The Sun. — London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

THE IRISH CONSTABULARY. Lord LIFFORD, in moving for returns concerning the Irish constabulary, said that in reviewing that extraordi nary outbreak in Ireland, that the most extraordinary feature was the conduct of the Irish police. The members of that force were not derived from the middle classes, but were the children of small farmers, and throughout all the late disturbances they had behaved with the utmost loyalty. This showed that a few years of good treatment had eradicated those feelings which pervaded the minds of a certain section of the population. He (Lord Lifford) was not one of those who thought that there were no wrongs to redress in Ireland. He would like to see an equality in the churches, and that the farmer should have clearer tenant rights. It showed that there was really no great dissatisfaction amongst those classes in Ireland. The curious fact which ho wished to direct their attention to was the circumstances that those who had been the most determined defenders of the Govern ment in Ireland had been men springing from a class who were considered to be most hostile. (Hoar, hear.) He should move for the returns of a list of the police sta tions in Ireland, and the names of the officers engaged at them, and all those who were killed or wounded in the late outbreak. Lord DERBY said that he quite agreed with his noble friend with the eulogium that he had passed on the Irish constabulary, and it would be satisfactory to know that, with regard to them, it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose in the House of Commons to vote a sum of money to be distributed among them, and also certain badges of honour. The Earl of CORK quite agreed with the remarks that had fallen from the noble earl, and was glad that her Majesty's Government proposed to mark their apprecia tion of the conduct of the constabulary. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE said that it was pleasing to contemplate the admirable manner in which the con stabulary had conducted themselves under such trying duties as they had lately been called on to perform. (Hear, I!iar.) Lord KIMBERLEY expressed his great satisfaction at the conduct of the Irish constabulary. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE could not allow this oppor tunity to pass without saying that the troops have behaved in the most admirable manner, notwithstanding the severe labours imposed upon thorn and tha inclement weather under which they had been called upon to act. The motion was then agreed to. The Metropolitan Poor Bill and the Trades Union Bill having been read a third time, and passed, Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. WATERFORD ELECTION. The select committee to try the merits of the petition presented for the return for the last Waterford election was sworn at the table. NEW WETS. On the motion of Col. TAYLOR a now writ was ordered to issue for Galway in the room of Mr. Mortis. A new writ was also ordered to issue from Trinity Col lege, Dublin, in the room of Mr. Chatterton. THE REFORM BILL. Lord ELCIIO, on the part of Lord Grosvenor, gave notice that in committee on the Reform Bill ho should move amendments to the effect of limiting its operation to houses of the rateable value of £5, and fixing the per sonal payment of rates at the same amount. Sir E. DERING gave notice of his intention of moving an amendment, the effect of which would be to reduce the ccunty qualification from £l5 to £l2. Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice of his intention to move amendments in order to give a lodger franchise. In reply to Mr. BRIGHT, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was not aware of the rumours relative to the postpone ment of the committee on the Reform Bill until after Easter. They had not yet decided whether the bill should be read a second time, therefore they would excuse him from fixing the time at which it would be committed. The course pursued would be strictly Parliamentary. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. In reply to Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Lord STANLEY said the correspondence between the two countries relative to claims arising on both sides during the war had not yet been concluded, and ho there fore could not at present lay the papers on the table. lie would take that opportunity of noticing a statement that bad appeared in the newspapers that communications of a very unfriendly nature had been received by her Majesty's Government from the Government at Washing ton. There was no truth whatever in such a statement. RAILWAY DEBENTURES. Mr. CRAWFORD gave notice that to-morrow he should call the attention of the house to the present state of rail way indebtedness with respect to debentures now falling due, and also that ho should move certain resolutions on the subject. In reply to Me. WARNER, The CIIA>.7CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the probable number of new £lO borough voters who would be added to the constituencies by that part of the bill which provides for the redistribution of seats, irrespective of the proposed alteration in the franchise, would be 68 ,000—viz., 32,000 above, and 36,000 plow £lO. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. At 5 o'clock the order of the day for the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill was read by the Clerk at the table. Mr. GLADSTONE then rose and said—l think, sir, that if the question were now being put, not upon the second reading, but upon the third reading of the bill which I hold in my hands, iu the terms and with the effect which has now been framed, there can be little doubt it would have been r e j ec t ed b y a majority, perhaps by a large ma jority, of this house. (Hear, hear.) I think further, sir, that if we were now considering the question whether you should leave the chair in order that we might go into com mittee on this bill, the result would be that a majority of the house, and I should certainly be one of them, would be of opinion that, unless we ca n enter into committee armed and assisted by some declaration, or even some expression, from the Government different fr om those which have yet ' been given to us and to the country, we should be wasting the session and losing time. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, the rules of this house, wisely framed as they are, give u s two op portunities, two ordinary opportunities, of condemning the principles of a ny bill that is proposed for our cons i deration ; and whit I would suggest to the house is, that we should endeavour to make use of those oppoitunities in order to ascertain the principles of the Government, so that before we comp to the question of your leaving the chair, w e may have fair means of judgment upon the point then submitted to us—namely, upon the important question whether we aro to undertake the task of dealing with his bill in detail. I, therefore, for one, propose, in assenting to the second reading of this bill, to assent to it as a measure for extending and reducing the franchise, for the redistribution of seats, and for certain other purposes either in themselves desirable, or at all events entitled, when proposed by a Government, to be taken into consideration by the house. Now I shall describe the objects which, so far as I know, are entertained either by the whole house, or by a great majority of the house, with refer ence to the adjustment of this question. We all speak of the desirableness of settlement, and perhaps the time has now come when in most or possibly, I Will Plat it, 11 THE SUN, LONDON, 7 UESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1867. all points—most men may mean nearly the sa m e thi ng by ThipmAL PAR plgril LIA that phrase. I think then the objects, so far as lam aware of 11 them from communication with members of the house, are these three. First of all, that a legislative measure should be passed without delay—that is, with the present year. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, that that measure should be based upon a liberal enfranchisement, on terms I will now under take to define, of the labouring classes. (Hear, hear.) Thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important of them all—that the provisions of the bill, that the conditions of that liberal enfranchisement, should be so devised that the bill may carry with it a fair and reasonable promise, if not finality in the stricter sense of the term, yet of that kind of fixedness which is all that the nature of public legislation promises in such a subject, and we can expect or even de sire. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, it appears to me that in order to realise the third of these conditions two rules, especially and far beyond all others, must be observed. We must have no exclusions from the franchise that are arbitrary in their character, or that are other than founded upon broad and intelligible grounds. (Hear.) I add then th 3 second principle, that within the pale of the franchise we must have no distinctions drawn—(hear) -by legislation which are either of a vexatious or needless character, because those distinctions go, more than any other form of defect in a reform bill, to destroy the hope of that fixedness which we all desire. Now, I proceed to examine the pro visions of the present bill in the light of these proposi tions. Before Ido so, I cannot help uttering a word of regret for a production which no one has as yet candidly regretted-1 mean the V rating bill. Whether as a bill, or as a measure sketched by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, I must say that did form, in my opinion, the basis upon which a settlement might have been constructed. There were numerous points on which several other gentlemen, on both sides of the house, would have been at issue with the Government ; but the issues were all of a simple, straightforward, intelligible character ; and I am satisfied, if the Government had refused to make reasonable changes, or if we on this side of the house had demanded unreasonable changes, other minds would have been directed to the merits of the controversy, and we should by moral force have been compelled on one side or the other, or on both, to arrive at an agreement on the basis of the provisions of that bill. I therefore regret its brief and its untimely death. " Ostendent terris hunc tantum fate, neque ultra Esse sinent." HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at Ave o'clock. PETITIONS. Tho Duke of ARGYLL and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented petitions praying for the closing of public houses on the Sunday. Lord ITUFFERIN presented-a similar petition. JUDGES IN CHAMBERS. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that most of their lordships did not know whit were the functions of judges when sitting in chambers. These functions, however, very materially interfered with the ordinary routine of the judges when sitting in their respective courts; and, con sequently, as it was considered that this duty might be very well transacted by the masters of the courts, their salaries had been increased, but still the burden upon the judges was most inconvenient. He (the Lord Chancellor) bad great satisfaction in introducing a bill authorising the judges to frame such rules and regulations as they might think fit for the guidance of the masters of the respective courts in conducting the business in chambers. After a few remarks front Lord CIL.A.NWORTII, the bill was read a first time. THE POET YOUNG. Lord DUFFERIN said that, with regard to the poet Young, he had heard of him at an early period of his (Lord Dufferin's) life, and was subsequently acquainted with him. He knew that he had been in very humble life, but he had made a very ♦aluable contribution to the literature of the north of Ireland, and when he fell into a state of poverty those who recognised his merit had got up a strong memorial in his favour for the coun ty, which it was proposed should be granted by the noble earl at the head of the Government. Both Protestants and Catholics were unanimous in recommending Mr. Young as a fit recipient of the bounty to be bestowed, he trusted that the noble lord at the head of the Government would, on all grounds, persist in granting the pension which had been proposed to be given to Mr. Young. The Earl of DERBY said that, in bestowing a pension of that description he could not, in the position in which he was placed, only be guided by the representations of the memorialists. He quite agreed with what had been said by the noble lord opposite about the ability which Mr. Young had displayed in the works which had been pub lished by him. After a few remarks from Lord STANHOPE and Lord LIFFonn, the subject dropped. THE VOLUNTEERS. Lord VIVIAN would ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether resolutions relative to the conduct of volunteers during civil outbreaks had yet boon framed ? Lord LONGFORD said that those resolutions were about to be framed. The subject then dropped. But it has gone, and cannot be revived. We must make the best of the measure which is before us. I wish now to in quire how that best can be made. Nothing can be more dis couraging to the prospect when we survey the main heads connected with the settlement of the question involved in this bill. I find these heads are ten. A bill on this subject, as it appears to me, must contain a lodger franchise; but this bill contains no lodger franchise. Next, it seems to me that a bill of this kind, professing largely to enfranchise downwards, must provide some means of preventing the traffic in votes which would infalliblyarise on a large scale with regard to the lowest class of householders. This bill contains no such provisions. We must do away with the vexatious distinctions which now exist between the com pound householder in a condition of life who is recognised by law as fit for the franchise, and those persons of the same station, not being compound householders. This bill does not do away with those distinctions; on the contrary, it increases them. I think, sir, the taxing franchise must be omitted. (Hear.) I think the dual vote must be aban doned. (Liberal cheers.) I apprehend there is no doubt that the redistribution of seats proposed by the bill must be considerably enlarged. (Hear.) I also venture to take it for granted that the county franchise proposed by the billmust be reduced. (Hear, hear.) I doubt whether the position of a majority of the house will allow them to entertain the important proposition for the optional use of voting payers. And, finally, with respect to the collateral, the bye, the special, or the fancy franchise—the special, perhaps, is the best name for them—my opinion is that, though in principle no objection could be made to them or to some of them, yet when we come to examine them we shall find, as we gain acquaintance with the conditions of each proposal that the advantages we had anticipated continually dwindle, while the obstacles and difficulties continually multiply, and that there really remains a thin sterile residuum, or else they altogether disappear. Here are the ten subjects, and on them I will express such opinion as I have been able to form. In the discussion which 1 will now attempt I shall confine myself to the subject of the borough fran chise, as that is a subject involved by the provisions of the bill as it now stands in hopeless intricacy and difficulty, and since it must devend upon the assurances which must be given by the Government with respect to the borough franchise in the course of this debate whether, when we come to the question of your leaving the chair, there will be any prospect of really gaining ground by going into committee on the bill. (Hoar, hear.) Now, if I look at the great enfranchising clause of this bill, clause 3, I find it presents these prominent features : First, it ap pears to convey the impression that we are now going to ii abandon all attempts to distinguish between class and class, and to recognise the universal fitness of all classes of the community. But I confess it appears to me, with great submission, if we do recognise that universal fitness, it is not so very important as the right hon. gentleman seems to think it is, whether we recognise it under the name of popu lar privileges or democratic rights. The clause gives the public an impression that we are going to confer what is called household suffrage. Without having any exagge rated apprehensions of the evil consequences that would result even from an error which seems to be committed in that direction—because I believe the good sense of the country would effectually qualify and restrain the evil consequences of such an error—yet I must say that it does not appear to me to be at all sufficiently shown that we are required either by the state of the population, or by the wishes of the country at large, or by the state of opinion in this house, or by its previous pledges, or by any single consideration that can be brought to bear upon the subject, to assent to that very broad principle. (Hear.) Considering that as not essential which is needless, and might produce in several particulars inconvenient results, though I don't apprehend ruin or destruction from it, is no reason at all for my adopting a proposition, if I think a better measure can be devised. At present I merely de mur to that proposition, not as one under all circumstances inadmissible, but as one which appears at present needless, and therefore unwise. But, on going further into the clause, I find that this immense concession is qualified by a restraint which actually stultifies the concession itself. (Hear, hear.) Three-quarters of a million of people are at first enfranchised, but immediately after a condition is in troduced which cuts off half a million, or, as I think I can show, more than half a million from that increase. Then, again, this qualification is itself qualified, because in the barrier of personal rating which prima fade shuts out half a million there is introduced a little wicket through which by a process we will presently examine, it will be in the power of individuals to introduce themselves in a manner as I shall show will probably make the provision for restraint I altogether nugatory. In that case you have household suf frage. Or it may be that this mode of entrance should prove nugatory, and that the exclusion of half a million would re main without mitigation. But what is certainly an evil and easily seen is, that if this wore now law it would depend on the extent of the willingness of the local authorities, and upon the extent of the willingness of registration agents to determine whether we were to be landed in household suffrage or restricted within the narrow limits of enfranchising one-third of the householders below the limit of £lO. Now, whether we adopt household suffrage or the narrow basis of her Majesty's Government, at least , let us keep in our own hands the determination of what shall be the limits of the constituency. Do not let us leave it to the parochial authorities of the country, or to the ro- 1 gistmtion agents of the several political parties. (Hear.) I On examining the operation of this bill, I find it ranges the borough constituency into a hierarchy of five classes. At the head of these come those favoured children of for tune who are to be endowed with the dual vote. On that dual vote I shall not trouble the house, because I think it would be a waste of time. Next to the dual voters, who have but little hope of realising that felicity, come the old £lO householder voters of 1832. Their position is nomi nally unchanged by the bill, but it is really in every re spect changed most seriously, because a considerable num ber of minor voters —if I may so call them--are to be in troduced from beneath, so fur diminishing the privilege of the Old £lO voter; while 30,000 dual voters are at the same time to come in and swamp him from above. I come now to the provision of the bill for what I will call the .£3 voter, or mon who aro to be ad mitted under £lO. The £9 voter, so far as I can understand, differs from the £lO in this re spect, that ho is to reside two years instead of one, and that he can only qualify in respect to a house; and, finally, he must live in an entire house, as he cannot qualify in re. spect to part of a house. This is not an important part of the subject, but the right hon. gentleman appeared to sus tain his proposition by stating this provision was in Lord Aberdeen's bill in 1854. The right hon. gentleman, however, is inaccurate. If he refers to that bill, be will find it was framed with the idea that a simple mode of dealing with the parliamentary franchise would be to cut off what I may call the upper slice of the municipal constituency, and endow them with a parliamentary vote on a qualifying residence of two years and eight months. The provision in this bill therefore is not the same as in the bill of Lord Aberdeen. and if it were, the further experience and long discussion has shown that that provision was so defective that it was not introduced either into the bill of 1860 or of 1866. A point, however, which is of far more importance is the distinction, partly established by the present law and partly attempted to be introduced by the bill, between and dpthoue ratepaying householder. o r th e non - ratepay i ng householder householder. The right hon. gentle man told me the other day that the compound householder was to enjoy, if he could get it, the dual vote. That, however, appears to me fFbe — a clear erro r i n th e construc tion of the 7th clause of thi s bill . (The Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented.) That is to to say, if he is not a compound householder. For h e must pay rates, and there is no provision for his paying ra t es. Ho is to claim and tender rates, which he could only do in the excessively rare instances where the landlord happened to be in arrear. Even, therefore, from the phantom dual vote the compound householder is excluded. When it is said that the compound householder is left in his present position, what does that come to ? The position of the compound householder , man the franchise, and then, by regulations proceeding from my own will and pleasure, put in his way insuperable difficulties. (Cheers.) If he is fit to have the franchise, let him have it in the easiest and simplest manner. (Continued cheering.) If all aro not to be enfranchised, the proper divi sion is that between class and class. Some classes have more independence and education; others, unhappily, have loss. Some among us may hope to see the time when want of education will no longer be a reproach to this country. (Cheers.) In the present state, partly of dependence and partly of ignorance, that to our shame prevails, I assume that it is right to have some distinctions, and not invest all men with the right of political franchise. But let us be open and aboveboard. (Cheers.) It has been said that the £6 or £8 voter cannot be a very good elector unless he is ready to pay a few shillings for the franchise. In the first place, I am afraid he will have to pay those few shillings every year; and in the second place, if we take the compensation of 50 per cent. you will find that the shillings aro not very few. But what happened on the passing of the Reform Act? (Hear, hear.) You were dealing with no man below £lO in boroughs, and with landowners, leaseholders, and occupiers of £5O and upwards in counties, and you enacted the pay ment of ls. registration fee. But the country rose, morally, in arms against the payment of the shilling, and you were obliged to repeal it. (Hear, hoar.) And now you put a much heavier payment in the way of the compound house holders under £lO as a condition of their obtaining the franchise, and you say, unless they are willing to pay that they cannot be very anxious for enfranchisement. (Hear, hear.) I think I can see what is the idea of the Govern ment, and if it were an idea entirely supported by facts, I am very far from saying it would be a very bad idea. They want a legislative condition to perform the office of something like what Mr. Darwin calls " natural selec tion." (Laughter.) They want to discover the finest specimen of the British citizen in the humbler orders of society, and the method adopted is to test him by difficul ties. We have known from the schoolroom and upwards that "difficulty is the nurse of excellence"—(laughter) accounts of struggles with difficulties form most interesting biographies. It is thought that you can apply this test to the 500,000 householders below .£lO, who have been com pelled to compound for their rates, so that you can select the good ones by ascertaining what man is willing to go before the parish overseer to get up the state of the law on the question, and to pay two years' rates in arrears, amount ing to 25 or 50 per cent.; when he has done this you say he is fit for the franchise. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I am inclined to say that such a man is worthy of the fran chise, and a great deal more ; but such is not the clay of which human nature at large is made, and it is too severe to require the spirit of a hero and a martyr in a man with 3s. or 4s. a-day as a condition to his attaining the privilege of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) You therefore effect no natural selection ; but what you do is this, you allow the parish officials to take up the matter by hundreds and thousands, and you allow the registration court to come down and pay the fines to which I have adverted. I know that the Government have said that the payment of rates by agents shall be bribery. The intention is no doubt good, but at the same tine a more nugatory provision never was introduced into an Act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) How are you to establish a corrupt intention in the pay ment of rates ? It is absolutely impossible. 1 will give a practical example of the way in which the law works at present, and I will leave the house to judge how it will work when the pecuniary fine is added. Take the case of All Saints, Poplar, in the Tower Hamlets district. In All Saints, Poplar, there are 4,052 houses for which the owners are rated. Of these, one-fifth are occupied by females, and only 23 of the occupiers of these houses are on the register. The vestry clerk says that the average number of claims to bo placed on the register has not, during the last ten years, exceeded 20. When a person makes a claim, and fails to appear, he forfeits the claim, and the vestry clerk adds, " I am of opinion that if the persons entitled to be put upon the register wore to make their claim, and attend to establish it, the number on the register would be increased threefold. But the usual reply I receive when I explain to them the necessity of their at tendance before the revising barrister, is, "Oh, I am not going to lose my time in going there ; I shall not trouble myself any further." (Hear, hear.) A benevolent parish official, or a registration agent, would possibly perform the function for them; and, therefore, what we come to is this, that, as a general rule, whether they are excluded, or whe ther they are admitted, they will be admitted or excluded wholesale, and not by the selection which you have in view. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, all this appears to me to be grave matter for the consideration of the house ; but the point to which I am most anxious to bring the mind of the right hon. gentleman is this, the utter hopelessness of any idea of settling this question, and fixing this question by such a measure. (Hear, hear.) You may obtain a settlement you may obtain fixity by drawing a line between class and class, if it be reasonably drawn ; but if you choose to make selections as arbitrary as if they were made by lot between members of the same class, why is it not plain what will h a ppen ? The excluded, if they are strong enough, will never cease to agitate until they have knocked down the artificial wall of separation, and will then rush in in masses to the possession of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) Now, let us consider this important question by the light that is thrown upon it by the return printed on Satur day last. It is about a fortnight or ten days ago that I asked the right hon. gentleman that it should bo pre pared, and I have now to thank both the right hon. gen tlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Presi dent of the Poor-law Board for the diligence used in its production. It is a most important nature It is a return, which, unless 1 am much mistaken, contains facts and figures which may leave it open for the Government to choose some other method of proceeding, and which show their proposals to be totally and absolutely valueless. And, sir, what I observe is this, that the knowledge con tained in this return was not on last Friday night in the possession of the Government. The right hon. gentleman thought it could be given ; but the right hon. the Presi dent of the Poor-Law Board doubted whether it could. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I simply inquired of my right hon. friend whether the return could be given in the form roe gN q a Et r e e : i tt i r k e la d 0 . w I thatthought that a gg r e it g a c t o e u l d couldbe g be iv3i g eln i r v . e i n L , t b hAe u p t aS w gTg bat I wanted was particulars. (Hear, hear.) It was the examination of details—the minute anatomy of the working of the bill—which constitutes my justification when I venture to predict that it cannot become law, and cannot receive the sanction of this house. Now, from this return it appears that, as regards London, which contains a population of three m i llions —one-third of the entire borough population of the country—the bill is a nullity— (hear, hear) —and it is a nullity for two reasons. First, of all, is there good ground for enfranchisement in London ? People look at its constituencies, and see them multiplied by thousands, and assume that there can can be no great object in increasing them. But that is not quite the right way of looking at the subject. These three millions of people are not inferior to the rest of England. On the contrary, London contains the flower of the working men of the land, and yet you have got in London not a larger but a smaller proportion of the aggregate population en franchised than you have in the average of boroughs throughout the country. Therefore, there is a case for looking to London. But if you do not intend to pass them over, how must you proceed ? You can only pro ceed in one of two ways. There are two barriers which prevent enfranchisement in London—one is the state of the law as to lodgers ; the other is the state of the law as to compound householders. Both these you omit in your bill, and, consequently, you pass over in the metropolis three millions of people, or nearly one-third of the population of the boroughs of the country. I ask seriously the right hon. gentleman if it is possible , to settle this question, which it is admitted can only be settled by a liberal enfranchisement, if you begin by a bill from the scope of which the whole metropolis is excluded ? (Cheers.) Now, sir, after having commanded this return, lam still bound to warn hon. members that the figures are more favourable to the propositisn of the Government than the facts warrant. In other words, it greatly over rates the numbers to be enfranchised, not from any fault of the Government or the officers, but from this fact that, as I believe, there aro a class of cases where the ra tes of occupiers are paid b y t h e owners , b u t w hi c h do n o t ap pear on this return. The right hon. gentleman stated that there are 237,000 persons who are rated and pay their rates. Prima facie on this paper that is so, but in reality it is not so. I take the case of Liverpool. If you look to No. 2, you will find that, as regards Liverpool, there aro 16,317 persons who are represented by this return as being Liverpool within the beneficial scope of the enfranchising provisions whattohfetrheeabriells.etnetelyany such ol is the fact ? Why, that in Liverpool, peisrstohniss—atthaaltl. with regard a h r o d ar t . o houses under .£l5 t h e rates are ha bi tua lly p a id b y t h e ) The practice in rpo owner, and that not in virtue of any provision of a law, but by arrangement between the owners and the parish autho rities. (Hear, hear.) There is not one of those who would not be in the position of compound householders —nay, worst, because I very much doubt whether any of these occupiers could be under the bill admitted, although they were willing to go through all the steps of the process that aro provided in the case of compound householders. I will call attention to another clans of cases. 1 wrote down to one of the rural boroughs to know what was the prac tice in them. The answer was this—and I rather found fault with myself for not having perceived it —that it would be governed by the custom of the country ; I mean that there is a custom in the country under which, when a farm is let, the cottages upon the farm are let with it to the farmer, and there is but one rate for the farmhouse, the farm, and the farm cottages. (Hear, hear, and dissent from the Government benches.) What is to be come of the occupiers of these cottages ? • All that class of persons must be deducted from the estimate of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) I venture to assure the right hon. gentleman—and I am as conversant with the figures in thi s matter as mos t h on . gen tl eme n—. that the enfranchis ement of ratepay i ng h ouse h o ld e rs by th e household suffrage clause of the Government bill would be somewhere between 100,000 and 120,000 persons. In point of fact, it would be the veriest mouthful beyond the unfor tunate £6 rating bill, for which I seemed to be the only person in the house who cared a farthing. But I ask the house to follow me while I give them the figures to show with what astonishing blindness this bill would operate in (1140:014 UMW Qi the oowitxy. lola Lot refer to the 57 is the one great blot on the present system, the one point on which the present system cries aloud for amend ment ; and I believe it will be totally impossible to pass a Reform bill through this house which does not improve the position of the compound householder. The right hen. gentleman, therefore, has been Conservative where an innovating or at any rate an improving disposition would have been most desirable, instead of maintain ing in activity that most objectionable provision which places a compound householder paying £l5, £2O, or £25 a year rent in a position of inferiority by imposing upon him conditions in the town franchise which exclude him, with the most insignificant exceptions, dependent on the spontaneous action of parish authori ties or well-paid registration agents. The right hon. gentleman may truly say that the compound householders above £lO are but a small part of the non-ratepaying householders. That is perfectly true. The fifth of these classes to which I have referred is placed in a deplorable position. There are 500,000: of whom we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Monday that they were perhaps just as good men as their neighbours, and he would give them every facility for attaining the franchise. Examining the bill, I ask myself how that promise is to be fulfilled, and what idea he has in his head when he says he will give these compound householders every facility. What am Ito understand by that? These persons who pay rates only in the form of rent have, by the authority of Parliament and by the joint action of the local autho rities, but without their own consent, been excluded from the actual and ordinary payment of rates. Under these circumstances we promise them the franchise, and say we will give them every facility. And how do we begin ? In the first place we impose upon them every restraint borne by the present compound householder—l am speaking generally, for I have not been able to count the units—and effectually exclude 99 or 98 per cent. of all the persons on whom it operates. The right hon. gentleman, in his anxiety to give every facility, begins with this restraint, but he does not stop there. In this memorable clause, the 24th of the bill, he introduces this provision, with respect to the new compound householder, under £10; "provided that the rates to be paid by such occupier in order to en title him to the franchise shall be rates calculated on the full value of the premises." I do not wish to take a polemical advantage ; I believe I speak the strict and literal truth when I say that by that clause you fine the compound householder below £lO if he attempts to obtain the franchise. (Hear, hear.) I do not ask the house to accept that statement merely on my authority. It is a very grave proposition, which goes very much to the root of the matter; it affects 500,000 out of the 750,000 proposed to be enfranchised. (Hear.) Setting aside the extremely rare cases when the landlord's rates are in arrear, the compound householder is only to be amerced in point of time and trouble for trying to obtain the fran chise. Because the construction of the law is this : If the 75 per cent., or the composition, whatever it is, has been paid to the landlord, thereto has been paid in full, and consequently there remains nothing for the compound householder to do. But when we come to the new com pound householder below £lO, who has then to pay his rate in full, let us see what is the meaning of the phrase. I have received information, which can easily bo tested to this effect. " The cause of Dodds and the parish of Bilston was heard in the Queen's Bench on the Bth N0v.,1865 ; 13 Law Times, 589. The parish officers had taken in the case of compounds 52 times the ordinary weekly rent as the basis or first quality for ascertaining, under the Parochial Assessment Act, the gross estimated rental free and clear from tenants' rates and taxes. The question was, to make this quantity free from rates, must you deduct the full or the compound rate ? The Court held that you must de duct the full rate." The Court held that the compound householder had already paid the full rate, because I can not be told that the owners of compound houses are satis fied with less profit than owners of non-compound houses. Therefore the compound householder had already paid the full rate, and that which ho has already paid he is to be called upon by this clause to pay over again in order to get the franchise: (Hear, from the Opposition side of the house, and No, no, from the Ministerial benches.) Wait a moment—l have not concluded yet. I should have been more strictly accurate if I had said, part of that which he has already paid he is to be called upon to pay over again• (Hear.) But how much is that part? supposing it were 25 per cent., it would be extremely hard in principle and practice—(hear, hear)—but the deduction made to the landlord is not 25 but 50 per cent. (Hear, hear.) The deduction from 50 per cent. is made upon the principle that the composition money is intended to cover full houses and and empty houses alike. That composition having been paid, when the compound householder goes before the parochial officer or revising barrister to make his claim, he has to pay 50 per cent. more, that is, according to the judg ment of the court, he has to pay the full rent over again— and therefore he has to pay for using the house which ho inhabits, and for the house which his neighbour might in habit, but which stands empty by its side. (No, no.) That is the strict and literal truth. (No, no.) What part of it is not true? There is no doubt that it is true. lam bound to say that in every one of these cases, which will be numbered by tens of thousands and fifties of thousands throughout the country, there can be no doubt that it is the intention to make the compound householder pay his rate twice. (No, no.) Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain. Mr. GREEN interpolated a few words, but his remarks were almost inaudible amidst the loud cries of "order" with which he was received, and he resumed his seat. Mr. GLADSTONE—If the statement I have made is understood, I am so far satisfied. In the case where the composition is 50 per cent., it is fixed upon empty and full houses together, and the householder is fined to the extent of that 50 per cent. for the attempt to obtain his vote. (Cheers.) Don't let it bo understood that I state that, in all cases, the sum is 50 per cent. ; I have not said anything of th 3 kind. It is 50 per cent. in a very large number of cases, in many it is 25, and in some 33 ; and it varies between 25 and 50. At 50 it rises to the doubling of the rate, at 25 it is loss ; but the principle of fine is the same. IN hen I asked the right hon. gentleman about the compound householder he replied that he could not deal with exceptional cases. But according to the statement of the right hon. gentle man himself, the exceptions are twice as many as the cases under the rule. There are between 500,000 com pound householders below £lO, and between 200,000 and 300,000 above £lO ; and the right hon. gentleman tells me ho would provide for those between 200,000 and 300,000, but he cannot provide for the exceptions which are double the number. The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER—I never said any such thing. Mr. GLADSTONE—The right hon. gentleman said he could not undertake to provide for exceptional cases. The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER—I have no recollection of having said so. Mr. GLADSTONE—I paid great attention to what fell from the right hon. gentleman, and my opinion is that his memory at this moment a little deceives him. But whe ther he said it or not, it is a very small part of my purpose to establish a contradiction in his statements, if there was any. What I want to point out to the House is—that of these cases of compound householders, at least two-thirds are below £lO. Now, I think the Government have been led into a great error in this way. They know very well that compound householders, with certain exceptions, are at present excluded, and they have thought it would be safe for them to deal with the eompound householder be low £lO as unfavourably, or more unfavourably, than the way in which the law now deals with those above £lO. ' But the proportion should be kept in view. In every con stituency where there are £lO or £l5 compound house holders, there is discontent ; but this does not disturb the I country, because the towns in which these cases exist aro few; mind, as a wh o l e , th e present h ouse h o ld ers f orm but a small proportion of the entire constituency. But it is a totally different thing with those below £lO. You cannot carry it below £lO, and, having 750,000 persons to deal with, say "We will arbitrarily take ono in every three of you, and exclude two in every three," and then be under the delusion of supposing you have settled the question I of Parliamentary reform. (Cheers.) What I contend 1 1 upon this subject is, that not payment of rates considered as a matter of fact, but, the condition of a man in life, as such, his presumable character, amount of education, and independence, are the criteria to be employed for ascertaining who aro to have the franchise. (Cheers.) And here I would venture to explain more clearly a suggestion I made on a former evening. I think the Government have committed a fundamental error, even assuming the test of personal rating to be the true test, in adopting our actual system of law as the basis of their measure. Those laws are infinitely various, and have a different effect in different quarters, and never were in tended to be placed in contact with the question of the political franchise. Local Acts represent nothing except the will and view of the local community; and in the case of the Small Tenements Act they are not only voluntary as to their acceptance, but as to their duration. It is impos sible to conceive anything more unfitted to be the basis or limit of the parliamentary franchise, when you justly say that your limiting boundary ought to be a firm and solid one, such as as will endure. (Cheers.) It seems to me that if you employ the condition of personal rating at all —and I do not deny that its employment would give great satisfaction to many minds, and might in many respects be useful—(Ministerial cheers)—you must employ it quite apart from this system of voluntary legislation, with which I defy you to make your legislation feasible. (Hear, hear.) You may fix a certain figure of rateable value, not touch ing the present Acts at all, but leav ng them to their operation precisely as they stand, and you might by an enactment uniform and running through the country, say: Below that figure no occupier shall be liable to payment of rates; below that figure no man shall enjoy the franchise ; above that figure every man shall enjoy the franchise. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. HENLEY—lncluding payment of rates as well as being rateable? Mr. GLADSTONE—I take the payment of rates to be a separate question from that of personal rating, and I do not think the same importance attaches to it. The suggestion I have made touches the subject matter, and is of the greatest importance. By a suggestion of that kind you might really erect personal rating into some thing that might be called a principle; but if I make personal rating a principle, even though popularity were to be gaimcl by such a proposal, i would never promise alr towns where the Small Tenements Act is in operation. How will it act in these boroughs ? I compare the number who will be qualified as ratepaying householders with the number of those who will be excluded as non-ratepaying householders. In Abingdon 35 persons will be qualified ; 574 excluded. In Caine, 25 qualified; 695 excluded. (Laughter.) In Carlisle, 406 qualified; 3,571 excluded. In Chippenham, 20 qualified, 727 excluded. In Christchurch, 41 qualified; 523 excluded. In Devizes, 55 qualified ; 487 • excluded. In Dudley, 232 qualified ; 6,315 excluded. In Evesham, 40 qualified ; 464 excluded. In Gateshead, 173 qualified ; 5,571 excluded. I have taken these towns as examples of the class, but in all 25,004 will be admitted, and 139,377 excluded. I come now to the towns in which the Small Tenements Act is partially in operation. There are 98 of such boroughs, and if we take the totals they are not so very unreasonable, because 10,63 i are admit ted and 230,602 excluded. But when we look into par ticulars, what do we find ? I take the very first borough -Andover. In Andover, 40 are qualified; 623 excluded. In Aylesbury, 416 aro qualified ; 3,514 excluded. In Barnstaple, 151 are qualified 1,017 ex cluded. In Bridgewater, 56 are qualified ; 1,231 ex cluded. In Frome, 38 are qualified ; 1,363 excluded. In Kingston-upon-Hull 64 aro qualified, 12,027 excluded. (Rear, hoar.) Is it possible that right hon. gentlemen on the Treasury bench can rise and commend to us a clause which will produce such extraordinary results ? (Hear, hear.) But, sir, here arises a point of the utmost import ance, on which I have not yet touched and which I be lieve and am confident is of itself a conclusive objection to the plan of the right hon. gentleman. Having looked at the anatomy of the townsgenerally, let us now look at their anatomy town by town. Take the case of the 2,500 at Greenwich. Upon what principle are these distributed ? It is a distribution which divides the people on one side of a street from those on the other side. (Hear, hear.) In one side of a street, according to the plan of the Govern ment, you will nearly have manhood suffrage, and on the other an £8 rental franchise. I use the word £8 rental franchise, because the £6 rated houses in the Small Tene ments Act would as nearly as possible correspond with an £8 rental francnise ; and in the 93 boroughs I have already referred to the inequality which the bill proposes to intro duce would become most intolerable. If the right hon. gentleman the President of the Poor-law Board is to fol low me, I ask him whether he believes he can divide 98 towns parish by parish, and in ono side of a parish estab lish household suffrage, and in the other side of it establish an .£8 rental franchise, and that this will be accepted as a settlement of the question? (Hear, hear.) I will now turn to towns which have local Acts, and which will he found at page 9 of the returns. These towns which have local Acts are not unimportant, because they contain 329,000 male occupiers, or nearly one-fourth of the whole. In Bewdley you will enfranchise 6 persons, but you will exclude 1,880. In Birmingham you will enfranchise 2,300, and exclude 36,177; in Brighton you will exclude 2,553, and enfranchise 14. (Hear, hear.) Is that a settlement of the question of reform. (Hear.) In Kidderminster you will exclude 2,553, and enfranchise 24. I really do notknow how to argue upon such figures; for if they do lut carry conviction to the minds of hon. gentlemen when stated, it is impossible that any comment of mine can do so. I am bound to give the Government credit for being ignorant of those facts when they prepared their plan. Lot us now take the towns having local acts. According to the pro posal in the bill the number of persons to be entitled to the suffrage as ratepayers will be 10,638, while those excluded as non-ratepayers will be 87,774, and the expectation that these 87,774 persons will be contented because the bill ad mits a handful of householders who pay the rate cannot be indiscriminate admissions—it opened the franchise to every one who chose to claim it. Combating other arguments of Mr. Gladstone, he denied that a compound householder would be fined for going on the register, as he would be able to recover whatever rates he paid from the landlord ; pointed out the extreme practical difficulty of working a lodger franchise, and that its object would. be effectually supplied by the assessed taxes vote; and admitted that the payment of rates and the two years' residence were meant as limitations, contending that they were reasonable, and would be approved by the country. To the argument, derived from the figures, that the bill would work diver sely, Mr. Hardy replied by pointing to the argument used against the bill of last year—that it was disgustingly monotonous ; and while justifying the dual vote by re minding the house of the numerous corrective proposals, such as the cumulative vote, which had been made at various times, ho invited discussion upon it, and intimated that the Government would be open to conviction. After devoting a few words to the defence of voting papers, and urging that any defects of the machinery for the admission of compound householders to the register might be reme died in committee, he repeated that the Government de clined to accept Mr. Gladstone's dictum that certain things must bo given up. They wished for discussion, which would separate the chaff from the wheat, and if met in a reasonable spirit they would not show themselves unrea sonable, though they would stand by the main principle of accompanying a free enfranchisement by judicious limitations. Mr. HEADLAM, assuming that personal payment of rates was the cardinal principle of the bill, examined it at length as a constitutional principle, tracing the history of the compound householders and the Small Tenements Act, and concluding that it was a fatal mistake to ignore the non-ratepayers. He shadowed out a compromise some thing in the nature of Mr. Gladstone's, fixing a limit below which rates were to be paid by the landlord, accompanied by a careful enfranchising clause for the non-ratepayers above £5 or £6 ; and in canvassing the redistribution question he suggested a reconstruction of the electoral map, leaving the counties and large borough constituencies un touched, and expanding small borough constituencies until their limits touched. entertained for a moment. Then come, lastly, the open towns; where there is no restriction, and where every man may be expected to do his duty. In these towns not one tenth, and in some cases not one-twentieth, will be admit ted under the ratepaying suffrage. In Oldham, to the present qualified body 11,800 will be added; in Rockdale, to the present body of 1,858 will be added 5,500; in Shef field, to the present qualified body of 10,000 will be added 28,000. (Hear.) My hon.friend the member for Sheffield is in a state of delight at the prospect of having 28,000 more persons to shake hands with when he makes his next canvass, but I am sure he would not accept this as a boon while it excluded his neighbours from the franchise. In Stockport to the present qualified body of 1,695 will be added 7,257; in Stoke-upon-Trent, to the present body of 3,419 will be added 15,100. (A laugh.) The enfranchised portion of the bill seems in many places to admit a prin ciple of needless breadth. By the restrictions to which I have adverted two-thirds of the occupiers will be disfran chised, and that in a manner which will aggravate ten fold the inequality, and reader it intolerable, ao that if you could pass this bill to-morrow there would be fresh agita tion. (Cheers.) I a.mbound to say that the enfranchisement proposed under .£lO is insufficient. I think Ido not esti mate it unfairly when I say the number will not exceed 120,000. In the bill of last year we proposed to enfranchise 200,000. That was a moderate proposal. 1 do not feel my self qualified to proceed by a sweeping measure, but I think I have shown by the deductions proper to be made that the 237,000 stated by the right hon. gentlemen as likely to bo admitted, will not actually exceed 120,000. (Hear, hear.) I ieley not o n l y t a k e except i on to the measure of enfran chisement as insufficient., but also to the inequality as ob jectionable. I think, although there are many intelligent persons among the present constituency of Stoke, and they have given proof of it in sending my hon. friend here—(a laugh)—but still among the 15,000 to be added, there must be ,!t considerable number who have only had a limited ad vantage of education, who only earn smell wages, and who are in a state of dependence. The principle ought to be to give the franchise to the most intelligent and independent of the working classes, and not to select indiscriminately whole masses of the population. I think I have done some thing to establish the inexpediency of creating by legisla tion artificial distinctions among men belonging to the same class. It is a practice wholly new to the constitution. (Hear, hear.) I admit that since 1832 the anomaly cf artifi cial distinctions has grown up; but we ought to grapple with them instead of giving them fresh sanction by legis lation. (Cheers.) .but though distinctions have been created by the Act of 1832, yet nowhere does it make tho slightest difference as to the facility and manner of enjoy ment cf the franchise between those who are called upon to discharge the common duty of returning representatives to Parliament. The ptinciplu of equality among all classes of the constituency is an old and wise principle froin which this house will not depart. (Cheers.) If you wish to arrive at a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform, you must keep in mind the necessity of dealing with men upon the principle of equality; but if yo u d es i re to continue agitation, you cannot more effectually attain that end than by the introduction of artificial inequalities. (Cheers.) 1 would ask the right hon. gentleman to give us upon these points as explicit answers as he can consistently with his sense of public duty ; and in saying this I do not mean to convey any taunt whatever. I merely ask for explicit answers from a sense of my responsibility in this matter. (Hear, hear.) I know that the rejection of this bill and setting up another plan in lieu of it unless it, should be necessary, would bo a great evil, because it would be against the early settlement we so much desire. lam therefore desirous of exhausting every means for going into committee on tho bill, in the hope of bringing it to a satisfactory issue. The answer which the right hon. gen tleman gave this evening shows that there is no intention of postponing to any distant day the committee on the bill. The debate on the second reading may close to-night, or at least to-morrow evening; and if so, we may be able to approach a decision on the main questions either on Mon day or Thursday in the next week. If we do not approach it next week, we will not be able to do so until after Easter, and this course would greatly narrow the chance between this bill or no bill. I will now specify three things : First, does the Government mean to introduce a lodger franchise ? —for without that some hon. member next July, before which time we can hardly hope to get through committee, may propose such a clause, and then there may be no remedy but to throw reform over to another year. Ido not wish to be drawn into this difficulty. Secondly, I wish to know the precise arrangement to be observed with re gard to those householders who pay rates and those who are on the verge of exclusion on account of the non-pay ment of rates. But above all I ask the right hon. gentle man, and this I regard as the key of the bill, will he proceed to ask Parliament to define what classes of persons, be they many or lew—ask Parliament to define the outer limit of the constituency, and remove all artificial distinctions, and plac ing all, whatever their education and standing, upon au equal footing as regards the franchise ? (Cheers.) If the right hon. gentleman will establish for the future the old constitutional principle which comes to us from the past, the equality of all voters in the eye of the law, equal access and enjoyment of the franchise, then I think, although we may have a heavy task before us, we may enter with hope into committee upon this bill. The dual vote will then disappear. The distinction with regard to ratepaying house holders under and above £lO will then disappear. The fine will disappear, and the restrictions placed in the way of the ratepaying householders will disappear. (Cheers.) W e w ill enfranchise those classes whom we think entitled to it, but we will place them on a footing with others of their class as regards access and enjoyment of the franchise, by which means alone we can hope to make our legislation effectual either for the purpose of improving the constitution of this house or attaining the ends of legislation, or producing that content in the country without which, although we may legislate, debate, or divide, it is vain to call ourselves the Parliament of England, it is vain to call ourselves mas ters of England's destinies, it is vain to suppose that we give to the work which we send forth as our act these hopes and prospects of duration by means of which it can have value in itself or draw respect upon ourselves. (Loud cheers.) Mr. YORKE advocated a variety of suffrages—a high franchise in large towns, and a low franchise in small towns—and, being averse from household suffrage, inti mated that he should oppose the bill unless he were satis • fled the securities in it would be permanent and effective. Sir F. GOLDSMID condemned the bill as at once nar row and revolutionary, and expressed his preference for a £5 rating. He foresaw also that the 34th clause would open the door to corrupt practices, for the rates of the com pound householders would be paid by election agents. Mr. HARDY declined at this stage to give any pledge which would commit the Government to any particular course. No bill could be passed without mutual concession and forbearance, but if, as Mr. Gladstone said, every lead ing provision of this bill required revision, then he asserted with strong emphasis, and eliciting loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, the division ought to be taken at this stage, and if such division involved an abandonment of the leading principles of the bill, he should refuse to be a party to its progress. He denied that it was a household suffrage bill, or that it had ever been represented as such; it was a rating franchise bill, and so far from excluding anybody as Mr. Gladstone had argued, inconsistently with another arounieut in which ho doolitinaed agaiii§t the bill a 4 making Mr. R. J. HARVEY replied to some observations of Mr, Gladstone the other night concerning the borough of Thet ford—where he said 350 voters would bo admitted by this bill as against 50 last year—and insisted on the claim of the peasantry to increased representation. ' Lord AMBERLEY, while congratulating the house on the improved tone in which Reform was discussed this year, urged that moderation might be carried too far, and, as the Liberals had long had a definite policy, the conces sions ought to come from the other side. He discussed at length the assertion that the bill was founded upon a prin ciple, professing himself unable to see the difference be tween a ratepayer and a compound householder, as both paid rates, though one of them paid them to his landlord ; and he rejected unreservedly the argument that a com pound householder who would not pay his own rates was not worthy of a vote. He deprecated the connexion of an extension of the franchise with jealous checks and pre cautions, and predicted that legislation in such a spirit would be futile. Mr. B. STANHOPE, after arguing in favour of the dual vote, explained the reasons which had induced him, as a stanch Conservative, to support the bill the chief of which was that it was the only mode, as he showed by an exhaustive examination of previous projects, in which a permanent settlement could be attained. Ho warmly eulo logised the principle of personal payment of rates as a rea sonable barrier against democracy, and combated Mr. Glad stone's arguments as to the "fine" to be imposed on com pound householders, insisting that any defects .in the machinery of their registration might be amonded in com mittee. Mr. ROEBUCK rose to support the second reading of the bill, and he wished to make some remarks, firstly, as to what he did not hope for ; and secondly, u hat ho did not desire from this measure. In the first place, he did not hope to better the character of that house. Since 1832 it had produced a body of legislation such as the history uf the world cannot parallel. If it was asked why, then, he had been all his life in opposition, it was that he was very young when he entered the house, and sanguine and im patient. (A laugh.) The combating of minds is of great benefit, and he believed that he and others who sat in op position, by urging on others, had wrought out great benefit to the country. I know it is an insane phrase indeed, but we are told men have a right to the suffrage. I deny the whole thing. (Cheers.) A right is the creature of law, and where law has not produced it it does not exist. Therefore that is no argument whatovar. Justice is not justice unless it is thought to be justice. No tribunal that does not satisfy the people is a tribunal that ought to remain; and this house, though wiser than any other legislative body of the same period, will not satisfy the people. There are large bodies of our countrymen who are not represented in this house. My opinion is they ought to be represented, and they won't be quiet until they are represented. A portion of them possess as much intelligence and sagacity as any men I see around me. I would as soon put faith in them, and I would like to see their opinions represented in this house. Another portion are not educated, and are not fit to have in their hands the power to govern man kind. Therefore, I say, can we adopt means to bring into this house those who deserve to be represented, and to keep out the others? I state it boldly, and make no mincing of the matter, there is a large class whom I desire to keep out, and there is a large class whom I desire to see in. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer lots in everybody who is an inhabitant householder iu a Par liamentary borough, with the provision that he should have lived in that borough two years, and be rated with those rates which are levied on it. Now I want to know if that is not wise. (Conservative cheers.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says you ought to make no distinction. Why, then you must go to manhood suf frage. (Cheers.) Even then you must make a distinction, unless you give it to women. (Laughter.) I want to give it to men of intelligence and virtue ; but I cannot go into the street and put my hands on a man's shoulder and say this is an honest man. We take a man as he lives. He is not a vagabond, he is not a wanderer, ho has lived a vir tuous and quiet life. (Much laughter.) I really don't know what I have said that excites laughter. We judge that he is quiet by the fact that he has lived in a society for two years, and has paid his way and paid for his house ; and we therefore hold him worthy of the franchise we are about to confer. (Hear, hear.) I want to ask men of common sense and of the world whether that is not a wise test. I do no object to fancy franchises. I cannot see they do any good, and I cannot see they do any harm; and if hon. gentlemen are pleased with that rattle, they can rattle it. I have heard a panegyric pronounced on small boroughs, and I am not sure that that panegyric was not a wise one. (Hear, hear.) Ido not believe in geometrical divisions of a county. What we want is a variety of interest, and I believe we can got more of that at haphazard than by any geometrical measure. As for the compound householders, if the landlord pays the rate and makes it less for him, and he wishes to remain in that way and yet to have a vote, he must not bo allowed. He must do as other voters do. (Cheers.) The phrase "a fine" is quite unworthy of the hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) It is only calling upon men to bear their burdens in the State, seeing they have a share in the representation of the country. (Cheers.) That is all I have to say, except that I hope the Government won't shrink in the matter. Depend upon it, the intelligent, virtuous, and sagacious are desirous of a settlement of the question. (Hear, hear.) I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will not be frightened by any anathemas spoken against the bill—not bo frightened by pettifogging taunts. Let them do their duty. Do not let them stand upon precon ceived notions, because they have been preconceived, but let them with a large heart yield when truth and intelli gence teach them to yield, and let them not fear the taunt of being inconsistent. Mr. LOWTIIER, speaking from the Conservative benches, opposed the bill on the ground that the securities wore inefficient, and that the result must be to give a pre ponderance to one class. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL assured Mr. Roebuck that the Government was not intimidated by anything that had happened yet, and, in an elaborate legal argu ment, defended the bill as based on the ancient principles of the constitution, and showed, in reply to Mr. Glad stone, that in many cases the ten-pounders were fined, just as ho complained the compounders would be. The Government, believing in the genuineness of the demand for an extension of the suffrage, proposed that every man living in a house for a certain time should have a vote if he chose to pay his rates, and ho derided as a reflection on the intelligence of the House of Commons. Mr. Glad stone's vehement assertion that it was impossible to devise provisions for carrying out that principle if once it were accepted. This, he pointed out, was what the ten pounder had to do' do now, and the personal ratepayer would not be placed in any worse position ; and he argued that there was nothing " newfangled" or unreasonable in the proposal. The fancy franchises the Solicitor-General defended seriatim, quoting on the savings-bank franchise from Mr. Gladstone's speech of last year, and on the Dual Vote he urged, on the principle that •' half a loaf is better than no bread," that it is no more unfair to give two votes to a man who pays rates and assessed taxes to a certain amount than it is to draw an arbitrary line, and to say that all below it shall have no vote at all. Mr. A. PEEL condemned the Dual Vote and the two years' residence as securities, and discerned the elements of a settlement in a £5 rental, accompanied by a modifica tion of the Small Tenements act. On the motion of Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, the debate was adjourned until this evening. The other business was disposed of, aufl the house ad journed at half-past 12 o'clock, " SPECIAL CORRESPONDEN7S." the Anglo-American Times says :—lt is inte resting to read the arguments of the " Special Correspondents 'at Washington " of the Times of the Standard, and other journals of Cop perhead proclivities. We freely grant their right to argue and to colour facts by the tone of their minds, but not to misstate these facts. Republican in his letter to the Pall Mall Gazette, which we have transferred to our columns, exposes two mistakes in the letter, March 2, of the Times' correspondent, which are excellent in stances of the misrepresentations of which so many Americans in Europe complain. We repeat what we stated in a former number that it is the duty of a correspondent cor rectly to state facts, and not to write leading articles. But even if lie choose to indulge in lead ing articles, and the editor sanctions the digression from his proper functions as a correspondent, still, he has no right first to misstate facts, and then take this misstatement as the text for his article. When we read the leading columns of the Standard we know and expect a Tory view of passing events, and it is generally an honest and fair one. To the Standard's American correspondent a great latitude is allowed. People who wish to have their Copper head proclivities strengthened, and facts and argu ments in this direction furnished would apply to the Standard for the information. To the Times, however, we look for an impartial review. You may get this in its columns, on English and Eu ropean intelligence, but, we regret to state, not on American. We do not complain of the views ex pressed in its leading columns, but we do com plain of the misstatements in the letters of its American correspondents. AMERICAN POLITICS. To the Editor of the "Pall Mall Gazette." " Sir,—Will you let me point out in your columns one or two mistakes in the American correspondence of one of your contemporaries of a kind by which Americans find themselves more frequently misre presented than is right? The letter to which I refer says that the offence of the Secretary of the Trea sury which led Mr. Sumner to accuse him of utter ing notorious falsehoods,' was that in one or two Southern States he (Mr. M'Culloch) had not been able to find sufficient men to collect the revenue who could take the test oath, and, therefore, he appointed collectors without regard to the oath.' The offence really was that Mr. M'Culloch made a report as to what he had done calculated to deceive the country and Congress. " Again, the author says, 'Massachusetts, through her Legislature, refuses to adopt the Constitutional Amendment. What will Mr. Sumner say to this? Is it true that the New England party love the negro, or merely hate the South ?' The fact is, that the Constitutional Amendment was opposed by the Abolitionists in America simply because it did not give the negro suffrage, and did not, in their opinion, guarantee his safety. It was killed in the Massachusetts Legislature by a speech from Wen dell Phillips, President of the Anti-Slavery Society, to whom, he not being a member of that body, the Legislature granted a special audience on the sub ject. " REPUBLICAN." COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER-11Ancx 23. Since yesterday there has been a good deal of rain. For a very small su pply o f w h eat t h ere was a good demand' especially for white, at is p er qr . a d vance . Barley no cheaper, and very littl e offering. Beans and peas ~J, per qr. advance. Wheat, white 659 69s Beans, Mazagan,....,34s 4 ! ) ! red' 62a 678 Middle and small 44s 4 .' Barley... . 42s 56s Peas, white. .. 383 426 Oats grey ...360 920 NORTHAMPTON—MAncn 23. New white wheat, 58s to 655; new red, 46s to 64s ; old white, 62s to 68s; old red, 61s to 66s per 36 stone. Barley for malting, 42s to 51s per qr. ; grinding, 298 to 36s per St ) stone. Oats, old, 268 to 33s ; new, 23s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 42s to 45s per 38 stone. Pet' s ' 38s to 42s per 36 stone. CIIELMSFORD-MARCH 22. The supply of wheat in the market to-day was Ye?: good, and a fair amount of business was dope at an _ 4 3 r vance of from is to 2s per qr. on b es t sam pl e s, infe ri o r quality remaining firm at the rates la s t qu o t e d. With th e exception of barley, which was slightly cheaper, a ll spring corn was disposed of without alteration in price. Wheitt, old white....s3s 76d Peas, Partridge 415 43 y0 new ~ .b3o 68s Wi n t e ,320 ' old red , I. 608 B ,iling .. a , 0 ; new. sis 63$ D un. ... . .388 7 Barley... 26s 335.....5 dit , o, new....- -6 l os Chevalier -- s —s Beano, Tick, old ......40s 20 Grind,ng '5B 30s new.... 365 Ls Malt 5Se 60d Harrow ticks. 42, .._ Chevalier 80s 82t new.... 4 03 4 , 11 3 : Oats ••• 2ls 27s Mazagan . ..... 398 7 GRANTHAM—MARCU 23. Old white wheat, 65s to 725; old rod, 60s to 68s; 11 ° V white, 68s to 71s •, new red, 56s to 64s per 36 stone. Bar ley for malting, 38s to 455 per qr. ; grinding , 30s to 3 4 s P er i 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25 3 to 30s per 2 stone. Beans, old, 42s to 525; new, 39s to 46s per 38 stone' Peas, 35s to 40s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN—MutcH 22. Tho market continues much the same as last week. White wheat 54s Od to 58s Od? ). 621 b ? bu shel ' Rod wheat 45 s Od t o 488 Od.) Potato oats 24s Od to 26s Od t 401 t, v bushel. Common oats t 23s 6d to 25s Od i Bore 3ls Od to 32s 6d 531 b li bushel . Barley 32s Od to 33s Od Oatmeal 20s 6d to 21s 6d boll of 16: Flour, line 47s Od to 53 s 6d V sa ck of 280 D, I=l 280 KIRKCALDY—MAncIi 23. Good supply of all kinds of grain. Wheat and barley unchanged. Oats 6d per qr. dearer. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First...." 53s Od ; 34s Cd I Vs ad second bls Od 37s Od 268 Od Tuird 5Ss 01 40s Od 1 298 Cd COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. s. d. S. 61 . Holywell Main l7 3 Hetton Lyons ........ 19 3 Harton l9 3 W es t Hartley Eden Main Caradoc l9 0 Davison's W. Hartley 17 06 20 6 Lambert's W.liartloy 17 Ships at market, 40—sold, 39. Foreign Mail Packet List. rSiaDstroutiamptha.....April ill• ''....April 13. Ans p tr i a t l to ia , a y n i d a N m e n w rs Z eu ea M ies lat i d i : Brazil and Cape Verde, by British packet, ...April 7. Ditto, by French packet April 22. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Mar' 30 . China. Penang. and Singapore, via South a mpton Mar. 3 1. Ditto, via Marseilles Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton Mar. 3 i • India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton M fr. 31 Ditto, via Marseilles ...•••• • India (Bombay), via Southampton. Mar. 3 1 . Ditto, via Marseilles Mar. 30 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Mar. 31. Ditto, via Marseilles M a r. 3/. Mauritius, via Southampton ,........ .April 19. Ditto, via Marseilles Apr il 13 Newfoundland Portugal . .. • . .... • • 1 : .. .. , April Aprilp ril 10.7 7. Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon... United btatee and British North America, by Bri tish packet . Ditto, Dy Canadian packet, via I:n . n . dZ . d . e . r . r . ; . ...riar tir: Ditto. by United States packet, via Sonthamp- ton Ditto, via Cork West Indies and Pacific, (exoept Bahamas and Honduras) ............. ........ Apr il I. April 4 . Bahamw. via New York. Cuba and Mexioo Bermuda, via Halifax April 10 %Test Coast of Africa. Madeira, and Teneriffe 3 Births. CUMMING—On the 23d inst. at at Shepperton, the wife of S. Cumming, of a son. O'KELLY—On the 22d inst., at Upton Cottage , gale. S - 1 - ir l; rey, the wife of Captain De Pentheny O'NeLIY, 13 Lancers, of a daughter. LANG—On the 24th inst., at 26, Skinner - str eet, Snow" hil 4 Mrs. L. D. Lang, of a son. Marriages. ASHEY—OFFOR—On the 21st inst., at Mare-street Ou T pel, Hackney, H. T. Ashby, Esq , to Catherine P , yo f ungeo daughter of the late George Oder, Esq., J•' , o Hack ney. CAVE— GILLESPY— On the 21st inst , at Tottenham-court road Chapel, Benjamin Cave, of 1,. Edwards-stre et of Mr. , Prt uaaruel, V i e t s o p y, o Allison f u n J i a v n e e r , s i e t l y d_e s s t y r e d e a g h t T often er hala- In Da an ni q Paul court-road. Deaths. FLlGHT Jones — Elig O h n t, tEliesq2.,3daginedst.i4a.t Ri c hmond, Surrey, o°ll ' l d. KNOX—On the 24th inst., at Dove; Admiral the Son. mond S. P. Knox, aged 80. ROMILLY-- On the 22d inst., at 29, Wilton-crescent, LI," it Georgiana Elizabeth Romilly, wife of Charles Rem Esq., and eldest daughter of John, sixth Duke of Be ford. London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDR- W 2 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, NO . l o i Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cco nt Y Blarch 26,1567. A' A Lond K TI Dub] Boma So by t 101(.0 " Kul C' Pat monl M V, •R ADI Fre,- reps disc( c land and from ties Acrc N QUF, to Q Ad room Th dean and M. G Mr. his F 3d A E of Co tensi. it CAS stree T' TEA Six Th , deli 9, J'_' wort( next J A the : Lond St prods sent Mgt . . This re mo —248 Laat at RA —Ha G toral for anpei to tt and 1 vhri lows —AI Mtn, or to Imo b 5 RO of 4,1 whic TJ than what bee): raun have Col Kr. I 8 aroj