The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-09 00:00:00

CUL MARKET.-(THIS DAY.)

Walla End Hatton, 216.6 d. • Walla End Haswell, 21..
6d.; Walla End Original Hartlepool, 21a. 6d. • Walla End
Hatton Lyons, 18a. 4M.; Walla End Frarnwellgits.l9a. 34.;
Wybam Hugo, 164. W.—Skips at market, 23 ; at am, 25.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Tern-r,..T, AucENT 8.

Ix the HOUNK of Loess, yestvr4:av, the IN,:arl of
MostAtv moved the second reading the Church
Rate Abolition Bill, and in doing a,' intimated that
iu committee he would have no to a com-
promise, provided that it did not vi.,late the prin-
ciples of the bill, and satisfied the jast claims of
the dissenters. _ _

---
DCLAVERE moved the rejecti m of the bill,
but said he was not opposed to a coopromise.
Lord Sr. Lr.osattos supported the amendment.

Earl contentre.l that it was a matter
not of right but of expediency to concede the claim
of the dissenters. If this measure were rejected
he hoped the government would announce that
they had a measure in contemplation fur settling
the question.
The Archbishop of Csisrenernv said the mem-
bers of the church of England were willing to
:went a compromise, but hitherto none had been
proposed which they could possibly assent to. He
did not believe that the abolition of church rates
would endanger the church, but he did believe it
would endanger the union between church and
state.

The Bishop of Ox►oßD said the episcopal bench
were sincerely anxious to accept a fair compromise,
but it was impossible for them to assent to the un-
conditional abolition of the rate.

On a division, the third reading was negatived
by 82 to 24.
The Courts of Law Officers (Ireland) Bill, the
Weights and Measures (Dublin) Bill, and the Dublin
Metropolitan Police Bill were read a third time, and
passed, and several other bills having been ad-
vanced a stage,
The house adjourned at a quarter before 8
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Terasmtv, Atronst
IN the Houma of Comoro:04 Lord STANLEY, in
reply to a question from Mr. H. SEINOVA, stated
that the last information which he had received
respecting the Abyssinian prisoners, was dated the
20th of July, and it was to the effect that a rebel
army was in sight of the King's camp, and that
communication between the King's camp and the
place where the prisoners were confined was cut off,
but it was premature to assume that the prisoners
were liberated.

On the order of the day for the consideration of
the Lords' Amendments on the Representation of
the People Bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQTER congratu-
lated the house that in the amendments which the
House of Lords had made, they had not challenged
any of the principles on which the measure
was founded, but had shown a desire to
act in harmony with the House cf Common'.
The three principal amendments which were made
by the Lords were—first, an amendment in clause
5. In that clause an amendment was inserted by
this house, reducing the copyhold and leasehold
qualification for counties from 101. to 51. Their
lordships raised it again to its former figure; and it
was the opinion of the government that this house
should concur in that decision. The second
amendment was the insertion of a new clause, that
in constituencies returning three members no
elector should vote for more than two candidates.
This was carried by an almost overwhelming
majority of their lordships ; and in the opinion of
the government that almost unanimous opinion of
the House of Lords should be deferred to, although
be did not say that he himself approved of the
principle. The third amendment was to enable
electors to vote by means of voting papers. It
could not be denied that if that were adopted many
persons would record their votes who under the
present system would not do so ; and under these
circumstances government recommended the house
to accept that amendment also.
Mr. GLADSTONE remarked that all the amend-
ments made by the House of Lords were of a re-
actionary character, and therefore the less that was
said of the conciliatory conduct of their lordships
the better.

The house then proceeded to the consideration
of the amendments. The first which came on was
an amendment in clause 3, the pract►cal effect of
which was to require the electors enfranchised by
the bill to pay the borough rate as well as the
poor 11.)!!).

Mr. W. E. Fotuvras moved that the house disagree
with the amendment. He urged that it was unfair
to require more of the now than was required of
the old voters, and that in some boroughs the
borough rate amounted to much more than the
poor rate.
Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. CANDLISH enforced the
same view ; and

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQrER having inti-
mated that he would not press the amendment, the
motion was then agreed to.
Sir R. PALMER moved to disagree to an amend-
ment in the fourth clause, and which would have
bad the effect of enabling students in the Univer-
sities of Cambridge and Oxford who occupied
chambers to vote for the city of Oxford and the
borough of Cambridge. Be pointed out the in-
justice of this to those constituencies, and espe-
cially considering that the universities had their
own representation.

Mr. Neste aad Mr. Henley supported the mo-
tion, while Mr. Lowther and Mr. Schreiber spoke
is favour of the amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Cotvitt moved that the house disagree
with the amendment which raised the value of the
mpyhold and leasehold qualification from 31. to 101.
Mr. PEASE and Mr. H. VIvIAN supported the
motion, and on a division it was carried by a majo-
rity of 47, the numbers being 233 to 188.
The next amendment which caino under conside-
ration was that which provides that at a contested
election for any county or borough represented by
three members, no person shall vote for more than
two candidates.

Mr. lialunv moved that the amendment be dis-
agreed to. He stated that Mr. Lowe brought for-
ward a motion to give representation to the mine-
rity by means of a cumulative vote, which he put
forward as a check to the democratic character of
the bill, and it was negatived by a majority of 140.
This amendment had the same object, but accom-
plished it in a different way. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke against the cumulative vote,
and Lord Derby described this amendment
as unconstitutional. This was a fundamental
change ; there was no precedent fur it in our parlia-
mentary history. It had not been asked for either
by this house or by the constituencies, or any pub-
lic meeting, and the least the house could do was
to suspend its decision till the constituencies could
pronounce an opinion upon it. The effect of the
change on the four large towns to which it applied
would be that they would have twelve members
amongst them—eight on one side and four on the
other, and on a division they would only count
four. It would be far bettor that the gift of the
third member should be withdrawn, and that was
the opinion of the towns themselves. At a meet-
ing of 5.000 or 6,000 persons in Manchester they
unanimously agreed to a petition that the town
should be divided, or that the third member should
iss withdrawn.
Mr. Scourfield, Sir J. Jervoise, and Mr. C.
Buxton successively addressed the house in sup-
port of the amendment, and Sir C. Russell
against it.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUOMBEN held it to be de-
sirable that as large a number as possible of the
inhabitants should take part in the election, and
the representation should be of individuals and
not of communities, and as the amendment would
bare this effect, he should vote for it.
Mr. NZWDEGATZ expressed his surprise that
liberals should disapprove of a course which was
supported by Earl RumelL Ho strongly advocated
the amendment.

Mr. Coma's% pointed out that the effect of the
amendment would be that they would have nomi-
nation minorities instead of nomination boroughs.

After some observations from Mr. HESRAII; in
favour of the amendment,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he lamented the conclusion
to which the government had arrived in reference
to this question, but he could not censure them.
This was a great innovation, and unless there were