to deal with the question unsuccessfully, but you believe that you would arrive at a fair solution of all the difficulties and perplexities by taking refuge in a £5 franchise, giving to electioneering agents and vestries full power to convert householders of £2, £3, or £4, into £5 ratepayers at any time. We wished to establish this fran chise on a distinct principle, and we said if a man pays his own rates, and has resided a certain time, it is a prima facie evidence of responsibility, and as good a test as you can have. The hon. member for Birmingham is against all tests. If he saw a man without . a coat he would hardly say that man was qualified for the franchise ; but if he had a coat, there was a prima facie proof of some fitness. (Laughter.) I think the conditions required by this bill are prima fade tests of fitness in a man to fulfil the trust. (Hear.) Let every man not rated to the poor hare the tight to call on the official persons to place him on the register as the payer of the rates, and the right to the franchise is thus practically within the roach of every person who ought to be entrusted with it. The principle is distinct, and its extension vast and unlimited. I remember in a great party struggle, when the member for Lancashire belonged to the same party as myself, on a groat party st ruggle with respect to China, a great speech was made by a lawyer. I remember that Sir James Graham—a name never to be mentioned without respect —rose afterwards, and 1 recollect the stately cynicism of his smile when ho said. " Lot us get out of the regions of Nisi Prius." (Cheers and laughter.) When you come to offer the franchise to the people of England, not • withstanding the imputations of the hon. member for Bir mingham, in a spirit of morality and truth—(laughter and cheers)—and on a principle without any limit-- and I hear the observations of the hon. member for Richmond, whose groat abilities no ono denies—l repeat, we must " get out of the regions of Nisi Prius." (Cheers.) Then we are told that if we establish our franchise there will bo no two towns in which tho same suffrage will exist. There are 57 towns in which the Small Tenements Act prevails, we are told ; 92 in which it partly prevails ; and 27 in which it dons not prevail at all. Good God ! what would bo the application if such a proposition as yours were or tablished ? Why, sir, the very thing that the whole house has been complaining of for years has been the dreary monotony of the bill of 1832, and tho identical character of the £lO constituencies. We have been told over and over again we must seek variety of franchise. Well, now, it has been . also said, and justly said, that some of the most remarkable characteristics of this assembly are supplied by the small boroughs of the country, boroughs called into existence al most at the time of the Plantagents—certainly in the time of the Tudors and the Stuarts—and which have given to England the men such as, with India and her various colonies and settlements in two oceans, she demands. I say, those varied interests have done much good service in establishing the constitution which we now enjoy. Well, there are 27 boroughs which would under this system almost have household suffrage. Well, what would be the harm of it ? (Hear, hear.) Have you not year by year been deploring that you have no longer mem bers for Preston elected by household suffrage, no longer the system which produced such men as a Hunt or a Cob bett ? But in twenty-seven boroughs whore the Small Tenements Act does does prevail, you have large constitu encies—in Stockport, Bradford, and Oldham for ex amples. The right hon. gentleman the other night took advantage of the position in which he was placed, and appealed to the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), who in consequence, I believe, delivered a pointed invective against our bill, but what I want the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent to consider is, what would be the difference if there was a £5 rating scheme introduced in this borough. What would be the difference then? Why, sir, it would make only a difference of a few thousands. (Laughter.) It would make the difference between 15,000 and 9,000, or something of that kind. But any one who knows my hon. friend knows that he is per fectly superior to accidents of this kind. My hon. friend, who is member for the Potteries, will, in my opinion, always represent the Potteries. (Much laughter.) They like a man of social standing, a man of refined taste in the arts, and they are not insensible, as none of us aro, to the charms of that rich and grotesque rhetoric which distin guishes the hon. member. (Great laughter.) Now, sir, let mo ask the house to consider what is the result of our proposition respecting the borough franchise. Our propo sition is that every householder who is rated to the poor, and personally pays his rates, and who has occupied his house for two years, shall possess the franchise. I never wish, in arguing this question, to restrain its merits to the question of the exact number who may be admitted to the enjoyment of the suffrage. It is a great mistake to suppose that mere numbers make democracy. As long as you have fitness and variety it is impossible that democracy can prevail. In the proposition we have made wo maintain that those elements do prevail. 1 mentioned the other night that in round numbers 210,000 persons would be qualified for the franchise. The hon. member for South Lane-Isidro tells me that it would really only include 120,000. Now, we must have the opposition to our bill on some debateable grounds. (Hear, hear.) is our bill a Radical bill or a Conservative bill ? We must have one ground or the other. We do not bring it forward as a Radical bill, but as a Conservative bill and a popular bill. I defy anybody to show a bill which this house would pass of a more popular and at the same time of a more Conservative character. I admit that 120,000 are the most that are specifically admitted by the bill. We have con sidered this question, and we admit there aro 420,000 com pound householders, but oven the hon. member for Bir mingham says there aro a groat many whom he would not enfranchise. The 460,000, on same principle that you have reduced the 240,000 to 120,000, you must reduce to 230,000 if you apply the constitutional conditions on which we ask the house to pronounce an opinion, namely, whether a man who is invested with the suffrage ought to be rated to the poor, pay his rates, and complete a certain term of residence. If those are constitutional conditions which the house approves of, then you must consider the question of mem bers with reference to those conditions. I believe the members admitted within the pale of the constitution by the measure will far exceed the estimate of the lion member for Birmingham. Our bill does not propose, liko that of last year, to admit a given number; but it lays down a principle which admits of extreme application, without endangering or disturbing the country. If every corn pound householder fairly qualified exercises his vote, not more than 250,000 would be disfranchised. With regard to dual voting, I cannot under the circumstances recom mend an adherence to a provision that was proposed to guard the middle classes from a great invasion of the poli tical power of the country. (Liberal cheers.) That dual vote was not brought forward as a chock or counterpoise, but in deference to the intellectual movement of late years, on the subject of the principles of representation. But wo cannot be insensible to what has occurred. It is the busi ness of the Government to pass a measure to extend the representation of the people, and they must look to the opinions of this house and to the opinions of their supporters. Now, what support and encourage ment have we received on our side of the house— (laughter)—on the subject of dual voting? No ono has spoken a word in its favour ; it was, therefore, worse than idle to persist. (Cheers.) All I can say, in conclusion, on the part of my colleagues is, that, if we have any wish or desire at present, it is to have the co-operation of this house to bring this affair of a Reform Bill to a settle ment. (Cheers.) Wo are only influenced in the course we have taken by a sense of duty, and no other conviction animates us now, but the feeling that we ought not to desert our post till this business is concluded. (Cheers.) Rest assured it is not for the weal of England that this settlement should be delayed. You may think the horizon not disturbed now ; you may think that the surrounding circumstances may be favourable to dilatory action. Some of you may think that in the excitement of the moment ambition might be gratified and the country disappointed• But it is not so. There is a deep responsibility in regard to this question, not upon the country merely, but upon the House of COMMOILIS. If you are prepared—and I think we have shown our sincerity —to act with us cordially and candidly, so far as we can consistently with the principles which we have not concealed, we shall, if possible, gladly conclude the question of enlarging the franchise of the people consistently with the maintenance of the constitu tion. Act candidly and cordially with us, and you will find from our side c9rnplete reciprocity. Only agree to pass a bill, and you may change the Ministry to-morrow. (Loud and long-continued,cheering.) The motion to read the bill a second time was then put from the chair, and agreed to, with a single dissentient The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pointed out that the requirements of the public business would not admit of an earlier day being moved for going into com mittee on the bill than April 8. That day, therefore, was fixed for the committee. Mr. GLADSTONE—I cannot think that is an ar rangement which will bo most convenient to the house. Tho right hon. gentleman has stated that it is of great necessity that the financial statement should be made upon the 4th of April. But there is no agitation of the public mind to cause that necessity, and I know from ex perience that it is not convenient to take the financial statement within three days of the commencement of the financial year, because it is difficult at that time to get the facts into a condition for presentation to the house. Will the right hon. gentlemen tell us whether any great change is contemplated in the financial system—whether there is any large reduction of taxation which he is able to pro mise the ceuntry—(cries of "No, no," and interruption from the Ministerial benches)—or any topic of first-rate importance ? If these circumstances exist, I should not object to the proposal of the hon. gentleman. I don't think the question of such magnitude that I should wish to go to an issue with the Government upon it; but I hope the right hon. gentlemen will reconsider his proposal. (No, no, and hear, hear.) Much more ample time would be allowed for the house either to go through any discussion which may precede the Speaker's leaving the chair, or upon the provisions of the bill, if you were to fix the 4th instead of the Bth of April. The CHANCELLOit of the EXCHEQUER—Of course I will consider this in every point of view, but there are many reasons whioh convince me that the course I took is the right course consistent with our duty to the public. (Hoar, hoar.) The committee on tho bill was then fixed for the Bth of April. Tho house adjourned at 10 minutes past ono o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. LEEDS-TUESDAY. Our millers are quite indisposed to buy wheat to-day, and holders do not seek business by either offering or tak ing less money. We make no alterations in the value of barley, and there is little passing in other articles. LIVERPOOL-TUESDAY. The attendance at market was pretty good. Flour met with a slow sale, but is nominally without change. Wheat not in active demand, but steady in price. Beans iu mo derato request at rather lower rates. Barley and oats dull. Oatmeal unchanged. Indian corn has declined is 6d on the week, and but little business is reported. LYNN-MONDAY. New wheat, —s to —s; new red, —s to —s ; old whit°, 62s to 70s ; old red, 58s to 62s per 36 stone. Barley for malting, 46s to 51s ; secondary, 37s to 38s. Oats, newt 24s to 28s per 21 stone. Beans, small, 44s to 480. Pol s, 36s to 40s per 28 stone. MARKET HARBOROUGII.—TuEspior. Old white wheat, 60s to 73s ; now rod, ~ 50s to 68s Per 3 6 stone. Barley, fine, 52s ; other kinds, 23s to 36s por s 4— Oats, new, 22s to 23s ; old, 30s to 34s per qr. Beans, old, bOs to 555; new, 46s to 48s per qr. MELTON MOWBRAY.-TUESDAY. `White wheat, 66s to 74s ; rod, 50s to 66s per 36 stone• Barley for malting, 40s to 52s per qr; feed, 32s to 38s Pe' 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 355; new, 22s to 29s por 24st , Beans, old, Us to 545 . ; new, 46s to 50s per qr. SHEFFIELD—WEDNESDAY. About an average supply of wheat and other grain at to-day's market. Trade was slow, millers buying spar ingly of the best descriptions. No alteration in spring corn. Red wheat, per load of 3 imp. bushels....2lB Od to 255 01 ,, 2 White do do ,s 01 27$ ou .... New red do do los Od 21s 61 New whits do Beans do do ....23s 61 2, 0,1 55 04 do ...los Od 228 . Peas, per qr • lg 61 10 °(! Grinding ba. ley, per qr 333 Od 3ts 01 Malting barley, co Oats, do 2 7 s Od 32 5 'd u F10ur....2s 2d to 2s ad per 141 b, Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. Australia and New Zealand, via Southamptoa April 19. Ditto, via Mirediles April 13. Brazil and Cape Verde, by British packet April Y. Ditto, by French packet April 22 Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Mar. 30 China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton Mar. 31. Ditto, via Marseilles ..... Mar. 3.) Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon. via Southampton Mar 31 Ditto, via Marseilles ................. Mar. 30 India (Bombay), via Southampton. - Mar. 31. Ditto, via Marseilles Mar. 30 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Mar. 31. Ditto, via Marseilles Mar. 30. Mauritius, via Southampton Ditto, via Marseilles April 13 Newfoundland •• I Apr il 10. POrtUga ) . • ...... •• •• . April 7 . • Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon... .. United States and British North America, by Bri tish packet Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry „Mar. --, Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp ton Ditto, via Cork . West Indies and Pula° (except Bahamas and Honduras) ............. ............ .......... Arra 1. Bahams.4, via New York. April 4. Cuba and Mexico Bermuda. via Halifax Apr il 10 West Coast of Africa. Madeira. and Tenerife ....April 3• A CADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills and Oint ment.-- requent cause of gout and rheumatism is the inflamma: tory state of the blood, attended with bad digestion Lulu general debility. A few doses of these pills, taken in Woo, are an effectual preventive against gout and rheumatis m but any ono who has an attack of either should use 1 101- loway's ointment also, the powerful properties of which, combined with the effect of the pills, must infallibly effect a cure. These pills act directly on the blood, which thol, purify and improve. They also regulate the secretions a u " give tone to the stomach, and thus the whole system is vigorated and put into a condition which enables it to stop the approach of the disease or throw it off. Births. AD . lT—On_tho 24th inst.,at Lee, the wife of Colonel John Adye, C. 8., Royal Artillery, of a son. the IC.l‘3lAlioN—On the 25th inst., at 41, Grosvenor - p lace ' wife of Colonel Sir Thomas MlLahon, Bart., C. 13, Of a daughter. SADLER— On the 24th inst., at Albury nous°, Choshunt, Mrs. Francis A. Sadler, of a son. SLY—BROWNING —Ou the 20th inst., Bs atciS„L of Jolri:i.sueoll-itrfl?: 141,er Lewisham, I3annister Sly, to Llizabuth Ann, eldest daughter of W. S. Browning, Esq., of Canterbury. WHALE—CHAPMAN—On the 23d inst., at Sarnfavirr, G l3 : morganshire. Thomas Martin Whale, Esq., EX. Ligll Infantry, to Dora, second daugbter of the lato Chapman, Esq., barrister-at-law. Deaths. CAMPBELL—On the 2Gth inst., at Manor House, St. J o llll' l,l ' wood-park, John Campbell, D.D., lately editor of to " I3ritisli Standard," Sce., aged 72. HILTON—On the 2lth inst., at Preston House, near Fairer" sham, Giles Hilton, Esq, STEVENS—On the 24th inst., at the Royal Artillery DePc'' Warley, Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen James Steveool C. 8., aged 59. London: Printed and Published by WILLI DlaN"' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 111 ; Strand, iu the Precinct of the Savoy , i n the CountY Middlesex.—Wednesday, March 27, 1867. AF Londe Privai betvin Eveni w Mr. IA his FI 3d Ap E A of Co; tensiv cast CO., C street, "T V' TEA. The deltic 9, GI BL DI jA worlri. next t 1 - A A ! JO trade • to tak Print! squall brim!' marke Comm whisk best, quotas _ mello, casks, Most ! the ni Londe Thl4 remov —248, Ladle at :Is ( —llad stlOerf tO th and 1,1 IT` • - Til Du!a It i some. Sol by 1 . 1 wbnir R. 1 01-v " Kill C° Par montl 1I I'. ADV Freeh renay discos T 1 A Rim land, and I@.; 1 from OP Russo For, Conti Sol. Gua, CO' the c BAL . and h !Er. ties a NO Acrol N 1 QUE to QT Adr T 00111! Al The decor: and 1 M. GI SP produ sent t High trnme , tnrsi.l for 54, it Pi YE G 1 lowne —AL mists .11 or ten so by ROSE 0 1 of 4,M whieb The MAR Arlen , shlrm charit The tress last y DOT ~~ • .tr.n want beck I Pc yontu Pave Con hir. LI BILIVI