The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 160.

[Continued from our first page.]
cal Mr. Wilson—a greater radical, he supposed, did not
exist—said "he was well inclined towards the present Go-
vernment. With Mr. Cobden as commercial traveller and

plenipotentiary in foreign affairs—(laughter)—with Mr.
Bright taking the out-door department, with Gladstone
and Gibson inside, the firm was doing a roaring business."
(Great laughter.) Well this firm had, like many others,
drawn some very long bills ; theyhad drawn on an acceptor
whom they (the Opposition) could not trust ; they had been '
,peculating a little too largely, and he thought that this
time next year it would be seen that the roaring business
was not one which the people of this country, generally, or
at all events the payers of direct taxation, wanted. (Cheers.)
On the occasion to which he was referring the hon. member
for Birmingham, after a speech of great eloquence and
power, which was no doubt calculated to produce a great

effect on the minds of the seven or eight thousand persons
who heard him, came at last to his peroration. lie told his
audience that he said what followed with an unfaltering
voice. How it happened that his voice did not falter aft*
such extraordinary calumnies and misrepresentations he
(Mr. Hardy) could not imagine. (Cheers.) He said, how-
ever, that his voice was too honest and unfaltering for
courtly ears—that he did not address the court. What
schemes in the hon. member's mind must those be which
were unfit to be addressed to a constitutional monarch ?

(Opposition cheers.) What schemes must he be brooding
over if his honest voice could not be heard by that Sove-
reign who had been ready to hear all voices ? (Renewed
cheers.) The hon. member reminded him of what was said
of the Earl of Kent in King Lear :
" He cannot flatter, he,
An honest mind and plain—he must speak truth:
An they will take it, so ; if not, he's plain.
These kind of mea I know, which in this plainness
Harbour more craft, and iar more dangerous ends
Than twenty silly ducking observants
That stretch their dudes nicely."
The honourable member went on to say that he would
not address the aristocracy, because they were so
wrapped up in luxury that they would not listen to
him. From what class did the aristocracy of whom the
hon. gentleman thus spoke mainly spring ? When did a man
cease to belong to the people and become an aristocrat ?
Why, the greater proportion of the aristocracy had sprung
from the class to which the hon. gentleman belonged.
They did not love their country less because they had titles
—they had done much for liberty, and they had knitted
together rich and poor in an indissoluble bond, in spite of
the agitationof the hon. member among those classes whom
he affected to represent. It was the combination of the
rights of the Crown, for which the hon. member said he
was too honest, with those of the aristocracy and of the
people which was the foundation of the constitution, that
constitution which the hon. member wassendeavourin,g to
destroy. (Cheers.) The hon. member was dragging after
him a Government many of whose members were, he be-
lieved, as much opposed to his schemes as he (Mr. Hardy)
was. He regretted this for the sake of the honour of public
men—he regretted the insincerity which had prevailed
throughout the house on this subject. No man valued a
seat in that house more dear than he did, but ha should
consider himself degraded and disgraced if he were on that
account to withhold his opinion of the schemes of the hon
member for Birmingham, who was dragging down the Mi-
nistry towards an abyss from which there could be no re-
turn. (Hear, hear.) He appealed to hon. members oppo-
site who had grown grey in the service of their country not
to be influenced by the declaration that the rejection of this
bill would be regarded as a vote of want of confidence. The
hon. member for Salford (Mr. Massey) ought not, he must
say, to have proposed.to refer the bill to a select committee
without due reflection. (Hear, hear.) He might have an-
ticipated that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) would have
regarded its adoption as a rejection of his bill. The noble
lord himself might well have felt great difficulty in con-
senting to the appointment of a committee to examine so
crude and immature a handiwork as that on the table. With
all the thought and experience of years to aid him the noble
lord had only produced a miserable abortion, having yielded
himself up inhis old age to those who sat behind him, ap-
parently because he had not the courage to resist them.
What they (the Opposition) wanted was that property,
wealth, and intelligence should have their due place in the
representation, and that one class of society should not be
put in such a predominant position that it would be able to
override all the others ; and he trusted that the house would
not allow itself to be led away, but would combine heart
and hand in maintaining the just influence of the monarch,
the aristocracy, and the people combined. (Cheers.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said a considerable portion of that de-
bate had turned upon the statistical returns relating to the
representation which had been laid upon the table by the
present Government. Now when the Government undertook
last autumn to frame a Reform Bill, it was their desire to
ascertain the best data that could be obtained for so im-
portant a measure ; and, accordingly, they framed instruc-
tions, which were sent round to the country overseers through
the Poor-law Board. Those instructions were framed
with deliberation and care, and the returns on the table
were, he believed, correct and complete so far as they could
be made so from the rate-books. The rate-books were the
only basis on which such returns could be founded ; it was
not possible to institute a new valuation of the country
and to obtain the results within the time for which they
might be used for the purposes of legislation. Therefore
the Government could only address themselves to the
digestion of the facts recorded in the rate-books. He be-
lieved those results were accurate and complete for the pur-
pose of legislation. The hon. and learned member for Mary-
lebone (Mr. James), in his somewhat tesselated speech,
said that the Government had made serious errors both in
the framing of the returns and in the inferences they had
deduced from them. He (Sir C. Lewis) maintained on the
other hand that the returns were substantially correct, and
that the Government had committed no errors in the infer-
ences drawn from them. He was glad that a committee had
been appointed by the other house to inquire into the accu.-
racy of the returns, because he felt that it was a matter that
could be more satisfactorily investigated by a committee
than in a debate in either house ; but ho was perfectly satis-
fied the result would be that the returns deserved the confi-
dence the Government placed in them. Thehen. and learned
member had alluded to the case of Finsbury. If the hon. and
learned gentleman would look at the notes at the bottom of
the rage he would find it stated that the returns of St.
Luke's and Islington, which formed part of that borough,
did not contain the number of persons occupying tenements
for which the owners were rated instead of the occupiers ;
it was expressly stated, and yet the hon. and learned gen-
tleman founded a charge of inaccuracy on that omission. It
would be seen also that" Kingston-on-Hull and Norwich
were similarly situated, and these were the only three places
where the omission was to be found, and the amount of it
was stated in the return. But what he (Sir C. Lewis) held
was, that the total of error was not sufficient to affect the
general result, Then the hon and learned member said that
the return did not include those tenements for which the rate
was compounded fer and paid by the landlord. He, on the
contrary, asserted'that it did contain an accurate account of
all occupiers, not of all tenements or houses, but of occupiers
whose rates were compounded for. Then there was a deduc-
tion of 20 pet cent. fes female occupiers and unoccupied tene-
ments, which was. in all probability correct. The hon. and
learned member said the number of persons whose rates were
compounder' fcr below ..£lO and above £0 would necessarily
appear on the register, but that argument was fallacious.
There was no reason to suppose that a greater number of
occupiers below £lO whose rates were compounded for
would find their way on the register than did now of occu-
piers above £lO. This was shown in the returns in regard
to Liverpool, where those rated above £lO numbered 39,730,
while the total number of electors on the register was only
18,000; and the Tower Hemlets, where the number of re-
gistered electors was 28,000, while the number of occupiers
rated at £lO and upwards was 67,859. He might mention
many more examples, but these were sufficient to show the
fallacy of the hon. rnd learned gentleman's argument that
every person occupying a tenement rated above £6 and be-
ow £lo,whose rates were compounded for, would not poten-
tially, hut absolutely be upon the register under the new
bill. Then it must be home in mind that change of resi-
dence and other circumstances which tended to reduce the
number of electors as compared with the number of oscte
piers qualified by the rating value would be greater under
£lO than above, and with a £6 franchise he would under
take to say that the addition estimated by the Government
was the full maximum, and a maximum which would be
liable to serious deductions. The hon. member for Leomins-
ter had also described the returns as fallacious, and had par-
ticularly adverted to the column containing the gross rental
as not exhibiting the clear annual value. By the word
" fallacious," in reference to returns, he should understand
it was intended to convey that they were intentionally mis •
stated. If that was what the hon. member intended to
infer, nothing could be further from the fact. (Hear.) The
wish of the Government in obtaining these returns was to
supply the most accurate and reliable bases for legislation,
and they believed they had done so. In the vast majority
of eases the first column in the rate book from which this
account had been made up exhibited the rent actually
Paid by the tenant. There might be some instances in
which the entries were made in the wrong column—but,
generally speaking, he was assured by the poor-law audi-
tors, in reply to a circular he had sent to them on the sub-
ject, that the return in this respect might be depended on.
The hon. member for Leominster had referred to some words
he (Sir C. Lewis) had used in regard to the feeling of the
country, and reminding him that he had said it was incum-
bent on these who proposed a Reform Bill to state what
was the evil that required to be remedied, and to show that
he remedy suggested was adequate to meet it, called upon
iiim to explain the policy which had dictated the introduc-
tion of the present measure. lie accepted that challenge.
(Hear.) The object of the Reform Act of 1831, and of the
countless motions for parliamentary reform made in the
House of Commons before the passing of that act, was to
remedy the following evils, viz.—the representation of de-
cayed and almost uninhabited towns and the non-represen-
tation of populous counties and large manufacturing towns.
Those who recollected the Reform Bill debates would re-
member that it was Schedule A, which disfranchised the
nomination boroughs, that the attention of the house and
of the country was principally directed to, but little atte. -
tion being paid to the places upon which the electoral fran-
chise was proposed to be conferred. The result was that
though the plan was a comprehensive one, public attenti, n
was turned rather to the disfranchising than the caftan-
chiling part of it. The £lO suffrage was accepted at the

time as creating a sufficiently popular franchise ; but very
little contest took place upon that question, and those who
proposed amendments in the House of Lords upon other
points accepted that portion of the measure without opposi-
tion. It was material, in considering the present bill, that they
should know what had been the effect of the c ant;e in the
suffrage made by the measure of 1831. Up ii the table of
the house there was an account (No. 129) ,‘ i ich would en-
able the house to form some judgment 112 ~ this point. It
appeared that the total number of voters in the English
boroughs in the year 1830 —that was the year before the
Reform Bill—was 163,375. The number of registered
electors in 1833, the first register after the Reform Bill,
was 250,234, showing that the increase produced by the
Reform Bill had been 81,859. But, to make the compari-
son fair, they should take only those parliamentary boroughs
which existed both before and after the Reform Act, omit-
ting all the new boroughs that were created by that act an 1
the small boroughs that were wholly or partially disfran-
chised. Taken in that way the numbers would stand thus :
The number of voters in 1830, the year before the Reform
Act, 162,640, and the number in 1832-3 201,794, showing
an increase of 39,154. The house would see that the opera-
tion of the Reform Act in increasing the total number of
voters was not very considerable. Under the non-reformed

system there were many places numerously represented by
scot and lot voters and otherwise; and in those places the
operation of the act was considerably to reduce the number
of electors. Scotland under the old system might be de•
scribed as one great nomination borough, and the change
there had been very considerable ; but in Ireland it was less
so, the Act of Union itself having to a certain extent been
a reform act for that country. Therefore as to the number
of voters added, the effect of the Reform Act of 1831 had
been much less than many persons supposed. In forming a
judgment of the bill now proposed they should look to the
effects of the act of 1831; and it was by doing so and com••

paring the period since 1831 with the previous period that
he grounded in a great degree his supp6rt of the measure,
believing the time had come when it was advisable that
some further progress should be made inthe same direction
in which they advanced so largely in 1831. He would not
go into a repetition of the admitted effects of the Reform Act.
They knew that many attempts bad been made to legislate
since then, but there was scarcely a department of legisla-
tion as to England, Ireland, Scotland, the colonies, or In-
dia, that had not undergone a solemn and important change.
The lugubrious prediction of fatal consequences—conse-
quences infinitely more calamitous than any that were an-
ticipated by the opponents of the present bill—which were
indulged in, had not been verified by actual experience in
respect to legislation ; and with regard to the internal state
of the country—the relation in which the different classes
of the community stood towards each other—could any one
who remembered the period anterior to 1831 doubt the more
sound and solid condition of the community at the present
time as compared with what it was then? (Hear, hear.) If
then there was a more firm and close union of classes,
greater loyalty to the Crown, and a more wide and general
diffusion ofwealth than existed previous to 1831, could any
one say that that act had not had a beneficial tendency ?
(Hear.) 'With regard to the closer union of classes, which
had been the unquestionable result of the Reform Act of
1831, let them not underrate its importance or lightly cast
aside any measure the tendency of which was to bring
within the pale of the constitution a large number pf per-
sons who were now excluded, and give them an interest in
good government. (Hear, hear.) Many hon. members
present had no doubt read the last volume of an eminent
French historian containing an account of the downfall of
the first Napoleon, and every one who had done so must,
he thought, come to the conclusion that if it had not been
for the detestation with which the great body of the French
people regarded the wars in which the ambition of their
Imperial ruler had involved them—if it had not been for
the almost universal unpopularity of the Emperor on that
ground, an unpopularity which extended even to the army;
for generals and marshals of the Empire participated in the
feeling—if the population of Paris had not looked upon the
Allies as their liberators from an almost insupportable ty-
ranny, it would have been impossible for the allied armies
to have captured Paris or dictated the terms they did.
When they were looking out for security against invasion;
when they were called upon for large estimates to fortify
their shores, far-sighted politicians would not overlook the
enormous advantage which for the purposes of repelling
invasion was to be derived from the joint action of an united
people. (Hear, hear.) And it was his firm conviction that
nothing would tend more to promote union of classes—as the
Reform Act of 1832 most powerfully tended to produce that
result—than a measure framed in a similar spirit, and within
the limits that wisdom and prudence dictated. There was
another reason—another circumstance—which weighed
powerfully with him in recommending to the house to choose
the present as a fit moment for passing this measure, end
that circumstance was the absence of any political agitation
or irrational outcry for reform. He had no doubt that the
policy of hon. gentlemen opposite was to alter nothing, to
remain motionless as long as they could, to wait till a popu-
lar opinion grew up as strong as that which existed 30 years
ago, and then, when they had no option, to legislate under
coercion. That, no doubt, was the legitimate policy of the
party to which the hon. gentleman who last addressed the
house belonged, but he must be permitted to say it seemed
to him that those who wished that a safe and prudent mea-
sure should pass the house, ought to rejoice that they could
now debate the subject freely, that there was no pressure
from without upon them, that they could act without poli-
tical unions, or without any of those associations which ex-
isted in 1831, without those thunders in the Times which
became in that year proverbial. He regarded this Reform
Bill on the whole as a precautionary measure, as one intended
to guard against evils now admitted, and which increased
every year. The bill was divided into three portions, each
of which could be dealt with separately by the committee.
It had been studiously framed so as not to embarrass it
with subordinate and irrelevant matter, but to invite in a
distinct form the decision of the house on the three main
subjects on which every reform bill must turn—namely, an
enlargement of the county franchise, an enlargement of the
borough franchise, an enfranchisement of boroughs, and a
transfer of seats. He could not understand the objections
to this measure, which at ono moment were that it was a
revolutionary measure, at another that it was insignificant.
He confidently maintained that if any person examined this
bill he would come to the conclusion that it dealt with all
the important and the most important parts of the subject,
and that it dealt with them in a clear and decisive manner.
There might be other subordinate questions which might
fitly deserve future consideration, but the bill which was
now before the house exhausted all the important parts of
the subject. The hon. member for Marylebone said the
bill was defective, because it did not propose any revision
of the system of registration. The system of registration
was now founded on Acts of Parliament distinct from the
Reform Bill. It might be desirable that it should be
amended, but that could be done more conveniently by a
separate measure. The hon. member likewise argued that
the bill was defective, because it did not contain a lodger
franchise. That was a matter rather for consideration in
committee than on the second reading of the bill. lie would
only remark that the objection did not come with a good
grace from a gentleman who complr.ined of the bill as too
largely extending the franchise. To talk of the lodger fran-
chise as a gentlemanly franchise was a chimera. He be-
lieved that those who obtained votes under the lodger fran-
chise would to a great extent be persons belonging to the
working class, who had been flitting about from one lodging
to another. A large part of the speech of the hon. member
for Leominster was occupied with an argument against any
extension of the borough franchise ; but, as he understood
the right hon. member for Bucks last session to say, Lord
Derby's Government was prepared for an extension of the
andatwa nakt
was
taken
tgfihoxpenelyidasnc.meo olwTonhinttehghrecetrfhph,
erreeellvdet
inotdehuehesr
opobi hpnpleteail rertn
ithyvaai et\
tvhs e hs al do f
rc ha anne ghei ds
e,
borough franchise, and that since the division which had
on n wast
h e inr
i no: ;1 el e ot complete
antagonism with the leader of his party on tho principle of
maintaining the borough franchise unchanged. principle
right
hon. Member for Bucks, in bringing forward his bill of last
session, stated his belief that according to his bill there
would be an addition of 500,000 to the constituency, but he
gave no statistical data upon which the calculations were
founded, and it was his belief that that statement of the
right hon. gentleman was mere conjecture. At all events,
the present Government did net believe that their bill would
add a number approaching .500,000 to the existing consti-
tuencies.7According to the best calculation he was able
to make of the probable addition to the borough electors, he
did not think that it would be much above 160,000. He
thought that the calculation of his noble friend when he in-
troduced the bill, that the increase would be 190,000, erred on
the side of excess. The next point was the county frau.
chiso. There was a return moved for by the hon. member
for Surrey, which stated the number of persons rated at
£lO and under £5O to be 415,000. That was the maximum,
which the addition to the county constituencies could
not exceed. But it was necessary to, make very large de-
ductions in order to arrive at a probable estimate of the in-
crease. In the first place he deducted 15 per cent. in respect
of female occupiers, non-payment of poor-rates, insufficient
residence, and double returns. That gave a deduction of
62,327. Then it would be observed that the remainder
included those who were entitled to vote as freeholders,
copyholders, and leaseholders who were rated between those
two amounts, and on the best calculations they were able to
make that number was not less than 60 per cent., which
would make a deduction of 196,411. That made 257,000 to
be deducted from 415,000, which left an estimated addition
to the county electors of 157,779. Adding that number to
the borough constituency, they obtained a total of about
321,000, and putting the addition to both the county and
the borough constituencies at the highest estimate, the ad-
dition by the present bill would be short 400,000. He had
stated that the increase in the number of the borough elec-
tors by the original Reform Act was not great. 'With regard
to the county constituencies the original Reform Act pro-
posed no change, except as to copyholders. It contem-
plated substantially the retention of the old constituency,
but a clause was introduced in committee, known as the
Cha.ndos clause, which gave a vote to occupiers paying a
rent of above £5O, and that was the only enlargement
which the county franchise underwent. The next object
which this bill had in view was the disfranchisement of
certain boroughs and the transfer of seats. A complaint
had been made that this measure was deficient in that re-
spect, and undoubtedly it did not go the length that the
bill of 1831 did, But the circumstances of the country with

regard to small boroughs were entirely altered since that
period. At that period—there was a considerable num
ber of boroughs that were close in the strictest sense

of the word. They had scarcely any voters, and what

:hey had were absolutely dependent on the patron of the

borough. He would call the attention of the house to the
condition of a few of these boroughs. In Banbury the
number of voters was 18 ; in Bramber, 17 ; in Buckingham,
13 ; Calne, 19 ; Gatton, 7 ; Launceston, 17 ; Malmesbury,
13 ; Marlborough, 11; and tit. Michael's, Old Sarum, Win-
chester, and Yarmouth, 7 voters a piece. There was no

borough at present in the condition that those boroughs
were in at that time. At present there were small boroughs

under the influence of one or several persons, but there was
not a single borough in which, where there was a strong
popular feeling, the electors might not if they thought fit
exercise the franchise in the choice of a representative. The
four smallest boroughs in England were Arundel, Ashbur-
ton, Honiton, and Lowth, and the electors on the register

of those boroughs wore 951. The house would see that no-
thing could be more delusive than to put on the same foot-
ing the nomination boroughs of 1830 with the nomination
boroughs of the present day. Her Majesty's Government
thought it best not to propose disfranchisement on a large
scale, and in selecting the places for disfranchisement they
followed the example of the bill of the late Government, of

which they had heard so much of late from gentlemen who
he should have thought would not have been great ad •
mirers of it. They had followed the principle adopted in
that bill of drawing a line of population, and of diafranchis-

ing one member of all the boroughs beyond that line. There
were strong grounds for adopting that course, and one was
that although it included 25 boroughs, there was, for the
most part a remarkable uniformity in all the boroughs be-
low the line of a population of 7,000. In order to explain
that he would call the attention of the house to the four
boroughs which in 1831 had more than 6,000 and less than
7,000 inhabitants. These were Devizes, Chippenham, Hunt-
ingdon, and Ripon. Those were included in the list to be
disfranchised. Devizes had in the register of last year,
omitting freemen, 337 electors; Chippenham, 375; Hunt-
ingdon, 335; Ripon, 343. He would now take four boroughs
having a population of from 4,000 to 5,000 inhabitants.
Those were Leominster, with 385 electors ; Richmond, 338
electors ; Harwich, 316 ; and Totnes, 314. Therefore there
was a considerable uniformity of character with regard to
the number of electors in the boroughs below the line of
7,000, notwithstanding the diversity of their popula-
tion. It might also be perceived that amongst the boroughs
returning one member there were several as large, at least
having as many electors as those that returned two mem-
bers. These included Liskeard, with 437 electors ; Laun-
ceston, 430 ; Horsham, 380 ; Thirsk, 449 ; Reigate, 388 ;
Honiton, 283 ; Thetford, 217; Wells, 257 ; Andover, 247 ;
and Knaresborongh, 266. The result, therefore, was, that
with regard to boroughs having a population of less than
7,000, there was no remarkable diversity, and it might be
considered a fair and equitable measure to place them all
on the same level of returning one member. But then the
hon. member for Marylebone said, there was an absurd re-
sult to which this rule led, inasmuch as there were some
towns with a larger population than 7,000 which had a
smaller number of electors than those which were below
7,000, and the inference which he appeared to draw was,
that they ought to have taken as a test of disfranchisement,
not population, but the number of electors. But if that
test had been taken, they would have been told that pre-
cisely the same absurdity existed with regard to popula-
tion, and they would have been asked why they did not
take the population instead of the number of electors.
Whatever rule was laid down it would be open to the same
objection. Besides it must be borne in mind that the object
of the bill was to alter the number of electors ; and no ar-
gument could, therefore, be alleged against the scheme of
disfranchisement on the ground of the present number of
voters in any of the partially disfranchised towns. On the
whole he was satisfied that the house would find, when it
came to discuss the details of the measure in committee, that
there was no alternative which it could adopt in preference
to the principle on which her Majesty's Government had
prepared their schedule. The main groundupon which that
schedule was to be defended was that there would be ne
considerable unenfranchised place left after the passing of
this bill. No doubt there were unrepresented towns with
a population larger than some towns which returned mem-
bers, but judging of each on its own merits he was satisfied
that there was no place not included in the Govern-
ment list for which a case could be made out
on any ground of public policy for giving it a member.
It would no doubt be said that there were many towns to
which additional members ought to be assigned. They
would be asked, for instance, why they did not give a third
seat to the Tower Hamlets, or a second to Salford ? If those
constituencies stood alone he should not be prepared to deny
their claims to more members. But they could not be taken
as isolated communities. The Tower Hamlets were a part
of the metropolis, and the question was could they consider
the metropolis as a whole to be inadequately represented ?
He did not say that the house might not on that point re-
verse the decision of the Government; but that decision
had at all events been advisedly come to. After a full exami-
nation of all the facts of the case, the Government thought
that the metropolis did not require any additional members
beyond the two that were proposed to be given to the new
bormgh of Chelsea. With regard to the other instance he
had named, it was obvious that Salford was virtually apart
of Manchester; and if therefore the Government had pro-
posed that it should have a second member they would
have been met with the complaint, " You have given Man-
chester two new members and Birmingham only one."
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Leominster (Mr.
Hardy) said that these additional members would lead to
the adoption of plans proposed by the hon. member for
Birmingham, who wished to see the great towns have
six or eight members each, which the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Hardy) seemed to think would be the first step
on the way to perdition. But the house was too
much accustomed to that style of argument. The notion
that because they advanced a certain distance on a given
way they were bound to proceed to all the logical conse-
quences that such a step might, in the opinion of those who
took an extreme view involve, had been se much discredited
and exploded in that house, that it was scarcely worth the
hon. gentleman's while to bring it forward again. Besides
the hon. member who objected to the third member for
Manchester or Liverpool said nothing about the long list of
third members which Government proposed should be added
to the county constituencies. Still, if the house should think
the representation of any particular constituency insufficient,
the question was a perfectly fair one for the house to con-
sider ; and the decision of the Government might be altered
in committee. Before he sat down he must recur for a mo-
ment to what he had already stated. It seemed to him that
the present moment—being one of unexcited public opinion
and being fitted for calm deliberation within those walls,
and for a reasonable estimate of the measure throughout
the country—was peculiarly suited for the consideration of
a wholesome measure of parliamentary reform. He trusted
that, whatever might be the fate of the bill, it would at any
rate to fairly met in front, and that the house would have
a fair stand-up fight upon it. (Cheers.) He hoped that no
attempts would be made to defeat it by interposing delays,
by seeking to obstruct it by dilatory motions, or by at-
tempting to debate other measures at unnecessary length.
Although rumours of an intention to adopt that kind of
tactic, which ho would not dignify by calling it a "Fabian
policy," had reached him, he could not believe that any
large number of members would combine for the purpose of
carrying out a policy so ignoble, so little suited to the dig •
nity or the character of the house, and so little fitted for the
consideration of a measure of such first-rate importance.
Although the session had now made some progress, let it be
observed that even if the bill should not go into committee
before Whitsuntide, the whole month of June would be left
for its consideration, and if the devotion of almost every
Government night would not be enough for its subsequent
stages, it would be scarcely possible to conceive any time
sufficient to enable a measure even of its simplicity to re-
ceive the assent of that house. If their discussions were
finished by July there would be sufficient time for its con-
sideration by the House of Lords ; and it was, therefore,
impossible for any gentleman who looked at the state of the
session to say that there was not ample time for the due
consideration of the measure. He trusted, therefore, that
all dilatory motions would be avoided, and that the house
would give to the merits of the bill its most careful and
wasechanges
boundesor
deliberate attention. (Hear, hear.)
the
oo
Lord R. MONTAGU denied that the Conservative party
indiscriminateretfoorignisvainatnheoonetitutton.o
n opposition n
t t
contrary,
all
r 3,,
they would hail any reform that was calculated to impart
to it new vigour; but they were no doubt pledged to main-
tain that which they had received from their ancestors, and
to resist all revolutionary changes that might tend to sub-
vert or destroy tke balance of the constitution. He was
not prepared to deny that the Reform Act of 1832 did
great good ; but it did not
follow that an act which was at
one time beneficial might be beneficially repeated any
number of times
distant times. If a person were to settle in some
country, it might bo good for him . to
drain
sour
wet land, and to cut down his thick tangled
brushwood ;
but it did not follow that he should
go on draining till
his soil was parched and arid, o
trees till he had not left him a shelterfrromutttinheg down his
sun. (Hear, hear.) The Reform Act of 1832 waummer's
at a time of great disquiet. The French King:Car
passedc
had been hurled from his throne, and it was said that the
only chance of safety in this country was to make some
concession to popular opinion. The act could not be de-
fended on principle, because it was passed merely on the
ground of expediency. When the late Mr. Hume proposed,
in 1848, a resolution to make the representation more equal
to the population, the noble lord resisted that propositionon
the ground that it was essential that those who had votes
should be possessed of independence and intelligence; add-
ing that much corruption would arise from a want of intel-
ligence, which was necessary in a constituent body. The
bon. member for Birmingham also supported the theory of
representation according to population. The hon, gentle-
man seemed as though ho could apply to himself the lines

of Canning :
" Your boasted laws I hate and curse;
Bad from the first, they still grew worse;
I pant and sigh for universal suffrage."
No one' proposed to give votes to women and children, to
paupers and lunatics. But if they had a natural rig& to
the franchise, it was not in the power of legislation to de-
priVe them of it. But the fact was that Liberals shrunk
from carrying out their principles. If they took away some

members from the towns because they- were not large
enough, those members ought to be give7x to the counties
which were shown to be more populous than the boroughs.
Ily the present mode they were sayin ; that members of

parliament were worth a certain number of votes ; thenwhy
nbt have equal electoral districts at once He further con-
tended that the small boroughs always selected the best
members. (Much laughter.) There might be a few excep-
tions ; but those proved the rule. The lard -e boroughs ge

nerally elected declaimers—men conspicuous for their long

speeches. (Hear, hear.) For this purpose Ledru Rollin
in the year 1848, at Paris, said, " By all in eans avoid re-

turning men of ability and education." That was the case
with the large constituencies ; they liked men of medio-
crity, without originality or intellect. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was quite right in his remarks
on this subject. He showed that large constituencies had
rejected Burke, Macaulay, and Sir J. C. Hobhouse. The
latter was made War Minister, and immediately the consti-
tuency would have nothing more to do with him. It was
true, at any rate, that the constituencies of Birmingham,
Ashton, and Rochdale did not at the present day return
War Ministers. (Laughter.) But every man who had
brought himself into notice was liable to lose his seat for a
Large constituency. Let them look at tither countries to see
the effect of the democratic movement. In Sydney the
Speaker resigned in consequence of ill health, caused by the
long and noisy brawlings of the assembly; it was the same
in Melbourne, where a Government only went into office to
leave it again. Let them look at Mexico, and even the
United States, where the most violent outrages were com-
mitted, and vigilance committees had to be appointed to
preserve the public peace. It was the same in France at
the first Revolution, when the arietoeraey were destroyed,
and democracy merged into despotism. The bill would give
the constituencies such a power that the house would be
swayed by numbers without any regard whatever to the
importance-of the subject. Ever since the passing of the
Reform Bill, hon. members had become less honest, and
spoke and voted against their own convictions. That was
shown by the noble lord at the head of the Government in
his speech last year against the ballot; and he (Lord R.
Montagu) wished the ballot was applied to the present mea-
sure, for ho believed there would be only two to vote for it.
(A. laugh.) At present the vote of a clown had as much
weight as that of a Secretary of State, but was that right
or was it politic that a man of thought and education should
be placed on the same level in this manner with a boor. If
this bill passed, the names of Conservatives and Whigs
would be no more heard of—the floor of that house would
become an arena for the struggles of factions, and of scenes
like those presented in the Senate at Washington. (Hear.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY said hon. members opposite had
accused hon. members on his side of the house of cowardice,
because they were afraid to speak their opinions and op-
pose the noble lord. At all events he could promise them
that cowardice should not be his. But before he expressed
his own views on the bill, he must say that it appeared to
him the most extraordinary thing in the world that they
should hear so much eloquence and vituperation from hon.
members opposite, when all that eloquence and vituperation
' was to end in nothing. At the close of the debate, the
second reading was to be agreed to without a division. He
found himself as a Reformer placed in this position. He
could not agree to consider this as a Reform Bill. (Hear,
hear.) It had no pretence to be considered a Reform Bill
in the common acceptation of the term. (Hear,' hear.)
But it was a progressive bill, and therefore he was com-
pelled to give it his support. (Laughter on the Opposition
benches.) While he did so, however, he protested against
its being considered a "finality" measure, or a settlement
of the question for the next 20 or 25 years. (Hear, hear.)
The bill might be called a progressive measure, but, as a
Reform Bill, it was a most infinitesimal dose, and he ac-
cepted it like a globule from a homoeopathic practitioner—
he swallowed it without the slightest belief that it would do
him any good. (Laughter.) The measure appeared to him
deficient in those points which ought to have been attended
to in any bill professing to deal with the question of Re-
form. The first was the extension of the suffrage. The
bill made a class of men voters who were less calculated, if
that were possible, to withstand intimidation and corrup-
tion than the present constituencies. (Hear, hear.) 'While
at the same time it withheld from these new voters the only
protection which would enable them to act independently.
(Hear, hear.) He objected to this measure on precisely
the same ground in that respect as Lord Macaulay ob-
jected to the bill of 1832, because it did not give the poor
voter the protection of the ballot. The second deficiency
was the absence of any interference with the nomination
boroughs. The noble lord in this part of his measure had
not shown due consideration for the high character which
he had won for himself as a reformer; and for his own
part he repudiated the excuse made for him by
the hon. member for Birmingham, that he could not expect
to carry more than he proposed, as unworthy of the charac-
ter of the noble lord. Had he thrown himself more heartily
upon the country, and gone farther in dealing with these
nomination boroughs, he would have been supported. For
his own part he agreed with Lord Macaulay in thinking
that if these boroughs were to be maintained at all, it was
better that an old mound, or four old walls like Gratton or
Old Sarum, should return the members than that 150 per-
sons should be demoralised by being converted into a voting
machine to keep up the show of an election. The third
point in which the measure was defective was its failure to
deal with the tribunals of that house, appointed to try elec-
tion petitions. No eyetam had been a greater failure, or
cculd more urgently require alteration. The different con-
clusions come to in the reports of the election committees
was enough to make any one hold up his hand in surprise.
Different committees came to totally opposite conclusions
from apparently the souse facts. The noble lord had passed
that subject over entirely. He must say also, after briefly
touching upon these points, that the party which had given
its support to the noble lord—that was the most indepen-
dent section of the Liberal party—was placed in a most
painful position. (Laughter from the Opposition.) They
were placed in anything but a pleasant position when they
looked at this bill, and thought of the bill brought by
the right hone irable gentleman opposite, and which
they assisted the noble lord to throw out. (Cheers.)
The supporters of liberal measures in this country, looking
to the former acts of the noble lord, had placed their full
confidence in him, and looked upon him as the man who
was to obtain for them a still larger share of political
power. And now he would ask the hon. gentleman whe-
ther they were not in a position to say—" What went ye
forth to see ? " The distinction between parties in that
house was abolished, and they must all go to the country
together as a jolly set of Reformers. (Laughter.) That
was felt from tne end of the country to the other, and he
could say that there was no particular feeling towards the
bill, except that the people were willing to accept it as an
instalment of what was due to them, since they found they
could get nothing better. For the noble lord's own sake,
would it had been more worthy their acceptance. The noble
lord, he grieved to say, after having commenced his career
in Brobdignag, was ending it at Lilliput. (Cheers and
laughter.) The noble lord, however, was deserving of all
thanks and praise from the party for whom he had done so
much. His morning of life was full of promise, and his
noontide was not less brilliant; but his evening sun was
setting in dark and watery clouds. The claims which the
noble lord had upon the gratitude of the country it was im-
possible to forget, and the only regret that his name would
hereafter excite would be, that the end of his career did not
stand out as boldly and as nobly as its commencement.
(Cheers.)
Lord ROBERT CECIL hoped the house would be cau-
tious before they transferred political power into the hands
of a class not prepared for it. If they did, the step would be
irrevocable and the consequences irreparable. (Hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES thought the measure quite consistent
with the ancient constitution of this country, and those
great principles which in that house had been so ably advo-
cated by eminent statesmen on former occasions. He
wished the bill to go into committee, and when it did he
should move a clause giving the suffrage to members of
Universities, Inns of Court, and other scientific and learned
bodies. (Hear, hear.) If by the proposed enlargement of
the suffrage respectable and intelligent artizans were sent
into that house he for one would be. glad to welcome them
—(hear, hear)—and he was sure their opinions would be
heard with respect and received with deference. (Hear.)
He did not believe that the bill was likely to effect any very
great change. He would accept it simply as it stood, be-
lieving that it would tend to the development of the political
education of the country, and that no danger could arise
from it, he would give it his cordial support. (Hear.)
Mr. PEACOCKE dissented from the doctrine laid down
by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckingham-
shire, that minorities should not be represented in that
house. The object of the constitution was to obtain the
representation of every class. (Hear.) He believed the
Reform Bill of the right hon. gentleman was a mistake,
being based on uniformity of suffrage. Such language was
not the language of the British constitution, and should
not be held by a great conservative party. The great fault
of the present Reform Bill was, that it substituted a uni-
form suffrage of £6 for a uniform suffrage of £lO. Fur his
own part he wished to see as great a variety of suffrage as
possible.
Mr. 'THOMPSON trusted that the bill would become
law during the present session.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said that when the house went into
committee he would propose that the schedules of the bill
for 1851 should be adopted. If this proposal was not
adopted he would vote against the third reading, and if the
bill was sent up to the House of Lords he hoped it would be
rejected by them. The measure would not extend the
county constituencies in the same way that it proposed to
extend the borough constituencies.
- Mr. BLACK moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord PALMERSTON expressed his readiness to assent
to the motion, and observed that, as several orders stood
for discussion to-morrow, and as it was not desirable that
the debate on the Reform Bill should be resumed at the
fag-end of the evening, he should suggest its adjournment
until Thursday, when he hoped it would be brought to a
close. (Cries of "No," and laughter.) He could not help
thinking that to seek to delay the progress of the bill was
hardly a worthy mode of dealing with a great question
with respect to which it was announced that no division
was to be taken. (Hear, hear.) If the case were other-
wise, and it was proposed that the second reading of the
bill should not be acceded to, he could, of course, under-

stand wily hon. gentlemen should desire that the debate
shouldre-prOTOriged.

Mr. DISRAELI thought the noble lord acted wisely in
assenting to the adjournment of the debate until Thursday.
As to whether it could conveniently be brought to a close on
that day the noble lord was, of course, as good a judge as
any hon. member on the Opposition side of the house could
be supposed to be, inasmuch as those who sat on the same
side as the noble lord had hitherto taken the chief share in
the discussion. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The noble
lord did not, he was sure, when he spoke of delay mean to
make any personal or party allusion ; but he must remind
the noble lord that he seemed altogether to misapprehend
the character of a discussion which he (Mr. Disraeli) had,
he believed, commenced about six weeks ago. (A laugh.)
He had then stated, for his own part, and on behalf of
those with whom he acted, that they would not object to
the second reading of the Bill, but in making that state-
ment he had by no means intended to express his approval
of the measure. All he wished to imply was simply that
in assenting to the second reading they were willing to con-
sider the subject of the reconstruction of the House of Com-
mons and the principle on which that reconstruction should
proceed. He, therefore, desired that the noble lord should
clearly understand that, in speaking on behalf of himself
and his friends—the noble lord could, of course, answer for
' his own—(a laugh)—he did not seek for delay, but by a full
discussion of all the principles involved in the Bill so to
prepare themselves to deal with a question of immense im-
portance that when they went into committee upon it the
mind of the house and the country might be fitted to
grapple with it as it deserved, and that hon. members
might not be then compelled to launch into serious and
lengthened discussions, but, having cleared the way by pre-
liminary debate, might be enabled to proceed with greater
facility than would otherwise be the case. He, therefore,
begged the noble lord not for one moment to imagine that
delay was the object of the Conservative party, while, of
course, it would be presumptuous on his part to touch
upon the question of what were the wishes in the matter of
the supporters of the Government. (Laughter.) He and
his friends desired, in short, not delay, but that deep and
deliberate investigation of a great subject which was in
accordance with the freedom of discussion by which the
Parliament of England was characterised. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK had on a previovs occasion protested
against the practice of the two front benches making
arrangements as to when a debate should close. He had
flattered himself, from the feeling then expressed, that
should the attempt ever be repeated he should be able, with
the support of a large number of independent members, to
put a stop to a practice alike irregular and unconstitutional.
He was surprised the noble lord should again have made a
proposal of that kind. He had several times attempted, but
in vain, to catch the Speaker's eye ; and he conceived he
should only be exercising the indisputable right of an inde-
pendent member if he did his best to prevent the debate from
being brought to a termination till he had had full and
ample opportunity—(laughter)—of expressing his opinion
on the measure before them. The noble lord appeared, also,
to have fallen into another mistake ; he had assumed, be-
cause he had settled it with the right hon. member for
Bucks, that there would be no division on the second read-
ing. It was not in the power of any member to say that no
division should betaken. He concurred entirely with the
right hon. gentleman when he said, on behalf of that side
of the house, that what they sought was discussion, not
delay. The noble lord's objection to a full discussion and hilt
anxiety that it should close, seemed to indicate that he be-
gan to doubt whether the measure of his Government had
gained much credit since the discussion began. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that his noble friend had in-
tended the front benches to agree as to the debate coming
to a close. He had only put it to the consideration of the
house whether it might not think it convenient the debate
should terminate on Thursday. There was a very great
convenience in members knowing when a debate was
likely to come to an end. Of another observation of the
honourable gentleman he must take some notice. lie
stated that his noble friend had assumed from what had
passed in this discussion that there was to be no division
against the second reading. The debate had lasted three or
four nights; and it would certainly be usual, and due in
courtesy, not only to the Government, but to the house,
that if any hon. gentleman intended to divide against the
second reading some notice should be given of that inten-
tion. (Hear.) It should be publicly known, or many mem-
bers might be absent in the country, or, if in London,
might stay away from the house under the conviction that
no division would take place ; and then a division
might be taken by surprise when least expected.
This was not usual even as to measures of minor import-
ance, and certainly not on a measure so important as the
present bill. The hon. gentleman had a perfect right to
express his sentiments at any length he thought proper;
but, according to the practice of the house and by courtesy,
if a division was to be taken, some notice of it should be
given.

Lord C. HAMILTON agreed with the noble lord as to
the inconvenience caused to distant members by sudden
changes in the course of public business. He thanked the
noble lord for laying down a rule, which in one case ho cer-
tainly forgot.
Mr. FELLOWES protested against any understanding
being entered into that the debate should close on Thurs-
day.

Mr. KNIGHTLEY.denied that the members on the Op-
position side of the house were responsible for the frequent
delays of the bill before Easter for other business far less
important.
Mr. SCULLY said that no Irish member had yet been
heardin the debate, and if any Irish member spoke late on
Thursday he ought not to be charged with causing delay,
or raising a factious opposition. It was not a mere English
bill, for the decision on it would be conclusive as to the bill
for Ireland ; and every one was interested when his neigh-
bour's house was on fire. (Laughter.) He approved the
principle of the bill—an extension of the franchise ; but if
a division were taken against it, he would not bind himself
to declare that the measure was satisfactory to the country.
Believing as he did that the suffrage could hardly be ex-
tended too far, he would vote for the bill, but he must pro-
test against its being considered a final measure. (Hear.)
The debate was then adjourned till Thursday.
REPEAL OF PAPER DUTY.
The Paper Duty Bill was considered as amended.
CUSTOMS BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
the house went into committee on the Customs Bill, but
dissatisfaction being indicated by hon. members the right
hon. gentleman immediately moved that the chairman re-
port progress.
The Chairman was accordingly ordered to report pro-
gress, and the house resumed.
SUPPLY.

The report of the Committee of Supply was brought up
and agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the committal
pro forma of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill; with a
view to the introduction of certain amendments.
The bill passed through committee.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL
On the motion of Mr. CARDWELL the second reading of
this bill was postponed.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND.)
This bill was read a second time.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES, &c., BILL.

The adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill
was postponed till Monday next.
COMPANIES BILL.
• This bill passed through committee pro forma.
FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
The Petitions of Right Bill as amended, was considered.
CHURCH-RATES ABOLITION BILL.

Mr. DILLWYN (in the absence of Sir J. Trelawny)
moved that the order of the day for the third reading of the
Church-rates Abolition Bill have precedence of notiees of
motions upon Friday next.
The motion was agreed to.
The house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

Feb. 11, March 10,
1860. 1860. Increase. Decrease.
Bank of England 21,735,265 20,717,800 1,017,465
Private Banks 3,504,181 1,376,819 127,562
Joint-stock Banks 2,977,034 2,946,330 30.704
Total in England 28,216,6801 27,040,949 1,175,731
Scotland.
4,001,977 122,(129
Ireland 7,353,714' 7 204 462 149,282
United Kingdom 39,693,0301 38,217,388 I 1,447,64

And as compared with the month ending the 12th March 2
1859, the above returns show an increase of £300,406
in the circulation of notes in England, and an increase of
£791,426 in the circulation of the United Kingdom.
On comparing the above with the fixed issues of the sew.-
ral banks the following is the state of the circulation :
rhe English private banks are below their fixed
issue
The English joint-stock banks aro below their
fixed issue

Total below fixed issue in England £1,384,143
The Scotch banks are above their fixed issue £1,252,706
The Irish banks are above their fixed issue £849,968
The average stock of bullion held by the Bank of Eng-
land in both departments during the month ending the 7th
March, was £15,162,331, being a decrease of £178,522 as
compared with the previous month, and a decrease of
£1,721,508 when compared with the same period lass year.
The following are the amounts of specie held by the Scotch
and Irish banks during the month ending the 10th March :
Gold and silver held by the Scotch banks £2,624,584
Gold and silver held by the Irish banks 2,746,601

• £5,371,185
Being a decrease of £70,418, as compared with the
previous return, and an increase of £398,544 when compared
with the corresponding period of last year.