Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-26 00:00:00

HE NOitrfiEßN TIMES, SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1859

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

The Ro HOUSE .0P LORDS.—FnmAY.
yal assent was given by commission to various

GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.
The rsarl of Ellenborough moved for copies of all notifi-
issuedTms by the Governor-General of India in Council,
knee the commencement of 1857, relative to the mode in
which the government would receive monies and loans. He
referred to the deplorable state in which the finances of
•Yldia appear to be, and felt in consequence bound to bring
Ule subject under the notice of the house. The Indian
"titles had greatly fallen in value, and he could only
attribute these results to the acts of the Indian government.
The Earl of Derby consented to the production of the
Papers, admitting the difficulty of the times, which had
compelled the Government to apply to Parliament for
exceptional powers. The Government had received infer-
nottiobne thstetihenet,£7,ooo,ooo lately raised in loan would
Accessary. and that £3,000,000 more would be
After some observations from Lord Monteagle and the
Xan lof Albemarle, the subject dropped.
BARON PENNEFATHER.
Lord Clements asked if it was the intention of the
Government to confer an mark of distinction on Baron
Pennefather. y
The Earl of Derby admitted the great merit of Baron
rennefather, but said that the question of distinction was
one for the Crown, and he could not answer it.
THE lONIAN QUESTION.
Earl St Germain asked Lord Derby if his former speech
oSir
the lonian question meant to convey any censure on
is • Young
ne Earl Of Derby said that he had no such intention,
%
,?lievi %cult cng that Sir J. Young had done his duty under
ircumstances.
The House then adjourned at 7.35.

The SpeakerHOlTSE OF M
ech COMOfour S.
—FRIDAY.
took thair at 'clock.
Ilk Mr. re Griffiths gave notice, that he should cal Monday
the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether uniformity
n, suffrage was to be one of those principles of the Reform
-utli on which its fate was to depend, or one of those details
°Pen to such alteration as Parliament might in its wisdom
agree to.
-10..4r• Owen Stanley gave notice, that in the event of the
rev ."'ef()rul Bill being rejected on the second reading, he should
e a resolution ' to the effect, that the measure of the
Intilt
Government having failed to give satisfaction, the Govern-
was no longer entitled to the confidence of the house:
.14 SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
Colonies''..a
Stuart Knox asked the Secretary of State for the
of the whether he had any objection to lay on the table
hfOrtresasc. 611
awll-11°48e of any orders that had been sent. to the
in that "Les at Malta, relative to the garrison orders in force
Also, what instruction government pro-
salute to issue in regard, to soldiers being called upon to
either in host, or any religious personage or procession,t
eolZ:.1:1,tollat ?sland, or .any other part of her Majes y s
tape ine• the t"
l'ueSiiir:elln..
had
:11,21stlemds;said that there was no garrison orders
soldiers to salute the host. Instructions
strictly corn ,ordering the circular of Lord Hill to be
lculgei 1) —lllNied with, and the host will therefore no
e saluted by the soldiers.
Whethe
Arr. ollit'"arEit OF LAND COURTS (IRELAND). '
.riffiths asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
the Per r it was the intention of the Government to equalise
cinder
Lariti4ceiTioarogtoe fees upon the sale of property in the Trans e
in Ireland, to the amount payable on value
tiolin°rdiN, Naas said that the matter was now under considera-
te e'rnt-Twas considered to be desirable that the fees
.should
114,-I"attsed, but he could not then announce any decision.
- would do so as soon as he was able.
~,. DAY OF GENERAL THANKSGIVING.
Bi,-.. 1• Verney asked the Chancellor of Vie Exchequer
Whether her Majesty had been advised to appoint a day of
goefilterral thanksgiving to the Almighty, for the restoration
ymanauillity n India.
be e. Ohancaller of the Exchequer replied that he felt it to
the rabie that some public recognition should be made of
lifefajestl;,ase mercy, in restoring tranquility in India, but her
that
re pleasiure had not been taken as to the precise form
cogntion.
fir COIIMISSION FOR IMPROVING THE DANUBE. _
Fore.' Dodson asked the Under-Secretary of . State for
pointed gll Affairs whether the European Commission, ap -
185 G., under the 16th article of the Treaty of Paris,
neee ° designate and cause to be executed, the works
andas ;esliarYasbtehleow Isatcha to clear the mouths of the Danube,
I. that imlleighbonring parts of the sea, from the sandtos
t pediments which obstruct them, in, order
sea
in the ?':,-e Part of the river and the said parts.of the
t_ e
works
ts. possible state for navigation, has designated_ h
being cared
w ui ch in its operation are necessary ; whether these
or any others for effecting the same purposes, are
twihylivtiirribeede:tit,iand if so, who are the persons charged
et . direction of such works, and when it is probable
Mr.obSta.
had
I.Fa!tdzginl3raeld.telsaid that the European commission__
and made much valuable information on the subject,
had been tually useful suggestions. Those suggestions
whieLerl:thrae
1;e:1,T s tfeorrpeerdattioontshe special commission of engineers,
naeticil had made its report last autumn. The report recom-
should be commenced on the t.
Tinhoeuethpeof the Danube, in preference to the Sulinah
ration would cost £360,000, or if all.t e
efleoerumendations of the committee were adopted, a, little
thert of 4500,000. In the opinion of the commissioners
~operations.could not commence before 1860.
rising
,Solicitor-General, in moving that the house at its
brongt" adjourn till Monday, begged to contradict a chary osbr against him the previous evening by
the Jae, that having declared at Belfast iis oppositiron to
bill ews in Parliament, he had voted in favour. of the
admitting them. He had done nothing of the kind.
INDIA.
111 reply, to Mr. V. Smith and Mr. Salisbury,
of tore, Stanley entered into some explanation on the
.de_tails
anee.mode in which the business of India was. carried-on,
taken that the opinion of the Indian council bad not been
dest‘ea on the despatch. of the 9th of December. For that
iri4ateh he was alone responsible. He had fully stated
.his
()fles' as Was his duty, but it was not his intention to give
nee to any one, and he was sorry if he had done so.
shoed Lord EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX.
Advocate, in reply to Mr. Black, said that he
A proceed with his promised bill on the Edinburgh
lueltY Tax.
a motion fpr the adjournment till Monday was then
greed to.
GOVERNMENT REFORM
The a. BILL
„„ aAourned debate on the Government Reform Bill
4 resumed b
Sir S. N y
°n ortb.cote, who said that the issue, as now raised
the L bill, by the manner in which it was raised, placed
• 40Use in .
In the fair great perplexity. They were neither engaged
in tht, fight of the question of the second reading, nor
loos el °Pen council of committee. The resolution was so
eenciei-t3; worded, that it was impossible to.say to what exact
hausel.ts the house would be bound if it adopted it. This
the al 'was therefore called upon to decide for itself as
the
altera ttei orations it would adopt in either case. One of
Was att;°ll4 "-one most loudly cheered when it was proposed
t
b at the opinions of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley
hill 't loe
0 i acted upon, and that the preparation of a
held by be intrusted to those gentlemen, but the position
highly "Y them in the Cabinet rendered such a proposition
oeve embarrassing. Another alternative was, that the
opisi ll'uent itself should alter the bill in the sense of those
false Q4B. Such a course would place the Government in a
idelit-P(lsiti°ll. He combated the arguments against the
principle ItY al suffrarre. The chief objections related not to the
saidtatOifons for might , identity, but the mode
in
which that principle
coZi ,e'r'e carried out. Those, therefore, were essentially
practical they committee. The Government had never
would refuse to consider in committee any
themica` amendments. They only declared not to pledge
si.tfir selves to its adoption. Again, as to the borough
containedte objection was to the details, not to the principle
werdi h u
the bill. Lord J. Russell had stated that there
so e
strgood points in the bill, but that he had objections to it
he ong that he could not think it good. Why then did
had.ll°t move a direct negative to the bill. By the course he
PosittirBrt e tied, he had placed many of his supporters in a
qu.esti f great difficulty They peferred the diect
open
tetin of the second reading,
but felt that they should be
Misconception, if they voted against a resolution:
euforei
governs a uniformity of suffrage. He repeated that the
thatt,_ent would not refuse to consider any amendment
rni„,.l.,_
G• t- be proposed, and he defied any one to name the
Minister
Ole- who had made a declaration to the contrary. But
atoeYelnlild not say what course they would pursue on any
Ike
stated
till they knew what that amendment was.
fir'
,a•ted this in to the observation made by
reply
(Laa Aral pole on the previous evening, who had
.0 the that on
the government would consent to
"e Consideration of all amendments, he must oppose

the _ bill. He again entered upon the defence of the
principle of identity of suffrage, contending that it would
throw tile elections for every district -into the hands of
those most interested in it. From official information, he
believed the pr9posed change would add one-third to the
constituencies. The electors in, England and Wales were
900,000, and 300,000 would be added by the bill. It ap-
peared that the number of savings bank depositors holding
above £5O was 185,000. Making deductions for trustees
and women, he calculated that 77,000 persons would be
entitled to the franchise. No doubt many of them were
already ' entitled to it, but a very large number would
yet remain who would be entitled under the bill. The
lodgers clause would likewise in London admit an enormous
number of persons, equal in some parishes to the number
of householders. The Government adopting these pro-
visions had to consider not a little temporary popularity,
but a bill which should pass whatever proposals they made
might be extended. hereafter, but could not be contracted
hereafter. In fact the principles of the bill might permit
of indefinite extension. He demanded of the house to go
into committee on the bill, and assist the Government with
its counsel and advice. If they refused this, looking to the
sweeping nature of some of the plans which had been pro-
posed, the hon. gentleman opposite would wear a very
grave responsibility. The bill he cont ended furnished all the

elements for a practical settlement of the question. It was
very possible that the Government might permit, in com-
mittee, its provisions to be carried yet further.
Mr. Caldwell, admitting the difficulty in which the House
found itself, had hoped to have found, in the speeeh they
had just heard, some solution of that difficulty, and that the
House would have been told which were considered by the
Government as the principles of the bill, and which its
details. But the conclusion from that speech was, that the
bill contained no single proposition that could be dignified
by the name of the principle, and that it was brought
forward, not to satisfy the people, but to pass. The present
time was eminently fitted for the discussion of a Reform
Bill, when its provisions might be examined without setting
one class against another. If that opportunity was missed,
when reform was again brought forward it might be accom-
panied with a dangerous struggle between classes for the
transfer of power. The question was, whether the bill
diminished personal influence, and increased the power of
public opinion, or the contrary. Now the principle of the
bill, whatever else might be said, was uniformity of suf-
frage. Against suffrage was the most ancient principle of
our Constitution, and that it was to lay the axe to the
root of that Constitution if they destroyed it. He examined
historically the borough and county franchises, showing the
differences inherent in both. In any Reform Bill they
should deal with those franchises according to their history
and traditions, adapted to the exigencies of the time. It
was by the variety of suffrage they had obtained in that
house at once the representation and the community of
various interests, to an extent unknown in any other deli-
berative assembly. He argued that the establishment of
the principle of uniformity would be used against the
House 'of Lords, whose position in the State rested on
different grounds from those of other branches
of its equality—in all its forms abhorrent to the
temperament of the country, and abhorrent to the Constitu-
tion. How, then, could, he consider the equality proposed
by the bill as a mere detail which might be amended in
committee. Considering it even in detail, it would, he
believed, only increase influence in the counties, and cor-
ruption in the towns. They were told that it was inconsis-
tent with the honour of the Government to abandon this
principle ; but there was something above the honour of a
Government, which wai;the honour of that House. Could
they go into committee without' knowing the precise object of
the bill they were to discuss. Would this be a dignified course
for the House to adopt in the resolution. He expressed his
own feelings on the bill, except that it did not go far enough to
express his dislike and abhorrence to it. He should cordially
support it, and whatever might be the consequence the re-
sponsibility rested with' those who brought forward in the
name of reform a bill which was no reform. It was a
policy which was neither Liberal nor Conservative, which
professed to deal with an exigency without dealing with it,
and thereby excited passions which it would be difficult to
allay. He believed that even yet they mght pass a bill
honourable to themselves and satisfactory to the country.
Mr. Drummond said that they were all at cross purposes
with the bill, not knowing which were its principles and
which its details, or whether it had any details or principles at
all. He would support the proposition of the noble lord in
committee, but he could not support it on the question of
second reading of the bill. The only principle of a Reform
Bill *as enfranchisement and disfranchisement, all else was
a matter of degree and of detail. He had said at the time
of the first Reform Bill, that it was impossible to defend
the limits of the franchise, and he now again declared that
no one could say where they were to stop. If they
carried the franchise much lower, they must adopt
the ballot as a protection to the working classes, not
against their superiors, but against themselves, equality of
suffrage did not as was said lead to electoral districts, but
it actually was electoral districts, and the only difference
between the proposition of the bill and those of the Radi-
cals was, that one was unequal while the other equal
electoral districts. Referring to the attacks made in the
landed interest he asserted and endeavoured to prove in
detail that in every branch of our manufacture we were
beaten by other countries, while in our agriculture we were
without a rival.

Mr. Deut condemned the bill as in no respect fulfilling
the conditions of Reform, and disappointing the just ex-
pectations of the working classes.
Mr. Packe combated the claims of the working classes
to a general admission to the franchise, and supported the
bill.

Lard Harry Vane opposed it, declaring that it was evi-
dent, from the speech of Sir S. Northcote, that there
appeared to be no principle in the bill which the ministers
thought worth sustaining. They appeared to commit the
bill altogether to the discretion of the House.
Mr. S. Wortley contended that, while it was agreed
on all sides that the question ought to be settled,
they would, by voting for the resolution, only
delay the settlement of the question. They were
not to take the declaration of Lord Stanley that
it the government were defeated on the principle of
identity, they would throw up the bill too liberally ; but no
one could doubt that it was the intention of Lord John
'Russell to defeat the bill. Many members took advantage
of the terms of the xesolution to give an apparently
popular vote for ulterior reasons. lie, himself, agreed with
both the propositions of the resolution ; but he thought
that it was more respectful to the Crown to allow the
bill to pass the second reading. Three successive
times had parliamentary reform been recommended
from the throne, and at the beginning of the present
session, in answer to a fourth recommendation, the house
pledged itself to give the question its calm and impartial, con-
sideration. To make this question a stalking horse for party
quarrels, was assuredly not to give it a calm and impartial
consideration. He had therefore proposed an amendment,
if the resolution of Lord J. gussell was carried, in the
shape of a further resolution, which while it admitted
the necessity of further extension of the suffrage,
stated the opinion of the hGuse that it ought to
pass to the second reading of the bill. These views
were, he believed, those of the government itself. He was
astonished when he was told that the identity of suffrage
constituted the principle of the bilL Not one in a hundred,
reading the bill impartially, would have come to such a
conclusion. The principle of the bill, on the face of it, was
the enlargement and adjustment of the suffrage. This
might be well or ill done in the bill, and might be variously
considered by the house ; but it was the principle, notwith-
standing the resolution did not go to the extent of nega-
tiving identity of suffrage, and therefore was not logicaL
According to the statement of the noble lord
himself, they had most unduly' mixed up party
considerations and thus complicated still further one
of the most difficult questions in existence. There was
much good in the bill—let them extend it. In the first
place, there was no mention even of the ballot; no
attempt to trifle with this detestable scheme. There was
a negative good then ; there was the positive good arising
out of the extension of the franchise in counties ; for which
there were several propositions in the bill ; there was the
household and other property franchise ; there was the
reduction of the £5O occupancy to £lo—in his opinion by
far to great a reduction. He enumerated the
other clauses admitted by the bill to the franchise.
the admission of whom might be greatly extended in com-
mittee. It was impossible to deny that the bill contained a
groat extension of the franchise. He showed by how small
an alteration in the wording of 'the bill they could get rid

of the principles„
of identity or as it ought to be called, of the feature
of suffrage. The mode of taking votes by
voting rapers would again act practically. as a great
extent-lon of the suffrage. He passed in review the objec-
tiGns to the transfer of borough 40s. voters • agreeing in
the main with those objections, he objected further to the
resolution as not sufficiently recognising the claims of the
working classes to the suffrage. He felt, from his
knowlege of those classes, that the time would come
when artisans should be further trusted; but they must take
worth for the test, not numbers, wages, apprenticeship.
Payment of taxes might be admitted as profits of worth.
The two grievances to be remedied were the representation
of large constituencies, and the exclusion of the deserving
and substantial class of artisans from the franchise. Refer-
ring to the party question, he said that it was now im-
possible for any Ministry constantly to command majorities.
The difficulty in this respect commenced by the old Reform
Bill ; there would be, therefore, no want of dignity on the
part of the Government to give way on some of
the questions involved in their bill. He trusted
that they would not be pressed further than they
could be had to the difficulties of their position. Who,
he asked, was to introduce a measure of reform if this
measure failed ? Was it the noble lord, the member for
Tiverton ? That noble lord had always taken on the sub-
ject a moderate and conservative tone, which would be
unsuited to any bill which in the present crisis he would
have to introduce. Could the noble lord, the member for
London, or the hon. member for Birmingham, hope at
present introduce a bill with any chance of success. He
denied it. With respect to the member for Birmingham,
he had been tried and failed. The country admired his
honesty, respected his courage, but would not have his
bill. Whatever might be the consequences, he implored
the government to pause before they ventured on a
dissolution. The country was now quiet, but
there was no knowing how far it might be roused. He
trusted the working classes, but he dreaded the masses ; and
if they were once allowed to be excited on the subject, a
great peril would arise to the Constitution of the country,
or, at least, to the settlement of the question.
Lord Palmerston declared his intention of giving his
cordial support to the resolution of his noble friend. That
resolution was no censure on the Government. It was
strictly appertaining to the matter in hand—bringing into
discussion two of .the leading features of the bill, which
would be better examined on this stage than in committee.
The debate had been 'productive of some good ; at first
they had thought that the transfer of the borough voters,
and the identity of suffrage, were essential parts of the
measure, but it now appeared that every part of the bill
was open to consideration, that no part was to be sine qua
non with the Government. He hoped that further pro-
gress would be made before the debate closed in this con-
viction, and that they would all end in agreeine to the
resolution. He reprobated the personal attack of the
Solicitor-General on Lord John Russell, which was
unworthy of his position, and ill deserved by the unex-
ampled forbearance of the opposition. He admitted that the
Government had only done its duty in proposing a measure
of Reform. They took the Government with its engage-
ments which they were bound to fulfil. One of those en-
gagements was the Indian bill ; they had ,opposed the
Indian bill, but in office they carried it on, though it was
true they spoilt a little. They were no doubt obliged to
postpone Reform till the present session. Now they were a
Conservative party pledged to gradual progress. They
ought, therefore, to have taken their stand on the act of
1832, and to have carried out its principles. There were
defects in that act. The exclusion of the £lO franchise
which their present bill remedied. He did not join in
the objection to what had had been called the
fancy franchises of the bill, believing that they would
admit a very deserving class of men. As to the borough
franchise, he had been long of opinion that the £lO occu-
pancy ought to be maintained ; but he now believed that it
might safely be lowered so, as to include the more honest
and deserving part of the working classes. He would not by
admitting a majority of the least instructed and poorest
class, swamp and destroy the influence of property. Sub-
ject to that condition, he believed that a reduction of the
franchise could and ought to be made. Provision ought
to be made for the re-distribution of seats,
and he did not quarrel with the bill for
the small amount of those provisions. He defended the
small constituencies, which included a vast class of educa-
tion and intelligence, not included either in the counties or
the large towns. Ned the Ministers applied their minds to
the detects of the act of 1832, and endeavoured to remedy
them in the spirit of that act, he had no doubt they might
have carried a measure, which for a time would have settled
the question. The evils to be remedied. now were less than
those of 1832, and was therefore more easily dealt with.
But they had departed from the spirit of that act,
and had introduced new provisions, alien to
the constitution of the country. They had disfranchised
the borough freeholders, and introduced identity of suffrage,
cli.strayiux an ancient and reccognised principle of our
stitution. The bill of the Government not only led to
electoral districts, but it actually established them, adapting,
them only to the distribution of population. The Govern-
ment would seem to have taken counsel with the member
for Birmingham, and to be rowing in the same boat with
him far more than Lord John Russell. The first impression
of his own mind had been, that a bill so framed ought to be
met by a direct negative ; but the amendment of his
noble friend had met the case, and he gave it his
cordial approval as soon as he had seen it. It
brought at once under discussion the two prominent
features of the bill, instead of waiting till they
had got into the confusion and chance of a committee. So
far from the resolution being a vote of censure the Govern-
ment ought to thank his noble friend for bringing it for-
ward. If carried, it would relieve them from a great diffi-
culty. He objected to the provision of the bill as to the
proposal for voting papers, into whieh he would
not then enter. When the House had affirmed
that the second objectionable part of the bill
should not remain—the bill was ready for committee—the
resolution would, no doubt, be carried. What would fol-
low ? It was said that the ministers would resign. He
did not believe it. He did not desire it. It would be a
dereliction of their duty if they had undertaken the ques-
tion. They had great means of settling it, and they ought
to settle it. Again, it was said they might dissolve. This,
again, ho did not believe. They must obtain the concur-
rence of the house. Could they get their votes in supply ?
In cases of peace or war, or great constitutional ques-
tion, an apppeal to the country was justifiable.
This was not now the case. Would they allow
the British constitution to be scrambled for on every
hustings in the kingdom - they would not if they could, and
they could not if they would. Again they might abandon
the bill. He did not believe that they would show so little
sense of the duty they had to perform. He felt assured
that, if the house affirmed the resolution, the government
would go on with their bill, subject to the control of the
majority of that house. All doubt had fell as to their
adopting this course—it had been removed by the
candid and ample admission of the secretary to the
Treasury. Let the house, therefore, discard all
fear, lest the adoption of the resolution should
retard the settlement of the question, while without
it the bill would immediately have been lost.

Mr. Whiteside declared that, in the course of the debate,
the bill had been successively characterised as aristocratic
and democratic -- as conservative and revolutionary—accord-
ing to the varieties of opinion of its opponents. He
disclaimed with great ardour against the resolution, as a
crafty device to stifle the discussion, and defeat the bill. He
argued that the identity of suffrage proposed in the bill was
not a positive identity, as a £lO householder in the counties
was very different from a 410 householder in the town. All
varieties of franchise were destroyed by the 'bill of 1832,
by means of the same noble lord who now passed such a warm
eubgium on variety disfranchisement, which was so loudly
reprobated by those who abolished 260,000 40s. freeholders
in Ireland. How could they:refuse consideration to a bill
enfranchising so large a portion of the community. He
contended that a large portion of the working classes would
be admitted under the bill, while its opponents had never
produced a bill which admits any. Recurring to the,ardour
of Lord Palmerston, that the government should, adopt
the amendment, and go on with the bill, he declared
emphatically that they would never accept the bill accom-
panied with the offensive resolution. He pointed to the
conduct of the present Parliament as a proof that no organic
change was necessary in the representation of the people. He
told Lord Palmerston that, while admitting the preservation
of peace might not depend upon Lord Malmesbury, he was
assured it did depend upon the policy prevailing at the
Foreign Office. He imputed no unworthy motives to the
noble viscount, but no one could doubt but that he was the
author of all the confusion of Europe. He brought no
charge against him except a total want of
.j'agdment. Let
there be no mistake about as to the intention of the
Ministry. They had been told to accept the resolution, and to
take back the bill. They would not accept the resolution,
and they would not take back the bill.
On the motion of Mr. E. James, the debate was adjourned.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS,

The Municipal Elections Bill was read a third time and

passed.
The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at-one o'clock.

HITTING IT TO A NICETY.-A curious incident occurred
at Lloyd's on Saturday, in connection with the collision in
the channel on that morning on which the Thalia foundered.
An underwriter was in the act of writing his name for £5OO
on the insurance of this vessel, when a friend in the room
strolled from the place where the notice of casualties are
posted, and accidentally remarked to him, " The Thalia's
gone, I see." This was sufficient to stop his pen, and escape
his loss. A quarter of a minute later, and it would have been,
as our neighbours say, un fait accompli.

THE LIVERPOOL
NEW EXCHANGE BUILDINGS

PROTECTION OF THE COMPANY'S RIGHTS.

IMPORTANT CLAUSE

PROM OUR OWN REPORTER

HOITSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY

The select committee on this bill re-assembled this fore-
noon, at eleven o'clock, the Earl of Lucan in the chair. The
other members of the committee in attendance were—Vis-
count Effingham, Viscount Dungannon, Lord Dunfermline,
and Lord Churston.

Mr. Burke said that, on behalf of the opponents of the
bill, he had to suggest a clause which, inasmuch as it had
not been acceded to on the other side, he would explain to
their lordships. The words of the clause were short in them-
selves. Their lordships had been good enough to state that
this property of the existing Liverpool Exchange Company
should be purchased within a given period, and that not a
portion of the property should be taken, but the whole of it.
By the act of last year, as they would remember, the com-
pany were empowered to make certain extensions,
but all operations under that act were sus-
pended with a view to what ? For the estab-
lishment of a more comprehensive scheme. Well,
the parties promoting the bill now before their lordships,
had come forward with such a comprehensive scheme, but
his clients had felt this, that as the bill stood at present, it
would be in the power of the new company to purchase the
adjoining property before they purchased that belonging to
the old company, and to deal with the property in competing
with them. Now that was obviously unreasonable, and
thinking that they surely could not have such an intention,
he prepared a clause, which was to this effect :—" That no
powers in the present bill shall allow the New Exchange
Company to open an exchange, news, or reading-room, until
they shall have completed the purchase, and paid for the
present building." Well, the reasonableness of this, and
the consciousness that such a clause should appear in the
bill, were so obvious, that it struck him as very odd that it
should have been rejected by the promoters. But as they
did reject it, it must be clear that it was the intention of
these parties before purchasing the present Exchange
Buildings, to purchase the other property, and establish a
news-room in competition with the existing company. Now,
what would be the effect of such a state of things ? Be-
fore purchasing the existing buildings, they might, under
those circumstances, when taking this property, come before
an arbitrator, and say " Your property is diminished by
another company." Unless this clause was inserted in the
bill there would be no certainty that the property would
ever be purchased at all. At the- end of the two years there
was no security that it would be purchased, and if not the
consequences would be ruinous to the present proprietors.
He felt some curiosity as to what argument there could be
against the introduction of the clause which he had pro-
posed, for it seemed to him that it was quite consistent
with the professed objects of the bill.
Mr. Calvert would tell their Lordships why he ob-
jected to the introduction of the clause. As to
saying that the... new company could make a news-
room of the Sessions-house that was not correct.
There was no part • of the building that they
could make a news-room of, But the promoters cer-
tainly objected to the old company being allowed to go
before a jury for the purpose of enhancing the value of
their property. What they said was, "let them go before
a jury under circumstances as they existed, but do not give
them powers to go before a jury for an enhanced value."
He was quite sure it was the intention of their Lordships
to give the company the full value of their property, and
such was the intention of the promoters, and with that feel-
ing, a clause providing for it had been inserted in the bill.
[He read the clause.] The clause now proposed embodied
an entirely new suggestion, and was an addition to the prin-
ciple affirmed by th committee yesterday. By the clause
inserted in the bill by the promoters, they were secured a
fair price for their property, and therefore the clause pro-
posed was altogether unnecessary.
Mr. Burke, in reply, said that if he thought the clause
necessary before he heard the argument, he most certainly
was confirmed in that opinion now, because their lordships
now heard that the promoters objected to the clause, on the
ground, as they admitted, that they intended to go before
an arbitrator to contend that Parliament had given them
powers to complete with the present company. They said
that Parliament having given them power to complete a
part of their buildings, they were_ at liberty •to complete
only a portion, and having done so, they could come before
an arbitrator and say to the old company, that their pro-
perty was not so good as it had been. He was sure it never
was the intention of Parliament last year, that any com-
pany should come forward and establish a competition, but
that whatever new company might be formed, it should
purchase the whole of the property of the existing com-
pany, for the purpose of carrying out a comprehensive
scheme.

Lord Churston : I understood yesterday, that the value
of the property was to be estimated at once, and paid for in
two years.
Mr. Burke said, he would be satisfied if the promoters
would insert in their clause, that the property should be
valued forthwith, and that it should not be argued before an
arbitrator, afterwards that the property was of less value.
Lord Dungannon : One of your argunients is, that they
might purchase this sessions-house and turn it into a news-
room, and at the end of two years compete with you.
Mr. Burke : Yes but that is not all. In addition that ;
Parliament having sanctioned a general competition with
us they could do so.
Mr. Calvert : We never should argue anything of the
kind before an arbitrator. We do not say that we shall not
establish a news-room, but we say, do not by this clause put
into their mouths a declaration that they have a monopoly.
We say they have no monopoly.
The room was here cleared, and on the re-admission of
strangers. _ _ _ _ .

The Chairman said, the committee approve of the intro-
duction of the proviso.
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the bill was
ordered to be reported.

NAPOLEON 111. WALKING OUT.—IS it treasonable to tell
how the Emperor looks at Plombieres, divested of external
pomp ? He is grizzled, candaverous, and lame in the left
hip, and labours to conceal this last defect. His walk is
awkward ; he turns out his toes, and leans heavily on the
strong stick he carries in his well gloved hand. He is care-
fully dressed ; but, though his coat fits him very accurately,
he has nothing of the air of a well-dressed man. His figure
is not improved by the cuirass which his coat will not con-
ceal. Every step he takes is studied, while his eye scans
every passer by with a look which has something uncanny
in its expression.---Household Words.
SCENE AT A FIRE YESTERDAY.—TWENTY-POUR LIVES
SAVED.—A fire, which occurred in the metropolis yesterday
morning, would, in all probability, have been attended
With the loss of twenty-four lives, had it not been for
the prompt arrival of a fire escape. It appears that
police-constable No. 165 G, ran to the conductor's station
in Hatton-garden, and informed the man that a
fire had taken place in a large double house occupied
by Mr. Kitchen, a cheesemonger, &c., situate at the corner
of Greville-street, Leather-lane, The escape of the Royal
Society was immediately taken to the spot, when a scene
that can with difficulty be described presented itself. Out
of each window issued volumes of black smoke, which
obscured the front of the building, and the loud cries for
help from 25 persons clearly indicated that no time was
to be lost to effect their rescue, for the lower part of
the premises and staircases were burninc, like a furnace. The
conductor (named Arkell) at once placed his escape in front
of the house, and brought from the first floor seven persons,
who were safely landed below. The jumping sheet attached
to the escape was next taken off and held by the police,
when five or six persons were thrown from the second
floor, and were received in the sheet without receiving any
material injury. The remainder of the unfortunate persons
were taken from the third floor and passed down the escape,
save one man who managed to get upon the roof and pass
through an adjoining house.
TILE PROPOSED NEW BOROUGHS. -A return, mewed for
by Mr. Byng, and issued yesterday morning, gives the po-
pulation and rating in the proposed new boroughs of the
government reform bill.: The population and inhabited houses
according to the census of 1851, and the rating for each in
1853. In West Bromwich. and Wednesbury, the
population was 48,872; the inhabited houses, 9,253 ;
the number rated to the poor at 101. and upwards,
1,542.; at 61. and upwards, 2,709. In Birkenhead,
Cloughton-cum-Grange, Oxton, and Tranmere, population,
33,525; inhabited houses, 4,883, rated to the poor, 3,130
and 4,387. In. Burnley and Habergham Eaves, population
27,255; inhabited houses, 4,884; rated to the poor, 736
and 1,124 ;- in Staleybridge and Duekinfield, population,
32,892 ; inhabited houses, 5,986; no return of rating ;
Croydon and Prenge, population, 21,512 ; inhabited houses,
3,604 ; rated to the poor, 1,688 and 1,857. .In Graves-
end, Milton, and Northfleet, population, 21,671; inhabited
houses, 3,627; rated to the poor, 2,296 and 2,5036 ; in
Hartlepool; &c., population, 16,068 ; inhabited houses,
2,582; rated to the poor, 287, and 1,414. The object of
the return appears to be to show the disproportion between
the claims of these proposed new boroughs and the parishes
of Chelsea, Kensington, and Hammersmith, which are not
elevated to the position of a parliamentary borough, but by ,
the bill are made to form part of the western division of
Middlesex, which county, it is proposed, shall return two
additional members: The population of the three parishes
in 1851 was 118,351; the inhabited houses, 16,842; the
number of persons rated to the poor at £lO and upwards,
12,648 ; and at z£6 and upwards, 13,021.