The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1, 1867.

con% etience. We want to kliow whether existing
,mplaialts are well or ill founded, whether it is
c.::;:.titers who are unreasonable or the companies
rho are unfair, whether new legislation is needed
or existing laws are only inoperative through in-
'been :ice and disuse ; and no attempt at change
3111.1111 i be countenanced which is not preceded or
,c.nananied by scientific and practical informa-
tion, which shall be both-sided, impartial, and

HONSNAN, M.P.: ON RISFoRm.

Last night Mr. Edward Horsman, M.P. for
Stroud, was entertained at a public banquet in that town.
There were nearly 300 persons present, and Mr. J. W.
littuwett presided.
In response to the toast of his " health,"
Mr. HUH. 4131.0; made a speech extending over more than
two hours. He tint referred to the fact of his opposition
to the late government Reform Bill, and said that he felt
that this banquet to which he had been invited was a
great public declaration on the part of those who bad con-
vened it of their wish that their representative should be
truly a representativeand not a delegate—(hear, bear)—and
that, while they valued party ties, there were oc-
casions when great principles might override the
exigencies of party—occasions when they were
not sorry to have • representative who stooped even
to vindicate the principles that werefabout to be betrayed,
who would raise his voice against the dangers into which
his country was about to plunge. (Hear, hear.) His poli-
tical career extended over more years than he cared
to remember. He entered parliament very soon after the
Reform Act of DC32. Since that time more great measures
had been pealed than ever before in the same space of
time by any parliament of any country, and in a period
of profound peace. But now we had got • new school of
politicians, who rather despised the change that took
place in 1832, and the effect of this change on the legis-
lature which had since taken place. They told us that the
parliament of 1832,created:or recreated, by the Reform Act,
had done its work, and was good for nothing more—it
must therefore be reformed. It wu like an old Brown
Bess, an old worn-out blunderbuss, that might he cast
wade. Every man who stood up or the old parliament
was looked upon as a recreant to the liberal principles of
the day, and the only true test of a liberal was thought
to be a man who would reform the parliament then
created. Those gentlemen looked with contempt upon
those who stood upon the ancient ways. They were the
holiday, sunshine reformers, who came forth when re-
form was a very easy matter, when all the great restate
of reform bad passed into legislation ; and as to those
who fur thirty years had borne the heat and toil of
the day, they, unless they assented to and adopted
the new rules of the liberal party, were passed over
and put aside RI though they formed) part of the old
toryuni that was eatinguishal in 1832. He happened
to come across one of those unfledged liberals the other
official family, and who thought it all right for
the Reform League to have its processions and
hold meetings in the Park indeed, was even
day—a man who was of an old whig family and an old
ready to head the mob, if need be. He (Mr. Herman)
told him it was rather an irregular proceeding to attempt
to get into the pale of the constiution by breaking down
the pailings of the Park. "Well," said the young man,
"you have rather antiquated notions—you were *reformer
in former clays, but you are not now." He (Mr. Honienui)
said to him, " Do you remember the answer that She-
ridan rive to • suckling reformer like yourself, who
charged him with not being a reformer?" No," said the
young gentleman. " Well," said he (Mr. Horsman), " it
was this—Sir, I began as • reformer before you were born,
and I shall continue a reformer after you are hanged."
(Loud laughter.) His (Mr. Horsman's) friend was
silenced in a moment, but next day came back to
him, saying, " Mr. Horsman do
,you mean to in-
sinuate that I shall be hanged I He (Mr. Hors-
' man) said, " No, I don't, for two reasons ; in the
first place I don't think any government would
think you worth hanging; and in the second, we do not
now happily bang for political offences; but if you go on
as you have begun, you will have a very good chance of
being transported." (Loud laughter.) Now, there were
very fewof them whocould go back for 32 years,even in pri-
vate life—and that was the period of his public lire—
without feeling that if they had to live it over again there
were passages of it which they would in somewise change.
He was the hut man to say he was unconscious of that feel-
ing, but if there was one passage to which he
could look back without reproach in his political life, it
was the part be had taken in the question of parliamentary
reform. He could look back upon it with comfort and
pride. It was in the year 1859, when Lord Derby was in
power, immediately preceding the meeting of parliament,
and in that very room, that be uttered these words :
" Youi government will be gone ; but will the question of
parliamentary reform begone? No, it will not be gone.
It will have slipped from the hands of parliament, it will
have gone out of the councils of cabinets, but it will fall
into other hands elsewhere; legislation you will have made
impossible, but agitation inevitable and more successful.
That agitation will proceed year by year with more and
more party dirt thrown upon it, with ministers, and par-
liament, and public men weakened, and damaged, and dis-
credited, until a period shall arrive when the sky may not
be so tranquil—when commercial difficulties and manu-
facturing distress may dispose an ill-employed and heart-
wearied population to meet the tale of their grievances
half-way--and then with tumultuous gatheringsin the pro-
, vines, with telling references to official speeches delivered
for one purpose, but now available for another—with the
table of that house laden with petitions, and its avenues
thronged with excited crowds—then even the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham may be looked to as a preserver,
and his bill accepted gratefully as a compromise against
the angry passions which our blindness and folly
will have done so much to stimulate and inflame."
At a meeting of liberals to consider the course to be pur-
sued on Lord Derby's hill he advised two courses, by
which they would have not only vindicated but obtained
some reality for their principles. A third course, he dis-
tinctly told them, he would not support—that was, in-
stead of throwing out the bill or amending it, so as to
effect a settlement of the lineation, by a factious move-
ment to sacrifice the question in order to bring themselves
into office. That third course, however, was determined
upon, and the consequence was, as he predicted, the ques-
tion was indefinitely postponed. Eight years had passed
since that time. Had the promised reform bill been car-
ried, or the franchise extended? Had there not been
tumultuous gatherings in the provinces? Were we not
told that parliament would be threatened, that next week
there would be an assemblage in the avenues of the House
of Commons ; and were there not now M.P.'s telling us
they were anxious to compromise the question by taking
Mr. Bright's recommendation of household suffrage . Well,
then, he asked, had he anything to reproach himself for in
the opinions he then expressed. His opinions were very dif-
ferent with regard to the functions of • member of par-
liament to that entertained by gentlemen in the borough
who had get up an opposition to him. He held that the
House of Commons was not an assembly of delegates—
it was • council of rulers—(hear, hear)—selected to de-
liberate and to decide, not because their understandings
and their attainments were on a level with the multitude,
but perhaps from some special advantages of early training,
or study, or opportunity they were greatly superior in
these respects to the multitude. (Hear, hear.) He was
told that he was treated with great indulgence and for-
bearance. He bad supported, they said, Lord Derby's
bill with its amendments, which be did because be con-
sidered if those amendments had been carried the question
of reform would have been settled. " We forgave you
that," they said. " You opposed Mr. Baioes's bill, and
we forgave you that. But you opposed the government
bill of last year, and that we cannot forgive—we cannot
forget it; indeed it was very naughty—la laugh)—you
get worse and worse." Well, he did oppose the
government bill last year. Like Mrs. Malaprop, be
owned the soft impeachment. (Laughter.) And if
the opportunity occurred he would repeat the of-
fence. (Cheers.) The reason why he did oppose it
was because it was a bad bill. It established the principle
of the government of numbers. He heard different poli-
ticians give different reasons for its failure. One of those
reasons was very shabby and ungenerous.. It was all Mr.
Gladstone's fault, some politicians alleged. They said that
Mr. Gladstone showed a greet want of tact, and of temper,
and but for him the bill would have mused. He, for one,
did not agree in that. Mr. Gladstone had the conduct of
• bill entrusted to him which was opposed to the convic-
tions of the House of Commons and to the convictions of
the country. If he had bad the conduct of a good bill
through the house, and one that was backed by the
country, we should have hoard nothing about his want
of temper. But he had to fight an uphill battle ; he had
to press forward • bad bill, in which his whig supporters
were a good deal too cold, and his radical supporters a
good deal too hot, and so going on from day to day he
was beaten in argument, and driven from one weak point
to another, being compelled moreover to make alliances
which must have been especially distasteful to
his high moral character and genius, until he was utterly
routed. If he had given way to that which was but •
frailty of human nature, in a contest where everything
depended upon his own eloquence, all he (Mr. Horsman)
could say was, let him who was not liable to the same
imperfections first throw the stone. (Cheers.) Mr. Glad-
stone's speeecli in closing the debate on Earl Gros-
venor's amendment he (Mr. Horsman) should never forget;
it was an unperishable record of British eloquence.
(Cheers.) If Mr. Gladstone had had the conduct of
a really good bill, and the country at his back, no defects
of temper or manner could have had any effect in coun-
teracting eloquence so divine, or, at all events,
against eloquence almost superhuman. The fact was
that Mr. Gladstone attempted an impossible task;
be attempted to carry an indefensible Reform
Bill over the convictions of the majority of the
house. There was once an article in the Edinburgh
Reriew by Lord Macaulay, criticising • work of Mr.
Croker's, which was compared to • leg of
mutton ill-fed, ill-cooked, ill-roasted, and ill-dished ;
the reform bill of the late government in his (Mr. Hors-
man's) opinion, was ill-timed, ill-conceived, ill-fathered,
ill-conducted, and finally, it was ill-fated. (Hear, hear.)
It had been freely talked about during the last six months.
Had any one present ever heard a whisper in its favour?
What bad the League done ? Every one of its proms-
Mons had trampled it under foot. The members of the
League said it was a contemptible bill—a despicable bill.
As • settlement of the question it was not to be thought
of for a moment. They would never listen to such a thing
again. Out of five millions of slaves, as the working
classes were termed, it proposed to enfranchise only
116,000, or two per cent. There was not a human being
had one word to say in its favour. It was the extreme re-
formers who denounced it most vehemently. Although
defeated because it was • bad bill, two fatal blunders made

bytwo of its principal promoters in the House of Commons
rendered its passing impossible. The first mistake was
niade by Mr. Gladstone himself. In introducing the bill
he said the government had to consider whether they
should have a Of. or 71. franchise, and they established the
U. because the 61. would have swamped the existing con-
stituency, but, said Mr. Gladstone, though that was an
objection in the eyes of other people, it was no objection
in his. That, doubtless,was livery frank and manly declara-
tion of his opinion, but it cut him off from the sympathies
of the House of Commons, inasmuch as that house had a
very decided objection to the swamping of the existing
constituency. They thought it very dangerous and mis-
chievous, and therefore they felt at once that Mr. Glad-
stone did not form the same estimate as they did of the
requirements of the country or the dangers of the ques-
tion, and from that day to this the tie between them and
him, although one of party, was not one of sympathy.
(Hear, hear.) But then there came another occurrence
which was still more fatal to the bill. Mr. Bright wade
an apology during the Easter recess for his acceptance of
the bill. He said—" It is a very small bill, a very
defective bill, but I accept it as a lever with
which I mean to work out a great deal more."
That at once cut (away from under the feet of those who
called it an honest and moderate measure, all pretence
for accepting it in that character. They saw it was no
settlement of the question—that it was only a means to
ulterior ends. A friend of mine who met one of the
minister' in St. James's-street on the morning he read that
speech, said to him, " Now' what do you think of your
friend Mr. Bright's lever ?" The minister answered, "Con-
found Mr. Bright, his lever has done for our MIL"
(Loud laughter.) And so it was that confession that that
bill was not accepted as a settlement of the question,
but only as a lever in order to obtain something more,
at mice put an end to the main argument in favour of
the bill, that it was a settlement of the question, and it
gave naturally a tremendous force to the opposition to
the bill. But Mr. Bright's friends said, "Oh, it was not
Mr. Gladstone's fault, nor Mr. Bright's fault—the fault
lay elsewhere—it was the ' Cave ' that destroyed it.
(Laughter.) If it bad not been for that Cave of Adullam the
bill would have passed." Thesegentlemen certainlypsid the
Cave of Adullam a very great and, with all modesty,
he must say, a very undeserved compliment. (Laughter.)
Did any man in that room really believe that if the
country had been ill favour of the bill, that some
30 or 40 members of the liberal party could have stopped
its progress, and defeated it? Why, all the government
had to do was to dissolve parliament, and send the mem-
bers to their constituents, and the cave would have been
nowhere. But the fact was the cave represented a
much larger force behind it. (Cheers.) It represented that
particular section of the House of Commons whose con.
stituencies, as was the case with Stroud, wished their re-
presentatives to be representatives and not delegates.
(Cheers.) The hearts of a very large section of the liberal
party were with the government. They worked with the
members of the cave, they canvassed for the members of
the cave, but many of them unfortunately were hampered
by pledges, or rather expressions construed into pledges,
and although in a manner compelled to give their votes
against the cave, their sympathies and assistance were
with the cave. At that meeting, in Stroud, they were a
very small party, mid everything they said was of course
a secret—(a laugh)—there. He would let them into
the secret organisation of the cave. When the
cave was first formed, the applications for lodgings
or admission to it were so numerous that it was thought by
the members of it they should have to enlarge it. But
they had to contend with a force of which he believed he
had been informed of the secret working. He was told
that there was in London connected with a particular office
of a particular newspaper, which he dared say could easily
be guessed without his naming it, s copy kept—an office-
book, containing the names of every extreme liberal in
every constituency in the Empire. For instance, sup-
posing there should be 200 radicals in Stroud—he supposed
that was rather a large calculation—(a laugh)—the names
of those 200 radicals were 'ascribed in the select list to
which he referred. The name of every radical in every
constituency was put down . If any member representing
• constituency happened to show signs—he would not say
of insurrection, but doubts as to the wisdom
of the particular course which government was
taking—if he gave notice of an amendment,
or made a speech, or even betrayed himself
in conversation be (Mr. Horeman) was told there was a
telegram forthwith sent to the one man who worked the
unfortunate gentleman's constituency, and almost by
return of post he bad a letter from eve radical elector
of the borough. (Loud laughter.) That information
brought under notice the fact that there were not less
than seven or eight liberal members who either made
speeches in which they indicated certain doubts, or gave
notice of amendments. Before their notices, however, had
been on the parliamentary paper 24 hours, action was
taken, and be heard one gentleman say when he came up
to parliament in February that his committee had desired
him to oppose Mr. Gladstone's bill if it was in the direc-
tion of Mr. Bright's views, and the same gentleman after-
wards told him he must vote for the bill, as his consti-
tuents had undergone a considerable change since be saw
them—be used to receive only a few letters from them,
not one in a month, but now he got as many as 60 in three
days. (Laughter.) But it afterwards turned out that
these letters were all from one section of the
constituency. He went down to his agent during the
Whitsun recess, and the agent said, " There are only sixty
radicals in your borough, and every one of your core-
spondents is a radicaL' (Laughter.) Well, what was the
result of that bill being thrown out? Liberal members
were coerced. They had given vague promises,
and were made to vote against their will. The severe-
ment obtained their votes, and how did matters stand
now? Why, the government of Lord Russell found the
liberal party united—that party was now broken up.
They found the country quiet—it has since been excited.
They found the operative maws contented—now those
masses were inflamed. They found parliament respected
as far as it could be—it had since been discredited. They
found the liberal party in office—they had sent that party
into opposition. They found the ministerial leaders
strong, and with a powerful majority at their
back—now even the ministerial organs were dis-
cussing the question whether those leaders ought not to
be deposed. And where was reform? The liberal go-
vernment had gone, but had the question of parliamentary
reform gone ? No ;it bad passel' out of the hands of w-
liament—out of the councils of cabinets, and fallen
into other hands. Legislation was difficult, but agitation
was attempting to be more successful. That agitation was
ing, with more and more party dirt thrown upon
proceeding,
members of parliament and public men weak-
ened, and damaged, and discredited ; and now, when in
some districts—need he allude to the iron districts, or
those districts in which thousands were in a state of des-
titution near London—when the sky was not over tranquil,
when commercial difficulties and distress pre-
vailed, and when there were frequent tumul-
tuous gatherings in the provinces, and the ave-
nues of parliament were threatened to be blocked by
excited crowds, the country might be called upon to ac-
cept the promise of Mr. Bright—to save us from the diffi-
culty which our own blindness and fully had done so much
to stimulate and inflame. (Cheers.) Having uttered these
predictions in 1859, could any one describe the events of
the bat eight years more faithfully? (Hear, hear.) Had
he any cause for self-reproach? (No, no.) The bon.
gentleman proceeded to show how, in his pinion, the bill
of the late government would have swamped existing elec.
ton, especially in Stroud, and in conclusion made refer-
ence to a number of social reforms—education, the Irish
church, poor rates, and other matters—which he and
others had striven to effect, but for which Mr. Bright, he
said, and others who contended so loudly for parliamentary
reform had done comparatively nothing.
On resuming his seat the hon. gentleman was greatly
cheered.

Item intelligence.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN. 31.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
AN...I.ELL P. ANSI/ELL.

After the close of our yesterday's report of this ease,
the petitioner (Mrs. Austell) said the respondent ordered
her to leave the house, and threatened. to dash her brains
out. The next day she left him. The respondent never
charged her with immorality, but he applied to her names
which belonged to immoral persons. Ile complained that
be had lust four chains since she had been in his house.
Was so ill that she could scarcely eat at all, but he said
she ate as much as any ten men in her 31.ijesty's navy.
For eight months she never tasted butter, because he had
refused to let her child bare anything but dripping.
On cross-examination she said she was recommended to
the house by a pianoforte tuner named Jackson. Declined
to say at what schools she had taught ; but on being remon-
strated with by the court she gave the names of two. Was
bankrupt a year before her marriage. Had been long
acquainted with Mr. Jackson. Began to reside at the
house at her second professional visit. She was recom-
mended to Mr. Ansdell on the 12th of December ; be saw
her on the 14th, and she took up her residence at the
house as a visitor on the 22nd. Was engaged to Mr. Ans-
dell before the end of the year. Never went into Mr.
Anadell's bedroom and asked him if he intended to marry
her. He first mentioned the subject himself. Did not
recollect where it was. He Dahl, "If you remain here a
little while my daughter will see how she would like you
as a step-mother." Did recollect what answer witness
made. The subject was renewed every day. Did not
believe that it was spoken of in the presence of any
third person. Spoke to his daughter on the subject imme-
diately after the engagen.ent. Respondent had promised
to tell her, and witness thought he bad done so. Went
with Miss Ausdell, at her father's request, to get the
license. Respondent had had to pay a few debts for wit-
ness, but they were of very trilling amount. Took nothing
away from the house except her clo' hes and a chain which
she had on her watch. Witness's son bad been at school
at Dr. Mum's, at Brighton. Dr. Mute sold his school at
midsummer to a lady, but he was not removed on that
account. Mr. Ansdell said he would not spend another
penny upon him.
At this stage of the proceedings the use was com-
promised.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)

_ .
Adolphe Groezer, 37, and George Sapele, 48, two Polish
Jews, described as labourers, were indicted for having
feloniously in their possession a number of forged Russian
five-rouble notes.

Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and Mr. Sleigh
were instructed to prosecute on behalf of the Russian
government.
It appeared in this case that the prisoners occupied one
room in a house in Newman-street, Whitechapel, and, in
consequence of information received by the police, a search
was made in that room, and between the mattress and the
bed • large quantity of forged Russian five-rouble bank
notes was discovered. The prisoners were taken into cus-
tody, and upon one of them was found a document very
elaborately and beautifully written, addressed to the
Emperor of Russia. in which he represented that he
was in a position to give information with regard to the
frabrication of forged Russian notes in this country. The
prisoners made a statement in German, which was translated
by an interpreter, the purport of which appeared to
be that they had beentrepanned into theposition in which
they were placed by • Jew whom they had met in Primal'',
and who had taken the lodging for them. They asserted
that it was he who had placed the forged notes where
they were discovered, and had then given information
to the police. They both declared that so far from having
any intention to circulate forged notes in the Russian em-
pire, they meant to give all the information in their
power to the Russian authorities to detect the guilty
parties.
The jury, after deliberating for some time, found both
the prisoners Guilty, hut recommended them to mercy on
the ground thatjthey believed that to loins extent they
had been made tools of by other parties.
They were sentence(' to twelve months' hard labour.
Jorot, &%evr, who bail been convicted of a similar
offence, was brought up for judgment and sentenced to
seven years' penal servitude.