The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12, 1867.

e had to consider what course to take
the Conservative Part
uy the question again. I
if Lord Lord J. Russell show]
talieb
say that wa. a subject which was considered by
lieve I may
the most eminent and b ailing men—many now departed or
lost to us—men held in the highest honour for their integ-
ritypublic spirit, liter the late Duke of Richmond, Mr.
Banks,and
and others whoa at in this house—and many who
still live and were in int ln sate communication with Lord
Derby, and they came to the resolution that if Lord J.
Russell gave up the Act oil' '32, nothing would induce them
to take up opposition to I'a: rliamentary Reform. And their
course has been consistent: _throughout. There never was a
bill brought forward of an,y importance in its details of
which the second reading wa .s opposed by us. I think I have
traced the question now r.t least to the relinquishment of
finality, and I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me
that there was no appeal new° of Reform being made a
party question until that p od. Many hon. members who
sat in the house at that tin as are familiar with what took
place with regard to those b, Ile. Now, sir, there is no man
whose opinions on Parliaine citary Reform arc spoken of
with more levity than Lord. Talmerst ou. One would con-
clude that Lord Pahuerstou. Was unquestionably very Con-
servative in his principles, that he was entirely opposed to
any change in our Parliamentary Constitution, and that it
was only for political convenience, and in order to make
necessary arrangements for his indispensable colleagues—
(laughter)--that he ever consented to the introduction of any
measures of Reform. Now, there is not the slightest foun-
dation for any such conclusion. In 1857 Lord Palmerston
was at the culminating point of his power. He hed then
dissolved PUrliament on the China vote, he had scattered
all his enemies—the Whigs, even those who afterwards
became his friends. (Laughter.) The Opposition, with
which I was connected, suffered, but probably less than
most portions of the house, in that penal dissolution. Lord
J. Russell, a great authority in this question, only obtained
the representation of the City of London almost as au act of
courtesy, and the most powerful leaders now on the subject
of Parliamentary Reform lost their seats in this house on
that occasion. (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston had, accordingly,
an indisputable majority. He had none in his Cabinet at
that moment—though all men whom he respected—in a
position to dictate a policy to Lord Palmerston. The house
met in the autumn of 1857 ; Lord Palmerston had, there-
fore, prepared his schemes, it was absolutely unnecessary
for him to introduce the question of Parliamentary Reform,
and yet Lord Palmerston recommended it in the Speech from
the Throne. What happened in 1858 ? Lord Palmerston,
who was supposed to be a Minister supported by the most
powerful majority that ever appeared in Parliament, sud-
denly lost his pride of place. Within 12 months of the dis-
solution, and when Lord Palmerston left office, he was so
sensible that " some settlement"—as tho fashionable phrase
was then—was required, that he said if his successor, Lord
Derby, would give his earnest attention to the subject, and
if he should feel it his duty to bring forward a mode-
rate, well-considered measure, he might be certain it would
receive from him a fair and candid consideration. Well,
sir, Lord Derby did not conceive in those days that Par-
liamentary Reform was exactly a question on which, if he
brought forward a measure, he could count upon any en-
thusiastic support. All parties had not then tried their hand
in vain ; and no circumstances had then occurred which
could justify a Minister in advising the Crown to appeal to
Parliament to consider this question not as a party question.
Lord Derby, however, did think that ho was not put-
ting too favourable an interpretation upon an undertaking
that his efforts should receive a fair and candid considera-
tion, when he concluded that if he did bring forward a
measure, prepared with great care and labour, it should at
least be read a second time, and receive a fair consideration
from Parliament. (Hear.) But that did not prove to bo the
case. Notwithstanding this declaration of Lord Palmer-
ston, and notwithstanding the efforts that Lord Palmer-
ston made, the House of Commons set at defiance his autho-
rity, and a private member brought forward an amendment
which gave a totally different colour to the conduct of the
house. And who was that individual? Why, it was Lord
John Russell. (Hear, hear.) Lord John Russell then sat
below the gangway; ho was not a member of the Govern-
s:resit that had retired from office; he was not then a
proximate Minister. Ho occupied, indeed, a commanding
position, such as a man of his great achievements, high
character, and great talents always would command in this
louse ; but ho was then in the position of a private
member of Parliament. Well, the House of Commons
followed Lord John Russell, so that it was again the
House of Commons that came forward, and by that vote
made it, I say, a party question. (Cheers.) I do not
object to the conduct of Lord John Russell. I ant not con-
tending about the decision which the House arrived at, as
far as the decision itself was concerned, on the Bill of 1859 ;
but this I do say; that it was a very great responsibility on
the part of the House of Commons to throw out that Bill,
and then, when they had forced a change of Ministry, to
-be unable to carry their opinions into effect. (Cheers.)
Sir, I have thus shown that the position of the House of
Commons with regard to this question of Parliamentary
Reform is different from that which exists between the
House generally and all other great questions, which are
introduced and initiated in this House by a body of men
who are in the possession of office, or who are candidates
for office, and who, therefore, ought not to shrink from the
responsibility of carrying their opinions into effect. I
have shown that the House of Commons, as regards the
present Ministry and that particular subject, is in a very
perplexing position, and this position increases its respon-
sibility. For, with the greatest respect—without the
slightest desire of giving offence to any member of the
House, which would be foreign to my nature—l must at
once say that the country upon this question cannot beara
repetition of the manoeuvres of 1859. (Loud cheers.) It
cannot endure that a measure should be" thrown out upon
some cunning orcaptious point of detail (cheers and counter
cheers), and that then those who have incurred the respon-
sibility should shrink from fulfilling their duty by carrying
a measure on this subject. (Hear.) Well, then, we have to
consider under these difficult circumstances what is the
course that we ought to undertake; and, Sir, it does
appear to us—considering that the House of Commons
itself disturbed the settlement of 1832, considering that
the House itself on five different occasions baffled the
efforts of five Governments to secure that re-settlement
which they have rendered necessary, considering also
that with regard to those who at present sit on these
benches the house have prevented any measure which they
' brought forward from being submitted to criticism in de-
, tail by allowing it to go into committee, and while taking
that course have been unable to fulfil the expectations of
the country wh en they acceded to power—it does seem to
us that in a position of so much difficulty it is wise to re-
flect whether there is not some course that should be pur-
sued which, without shrinking from the due responsibility
of Ministers, would, at least, insure the house upon this
question from such unfortunate misha.ps as have on previous
occasions been experienced by Governments that have at-
tempted to deal with this question. (Hear, hear.) It does
seem to us that this is, from the causes that I have recapi-
tulated, ono of those cases of great difficulty—no doubt, and
surrounded by circumstances of exigency which cannot be
denied—which have been contemplated by the wisdom of
our parliamentary practice, and that we aro pursuing only
a constitutional course when we presume to recommend to
the house that before we introduce a bill we may be per-
mitted, upon its main principles, and upon other points of
great and paramount importance, to ask the opinion of the
house, and see whether they will sanction the course which
we recommend. (Cheers.) That, sir, is a course which we
believe to be, under the circumstances, strictly constitu-
tional. It is a course which wo believe ought not to be
resorted to unless the circumstances are circumstances of
exigency, and when we appeal to the house to permit us
to adopt that course, we say, without thrusting our in-
dividual feelings upon the house, that in taking that course
- we are impelled by a pure sense of public duty as ever
influenced any body of men. (Cheers.) Sir, I will not
notice the first and sovereign objection which may be urged
under ordinary circumstances to a proposition of pro-
ceeding by way of resolution in this house, because, if the
circumstances to which I have now fully adverted, if the
relations of the house to the subject of Parliamentary Re-
form, if the necessity of bringing this question to a settle-
ment, are not sufficient, I have no arguments to urge. But
there are other objections to that course which have been
offered, and on which for a moment I will dwell. It is said
that there are disadvantages in proceeding by way of reso-
lution, independent of the great constitutional objection
which nothing but exigency could override, and the first is
that to proceed by resolutions induces delay. Well, sir,
in answer to that I say, with groat respect, that I do not
think proceeding by resolutions does induce delay. (Hear.)
I have no doubt that there may be circumstances in which
neon, or even the house, not unwilling to trifle with a ques-
tion, might lose a great deal of time upon resolutions, and
take steps which would make consequent legislation im-
possible, at least for that session. But, sir, assuming a case
such as the existing. case, and that the resolutions are
brought forward by a Ministry as the basis of legislation,
to which they will bei
s. prepared to proceed when the reso-
lutions are passed, cannot myself believe that there is
anything oven in the theory of resolutions which leads to
delay. It is very true that you seem to do twice what un-
der ordinary circumstances it might be necessary only to do
once ; but then the house knows very well that the discus-
sions on principles which take placi upon the
seconde read-
jog of a bill, and upon all the various amendments
opposition in the case of public measures g'v'e-opptos whichrti
opportunity
for—that all those discussions are anticipated by then d'l
sions on resolutions, and that you may Pr
very well pair the
discussions upon resolutions against the discussions
upon
all tilt) vital points of a measure. Practically, moreover,
I do not find that proceeding by resolutions upon great and
important subjects, where otherwise thet • would bo circum-
stances of great difficulty, has led to delay. The instances
are not numerous, because the house has rarely adopted that
inetholeind of course I am only referring to circumstances of
an extraordinary character, not to cases where we aro obliged
by the orders of the house to have recourse to it ; but oa
looking over the few instances that are recorded in the
journals of the house it does not appear to me that pro-
ceeding by resolutions has induced delay. Of this, at least,
1 alp certain, that it has, I think, in every instance been
followed by successful legislation, and that, generally speak-
ing—indeed, with scarcely an exception—in the very year
in which the resolutions have been brought forward. The
case of the India resolutions is the last instance, and one
with which we are all familiar; but I may remi4cl those

who were not then members of the house that there was
a very strong struggle upon that measure. In that case,
if my memory is not incorrect, between the passing of the
last resolution and the third reading of the India Bill the
interval was only a month. (Cheers.) Therefore, Ido not
think that the house upon reflection will object to proceed
by resolution on the groundless assumption that it will
produce delay, if the house should agree to the principles
I have previously put forward, that there are circumstances
of extraordinary exigency which necessitate that course.
Then it is said that resolutions are vagu3. Well, sir, I
admit that resolutions must be vague to a certain extent
and in a certain sense. If you would produce resolutions
with all the precision of clauses in a bill, there would not
be the slightest necessity to go into committee on resolu-
tions. The object of resolutions is to obtain the opinion
of the house upon the main principles on which your
measure should be founded ; and, upon all other questions
in which the main principles are not concerned, but which
aro of great importance, to obtain the opinion of the
house, and defer to that opinion if it does net approve
them. With regard to the application of the princ'ples to
details, of course it would be the duty of the Government
to submit with-pleasure and readiness to all suggestions
made by the house which might lead to a more perfect
and complete measure. Well, sir, upon the ground of
delay, I trust that our course will not be opposed. With
regard to the vagueness of resolutions, I will say this,
that if a Ministry are resolved, if the resolutions are car-
ried,to introduce a bill, there is no body of men more inte-
rested in the precision of the resolutions than the Govern-
ment itself. It is not our interest to bring forward vague
resolutions. We want to get from the house such a sanc-
tion of our views, and such assistance by the expression of
their own, as that we can bring in a bill which will pass
with promptitude. And, therefore, these vague resolutions
are exactly what we should avoid, as they would not assist
us in our course. I want to meet this question fairly, be-
cause I am sure it will facilitate our future course if we can
arrive as soon as possible, and as much as possible, at a
mutual understanding. I will take one of the most diffi-
cult questions which can occur in the resolutions. Our
first resolution probably must refer to the extension of the
suffrage. Well, if I bring forward a resolution which merely
declares that it is expedient that there should be an exten-
sion of the suffrage in counties and boroughs, I should call
that a vague resolution. (A laugh, and hear, hear.) The
house is agreed, and has agreed, not only in this but in
preceding houses, and in an unmistakeable manner, that
there should be a considerable extension of the suffrage in
counties and boroughs ; but the house, certainly not this
house, has never yet formally stated the mode by which the
extension should take place. But if a resolution is brought
forward proposing the mode by which extension should take
place, either by the creation of other franchises or the re-
duction of existing tenures of franchise, why then you have
a resolution which advances the question. If, however,
I am asked, as I am told I shall be asked, whether it is
not useless to bring forward resolutions on such a question
as the franchise without defining and describing minutely
the qualification, then I say that is an unreasonable condi-
tion. (Cheers.) I say it is an unreasonable condition, be-
cause it is a condition which it is impossible for any Go-
vernment to comply with. If you come forward with a re-
solution which declares that it is expedient the franchise
should be extended by a reduction—that is a principle
which when laid down cannot be misunderstood. But how
are you to settle the amount of the franchise ? Take your
borough franchise—how can you fix in your resolution,
even if you agree to the principle of the extension of the
franchise, the amount of your franchise, when that must de-
pend upon principles not less important than the extension
of the franchise? (Cheers.) I wish to illustrate this
point. The amount of the franchise depends upon many
considerations, but it depends mainly upon one principle
of the greatest importance, and that is a principle on which
this house has given an equivocal and ambiguous decision;
yet without a right appreciation and a clear conception of
which it is impossible to make any proposal to the house
which can lead to a practical result. I mean the basis
Ivor which your franchise shall rest, namely, theFire-
ciple of rating. (Hear, hoar.) Until you decide what
shall be the basis of your franchise, and, if you fix upon
rating as the basis of your franchise, until the House of
Commons has in a clear and ambiguous manner decided
that point, how is it possible in a resolution to come
forward and recommend a particular franchise ? I put
this forward because it is an important point which
may be thrown in our teeth ii we do not propose a re-
solution in which the exact character of the borough
franchise is defined. It may be said that we aro trilling
with the subject, but I say that it is utterly impossible if
you proceed by resolution. You must have a resolution
to decide whether the basis of your franchise is to be rating
or not. (Hear, hoar.) I will not trouble the house with
too many details of the character of the resolutions, which
if the house will give me the opportunity 1 intend to pro-
pose. They will be, I hope, in the hands of members to-
morrow morning; but, perhaps, the house will permit me
to advert to °me or two points upon which I think it highly
important this house should come to a clear and unequivocal
decision. And I must say that I ant anxious the house
shall decide what principles they mean to reconstruct the
house of Commons. Do they mean to reconstruct it on the
principles of the English Constitution—(hear, hear)—or do
they mean to reconstruct it on the principles of the Consti-
tution of any other country ? (Cheers.) I think it very im-
portant that this question shall be decided. Now, sir, her
Majesty's Government intend, if they can, and if this house
will allow them, to reconstruct this house on the principles
of the English Constitution. (Cheers.) I will not advert
to any remarks which I may have made before on that
subject, or, at least, I should like not to advert to them,
because it: is painful to repeat oneself, hut it is better to be
wearisome than to be ambiguous on this subject. We
think that the English Constitution is not a mere phrase.
We believe that we live under a monarchy, modified in its
action by the co-ordinate authority of the Estates of the
Realm, and we look upon the Commons of England, whom
we represent, as one of those Estates. Sir, I know it has
been said that this is merely an archaeological view of the
Constitution of England—(a laugh)—but I think I can
show the house that they will be very unwise if they quit
without duo consideration the ancient traditions of the
polity under which they live, and under which this country
has so singularly flourished. Undoubtedly, under the great
vicissitudes of centuries, the relations between the Estates
of the Realm in this country have greatly altered and
changed. No doubt the Commons whom we represent
have absorbed the greater part of the authority which
those Estates once themselves exercised ; but I think I can
show the house that this is no reason why we should for-
get the constitutional scheme under which this country has
so long prospered, but rather, if deeply and fairly consi-
dered, why we should cling to that scheme as our only
surviving guide against the impending perplexities that
surround us. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the Commons of.
England, by the immense increase of population and pro-
perty, have assumed a character with reference to the other
Estates which never was contemplated in the days of the
Plautagenets and the Tudors. It is a very great error to
suppose that it is merely the increase of population and
property on the part of the Commons which has brought
about the present form of the English Constitution and the
present character and functions of the House of Commons.
Take one of these Estates. Take the peerage of England.
I That is a powerful body. It is probably the wealthiest as-
sembly in the world,and it possesses particularly the kind of
property which is most popular in England, because it is
a tenure connected with the fulfilment of duties - I mean
the land. Nor are the power and influence of the peerage
to bo measured by their property. Their social influence—
I use the word in a large sense—their national influence, is
very great. I have often myself felt that the power of the
peerage is greater in every part of Englund than in their
own House. What, then, has placed the Commons of Eng-
land in the commanding position which they now occupy ?
It is the development of our financial Constitution. It is
the claim we asserted two centuries ago- partially recog-
nised then, and now completely established, which has
practically placed in this house the taxing power. That is
the cause of the position and character of the Commons of
England. The moment that power was established, every
class, every interest in this country, sought representation
iu this house, and naturally, because in this house alone
can thee'y defend their rights and their property. (Hear.)
People complain of the influence, the undue influence of
the Peerage, in the House of Commons. Why, sir, the
influence of the Peerage in the House of Commons is not a
usurpation of our rights ; it is a deference to our authority.
(Cheers.) And so it is with all interests. Here they come
because here power is reposed, and it is hereonly that they
can be guarded in respect to the exercise of that power by
the presence of their representativse. The consequence is
that every class and every interest has sought, and to a
certain degree has obtained, representation in this house.
That is the cause of the variety of our character. But is
it the variety of our character that has given us our delibe-
rative power ? (Hear, hear.) It is our deliberative power
that has given us our hold upon the executive—(hear)—
and it is this hold upon the executive which is the best, aye
the only, security for the freedom we enjoy. (Cheers.) Well
Sir, her Majesty's Government can counsel and counte-
nance no course that will change that varied character of
the House of Commons—(hear)—they will respect and
reverence the causes which have elevated a rude popular
assembly of the days of the. Plantagenets into a Senate
which commands the admiration of the world. (Cheers)
We do not find that there is any security for retaining that
character unless we oppose a policy which gives to any
class in this country—l care not whether it be high or low,
whether it be influenced by a democratical or by au oligar-
chical feeling—a preponderant power in this house.
(Cheers.) And therefore, in any measures that we may
bring forward, we shall assert that the elective franchise
must be regarded as a popular privilege, and not as a de-
mocratic right. (Hear, hear.) If, sir, we wanted to see
what are the consequences of allowing one class in a popu-
lar ssembly
(tlih
eteoawrh,oarhvl
edea
at
y)
tpnireenppeorvneesdreenpr atrtetisininugme influence, what is
nistnfrucirtiftuiclisoef
tihne-
passtruseintigoni.n
institutions of other States. Indeed, I hold, and hold most
sincerely,
everytryann nas a general principle, that the institutions of
are pretty well adapted to the population
who live under them. But take the instence of our nearest
neighbour. There is France, in the very van of civilisa-
tion, perhaps—if I were not in the House of Commons and
in England, I might °you venture to say—the first of E uro-

pean nations, inferior to none in vivacity of mind, in acute
intellect, in wonderful perseverance, and in that patriotic
feeling which always follows. Well, in France, this
gifted nation has a popular assembly, and it is elected
by universal suffrage. Does any one pretend that the Legis-
lative Assembly of France is equal, I will not say merely in
European, but in cosmopolitan, consideration to the House
of Commons ? (Cheers.) If there be any Englishman who
thinks that the Legislative Assembly of France can claim
that position, I am sure there is noFrenchman who does so.
(Laughter and cheers.) Butit may be asserted that our in-
stitutions are not sufficiently representative to suit the ad-
vanced state of our race, and that the constitution of France
was suddenly and rudely invented under circumstances of
disorder and disturbance. (Rear, hear.) Well, let us take
the case of the United States of America. There you have
a House of Representatives, framed by the children of our
loins, and certainly under the inspiration of as pure a pat-
riotism as over existed. It is elected by universal suffrage.
But does any one contend that the House of Representa-
tives at Washington can equal in authority the House of
Commons ? (Hear, hear.) And what is the cause of this?
Why, no doubt the American nation is inferior to us in no
point ; it is of the same blood, the same brains, the same
intelligence, of equal energy, perhaps of more enterprise;
but the house is elected by one class—(cheers); there is no
variety in it. And so the Legislative Assembly of America
like that of France, can neither of them rule the country in
which it is established. I would hardly venture to refer to
another case, but there is one further example for our
guidance. You have now a German Parliament instituted.
Now, I am proud of our countrymen, but I don't suppose
there is any man in the house at this moment who will pre-
tend that for intellectual power we are superior to the Ger-
man nation. That gifted people have now a Parliament;
that Parliament is elected by universal suffrage, and we find
that the ministers of the King are not to sit in it. (Heal,
hear.) Thus wo have these extremely popular and repre-
sentative institutions elected by one preponderating class ;
and what do we see are the consequences ? Why, that the
Assembly losesall that which we believe, and justly believe,
to be the characteristic of the House of Commons. It loses
it from the want of that variety of element which gives
various wisdom, various knowledge, deliberate power, and,
by deliberate power, such a moral command over society
that it will intrust to it a groat portion of the executive of
the country. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, with these views, con-
sidering the doctrines that are now preached, the violent,
the thoughtless, the pernicious doctrines which are now cir-
culated—we cannot pretend to enter upon the labori-
ous and responsible task which we are otherwise willing to
undertake, unless the House of Commons will, by some
resolution, declare an opinion in harmony with the general
sentiment 1 have now expressed. (Hoar, hear.) There are
other subjects on which I think it is of the utmost import-
ance that the house should come to a decision, and by its
coming to a decision upon which subsequent legislation may
be greatly facilitated. I need refer but slightly to the prin-
ciple to which I have adverted as the basis of our legisla
tion on the franchise—namely, the principle of rating. I
admit that in the year 1859, having endeavoured to bring
forward a scheme which founded our suffrage on the prin-
ciple, I was reluctantly obliged to give it up, the difficul-
ties were then so great, the anomalies so glaring, and the
consequences to which it would have led so absurd. But
since that time the course of legislation in this house has
greatly lessened those difficulties. A bill introduced by the
right hon. member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) on
the subject of union rating has greatly contributed to this
result. But I hope that to-night my hon. friend the Secre-
tary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) will have an opportunity
of bringing in a measure which will entirely remove all the
remaining difficulties connected with this matter. Under
these circumstances, we trust the house will assent to a re-
solution affirming that rating shall be the basis of the
franchise. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are one or two other
points to which, if I am not wearying the house, I should
like to allude. (Cheers.) Among them is one of the most
difficult of all questions—viz., the distribution of seats.
(Hear, hear.) Now, upon that subject there are two schools
of opinion, which are as much at variance as upon the sub-
ject of the franchise itself. There is a school that would re-
construct the electoral map of England. We hear some-
times that the map of Europe is to be reconstructed. Thera
is also a school in this country which would reconstruct the
electoral map of England. On the other hand, there are
those who approach this question with very great hesitation.
They see an ancient and complex arrangement, but, at the
same time, one which, for a considerable period, has contri-
buted, as they think, to the representation of a country like
England, having a variety of interests, with success. It
is impossible in this country to think on this subject and
not to be struck by the apparently providential manner in
which an almost obscure island in the days of the Norman
kings, with but a limited population and slight resources,
has developed itself into a magnificent and unparalleled
empire. Through the rude institutions of the Plantage-
nets and Tudors, however, the means have been found of
representing interests so vast, so various, so inconceivable
as those which aro bound up with the England of the pre-
sent day. (Cheers.) Those impressed with that con-
viction will, I ant sure, concur with me in the opinion that
upon the question of the redistribution of seats we must
proceed with caution and care. Any attempt to appor-
tion according to certain symmetrical arrangements the
representation of the country would probably end in alter-
ing the character of this house, and in altering its charac-
ter, depriving it of its authority. (Hear.) I think that be-
fore we introduce our bill we have a right to ask the house
to give us their opinion upon, and I hops their sanction to,
certain principles upon which we propose to act. Ono of
those principles is that no borough should, so far as the re-
distribution of seats is concerned, be wholly disfranchised.
(Cheers.) lam in favour of this principle for two reasons.
1 look upon it in the first place as wisp and necessary
that the representation of the country should, as far
as lies in our power, be distributed; and 1 regard it as
unwise and unnecessary to disturb any centre of represen-
tation, because it is impossible in an age of rapid growth,
when communities so rapidly rise and vanish, when the
changes and alterations of social arrangements are so
evanescent, to proceed with too much circumspection.
Speaking, then, for myself and my colleagues, we are of
opinion that no borough should be wholly disfranchised so
far as the redistribution of seats is concerned—for I am
far from saying that if bribery be proved to exist in a
borough, as we have reason to fear and believe it may be
in the case of some—we ought to show ourselves more
deficient in spirit than our predecessors, and I trust under
such circumstances we should know how to act. (Cheers.)
Our main—mind, I do not say our sole—consideration, in
altering the apportionment of the representation would, in
the second place, bo to supply representatives to places
now unrepresented, but which are, from a variety of causes,
entitled to the privilege. These are the two principles b
mst raienbricutttsi iooninnuwos
itf t
hsperiao.
etyss
prone perfectly
ea c
tn d t
ou nt lheess
os wt
we
ohapvoeinfrtsomaltlhoeuhroaursreatnhgeeir-
which we should be guided on the question of theredisy
perfectly useless, for hon. members must
p eu
prohne pi
ts oI n
htal iv ee
to
that we might then have an amendment on the second
t,
goin
elseap of
apologise someise obscure
the
house borou
for gh
havingut so n
gone
of the bill which we might introduce,
founded,
geniously worded that the fate of the measure
might depend
so much into detail—although I have endeavoured to con-
fine myself to those resolutions which appeared to
involve large principles; but there anotheris point m e
onto
which I think it my duty to touch slig htl
which it has been found difficult to deal, ychiaciint with
important element in the settlement of this isvery
question of
Reform, and upon which I venture to say a greater amount
of misapprehension • exists than almost upon any other—l
allude to the subject of boundaries. (Clear, hear.) Now, I
have myself on more than one occasion not completely, letely but
casually, expressed the views which I entertain u
pon 'this
subject. It is really a vital subject, and one, it appears to
me, on which no dissension ought to prevail, for if clearly
understood there would be, 1 imagine, scarcely any room
for a difference of opinion in regard to it. Unfortunately,
however, it is not clearly understood, and it has had raised
in connexion with it objections which have had a very
considerable effect on the house, although they are objec-
tions based on false data, and supported by false reasoning.
If I again remind hon. members of the salient facts of the
.
case, it is because I am anxious to place a distinct picture
before their minds. Tho amount of the population dwelling
in counties is 11,500,000, and that population is repre-
sented in the House of Commons by 162 members. Nine
and a-half millions is the population that live in the bo-
roughs, and they are represented in this house by 334
members. One would naturally say, at the first glance,
that there is nothing unreasonable in the eleven and a-half
millions asking the House of Commons that, as they have
such a very small share of the representation, they, at least;
should enjoy the privilege of electing them, and that a
portion of the nine and a half millions in the boroughs
should not interfere with their enjoyment of their rights.
Well, sir, we know that practically they do not enjoy them
—we know that, since the Reform Bill was passed in 1832,
the population of the boroughs has greatly increased, and
that it has passed the borough boundaries to the amount of
millions. The population of the counties has also it is true
increased; but the same remark does not apply in this case.
Now, if you, as wo are going to propose, greatly reduce the
franchise, and in counties, many portions of the population of
these boroughs will become county eleetors. Well, the eleven
and a half millions, having the 162 members, think this
rather hard (Ministerial cheers). They naturally think
the surplus of a population ought to be contented with
being represented by 331 members (hear, hear). It is not
an unfounded complaint, on the other hand, that if you
reduce to-morrow— you will if you follow our advice—
the county franchise, ono half of the town of Halifax—not
distinct front the other half any more than the city of
Westminster from the City of London —will supply a large
band of county electors for the county of York. Is this,
under any circumstances, a desirable thing ? It cannot, I
think, be held so. Why, let mo repeat, should these eleven
and a half millions, possessing only 162 members, be visited
with an invasion which still further diminishes their privi-
lege of seeing representatives to this house? (Cheers.) I
think you will agree with me that the question is one de-
manding attention, and that there should be no contro-
versy about it. But there is a controversy—a great con-
troversy, a bitter controversy and like all great and bitter
controversies, it is occasioned by a total ignorance of the
subject (laughter and cheers). It is said that this cry of
haying tho boroughs revised and re-arranged is highly un-

• desirable and must not be on any account permitted, and
for two reasons : the first is, that it is difficult and not
desirable, but certainly difficult, to rigidly and severelyde-
fine the boundaries between the boroughs and counties.
Sir, this is an erroneous impression. It is not difficult to
define the boundary between the borough and the county
population : it is impossible ; no one ever contemplated it.
They must to a certain degree blond, and it is desirable
that they should blend. But acts of great injustice
like the case I have mentioned, and twenty others I
could mention, should not pass without a remedy,
and the remedy is perfectly consistent with a natural
blending between the populations of the counties and
boroughs. But the great objection that is urged is this—
and I put it, I hope, fairly, in its naked form—it is said
the scheme of revising and readjusting the boundaries of
the parliamentary boroughs of England is a plan which,
if adopted with other schemes of an analogous, but not
so important a nature, such as giving representation
to other boroughs, would give the 162 county members en-
tirely into the hands of the landlords and their tenants.
You accept that proposition ? (Laughter.) lam sorry for
you that you do, for it is so fatally erroneous. (Renewed
laughter.) This, sir, is a case of the utmost consequence.
I do not believe that any part of a futuro reform bill can
really be so important, and it is the interest of both sides
of the house clearly to understand it. I have reminded you
of the eleven millions and a half of population. If our pro-
positions are admitted, there will be, no doubt, a consider-
able diminution of that amount of population. I do not
wish to conceal the fact. We should propose to enfran-
chise boroughs which may diminish by hundreds of thou-
sands that amount of population. There will still remain
in England a vast number of towns that by no scheme—no
wise scheme—of parliamentary representation can be or
ought to be represented. There will still remain in Eng-
land, as appears by the evidence on your table, but which
the hon. gentleman who interposed a remark unfortunately
has never heard—(a laugh)—there still remains in England
what in the technical language of statistics is called a scat-
tered village population, a population that does not live in
towns—even in small towns of 1,500 inhabitants—and
which is equal in amount to that of all the represented
boroughs in England. (Hear, hear.) But you say here are
to be found only landlords, farmers, and farm labourers,
and you ask, " Who cares for them ?" Sir, the landlords,
farmers, and farm labourers, and all connected with the
land, are referred to in your statistics, and still form, alone,
in property and numbers, a most important class in Eng-
land. There numbers amount to 2,000,000. Take away
all the landlords, farmers, and farm labourers, and what
are your duties to the 7,000,000 of the population who re-
main ? What are these seven millions ? They are the
backbone of the country. (Hear, hear.) I say that for inde-
pendence, for industry, and for the comparative simplicity
of their lives, whatever may bo their creed—whether they
be Churchmen or Dissenters—for their sincerity and the
deep religion of their lives, I say that no portion of the
population of England are more esteemed, or more to
be respected. (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, on this subject
of the population of counties there exists in this enlightened
metropolis a degree of want of information which is per-
. fectly astonishing. Ido not like to refer to an opinion
that has been circulated by one who was always my poli-
tical opponent in this house, but whom I always respected,
and more than respected ; who was a great honour to this
house ; who lived long in it, and whose memorable achieve-
ments can never be forgotten. I was astonished to find
him state that the farmers of England had been enfran-
chised 30 or 40 years ago. (Conservative cheers.) I think
I have indicated to-night in the beginning of my remarks
that the real cause of dissatisfaction at the present day was
the Reform Act of 1832. That measure did not enfran-
chise the farmers of England. It disfranchised the work-
ing men of England. (Hear.) Ido not think there can be
any doubt as to who Is responsible for that measure. (Hear,
hear.) But, sir, on the subject of our county representa-
tion I was adverting to the extraordinary want of informa-
tion that exists. Look at these seven millions of your
population. Who aro those seven millions ? They are re-
presented by all the ancient freeholders of England. I
say, even of the latest great event, of that event which
when I entered this house, was never mentioned except
with enthusiasm, but is now mentioned with contumely, I
say it was the counties of England that carried the Reform
Act of 1832. If you look to the growth of the county con-
stituencies, and take away the occupying tenants—if you
take away the 100,000 occupying tenants, and all those
freeholders who vote for counties in respect of freeholds
existing in boroughs—take away all these, and you take
away two-fifths of the electoral body, and leave more than
300,000 freeholders who exist among these seven millions,
who are utterly unknown, and are a minority in this house.
If I have asked for justice for these men, I have been told
by persons holding the highest position in this house that
1 am seeking to eliminate all the independence and en-
lightenment from the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.)
I say that these aro circumstances which require the
grave attention of Parliament. I have never attempted
any violent disruption of our electoral scheme o;
parliamentary seats that could give an adequAte represen-
tation to these persons. I know that in that disturbance
you might do more harm than good. But if there aro 362
county members only, I say you are bound to let this part
of your population to whom I have referred to enjoy the
rights which the constitution intended they should enjoy,
and that county members should be elected by a county
population and not by borough constituencies. (Hear.)
Under these circumstances her Majesty's Government have
also prepared a resolution which will propose a course do-
ing justice, we hope, with respect to this long-vexed ques-
tion. And as it is founded on the principles of justice, I
hope, on calm consideration, it will be found to be
do
justice
have
hasav e t givenothe
great been
t
ene
esta-
blished on the principles of truth. I hope that no
opposi
tion will bo offered in this house to the course
o
le hos
who and that we shall at least reconcile a great
portion of proposed,
people to our now arrangements, feeling that they now en-
joy those
oppf
privileges
freeholders
a ilt
eges
least, which
tt
of the
England,u willconstitution
them. I hope, o
body
utterly forgotten in these discussions. I saw a proof of
this the other day. I was amused to find that a rampant
lecturer has been going about the country
maligning men
and things. (A laugh.) He attacked the House of Commons
under the very thin veil of a dissertation on the reign of
Charles 1., and alluding to two illustrious men who then
existed, and going out of his way to attack men, and ho
could obtain no better subject—(a laugh)---he asked, whero
are the 4,000 freeholders of Buckinghamshire? Why, sir,
they are exactly whore you would naturally expect to find
them—they are in the county of Buckingham. (Cheers
and laughter.) I could forgive such an opinion from a wild
young man, who, perhaps, has no experience of life beyond
his college, but I cannot pardon grave and eminent states-
men who always treat the population of counties as con-
, sisting of tenant farmers.
_That is an error which, proceed.
ing from such quarters, cannot be passed over so easily.
There is no subject on which so much exaggeration exists
as the subject of occupying tenants of counties. They never
at any time exceeded one-fifth of the constituencies, and
that has to be divided between the two great parties in the
State. How is it possible they could exercise the influence
' ascribed to them ? In my own county, which, according
to the lecturer, contains nothing but tenant farmers, from a
constituency of 6,000 there aro 1,200 registered occupying
tenants. But you will not do justice to the county popu
lation if the extraordinary view is to prevail that nobody
lives in counties but landlords, farmers, and labourers.
(Hoar.) I have thus placed before the house, not only the
course which her Majesty's Government proposes to take
on this question, which has been so long discussed—not
only the course which her Majesty's Government propose,
and which they earnestly hope this house will adopt—but
I have also endeavoured to convey to them as far as I could
without reserve—(a laugh)—l say without reserve, because
I could easily have signified some other policy and evaded
the discussion of this matter ; but I thought it best without
reserve to express to the house the general principles on
which we propose to act. (Hear, hear.) Do not let the house
suppose we are attempting to cast upon them the burden
of this great question, or that we are angling for a policy.
We have certain distinct principles to guide us, which we
wish the house to sanction. But there are certain other
subjects besides those I have indicated which, if nut equal,
are still of great importance to the happy settlement of this
most difficult question, and on 'which it is desirable that
the opinion of this house should be given. On those sub-
jects we shall defer to the opinion of the house. If we go
into committee for the discussion of resolutions applicable
to those principles we shall consult the sense of the com-
mittee, and we shall be prepared to bow to their decision.
And though we are not prepared to shrink from the great
leading principles which we shall submit to the house, and
which we hope this house will sanction, we believe that even
on questions of paramount importance, if the house will
deign to co-operate with us, suggestions of great value may
be made which will add to the fulness and completeness of
the measure. I may say, on behalf of my colleagues, that
these suggestions will be considered with candour, and
if generally approved by the house they will be accepted
even with gratitude. We shall enterinto committee anxious
to avail ourselves of all that the learning, the genius, and
the experience of this house can suggest for the solution of
this question. To all such suggestions we will give our
earnest and candid attention. The course that we adopt is
one not very flattering to ourselves. ((sear, hear.) But
it is more fle.ttering to every man's ambition to assist, how-
ever humbly, in effecting what lie thinks to be for the pub-
lic good, than to bring forward a mock measure which he
knows the spirit of party will be sure to reject. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Birmingham marks this with au
ironical cheer, but there are others beside him who wish
the question settled, and who wish to have it settled in
accordance with the genius of the English constitution. It
would have been much more agreeable to us to bring for-
ward a complete measure, backed by a confiding majority,
and to enjoy the fame of having settled satisfactorily the
question which has so long occupied the attention of a
great nation. None of my colleagues pretend to be free
from

" This last infirmity of noble minds."
But this is not a time to defer to the self-complacency of a
Ministry or to the pride of party. I earnestly hope that
the House of Commons will rise to this occasion. I earnestly
hope that the House of Commons; will, in unison with the
gracious Speech which her Majesty has delivered to Par-
liament, divest themselves of all party feeling, and will
give the Ministers on this—we do not ask it on any other

occasion—their hearty co-operation and their cordial help.
Some sharp things have been said, not referring merely to
its present character, but to its past conduct in matters
which I thought had been accepted, and sanctioned, and
embalmed by history. Ido not doubt that as a human in-
stitution it is not free from the imperfections of humanity
It is possible there may have been periods when integrity
of the House of Commons could be successfully impugned.
I know well—we all know—that there have been times of
violence when its conduct was unjust, violent, and even
tyrannical. If you search its records, unquestionably you
will find it arrived at conclusions on many subjects which
are at variance with the doctrines, with the sentiments, or
• even with the happiness of our more enlightened age. But
there can be no greater error than to judge of the morality
of one age by the manners of a subsequent ago. There
can be no greater error than to decide on measures adopted
in perilous times with the philosophic calmness of assured
security. There can be no greater error than to gauge the
intellect of the past by the deficiencies of the present,
though that past has bequeathed to us our glorious and
• magnificent patrimony. (Cheers.) Those who take a
larger and nobler view of human affairs will, I think, re-
cognise that alone among the countries of Europe England
has now for almost countless generations by its Parliament
exhibited the fair exemplar of a free government. She has
maintained, by her House of Commons, and she has
cherished that free spirit which is the soul of common-
wealths, without which empire has no glory, and the wealth
of nations is but the lees of corruption and decay. (Loud
cheers.) Sir, 1 move that on the 25th of February this
house Si ill resolve itself into a committee of the whole house,
to take into consideration the 2d and 3d William IV.,
chapter '25. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat
amid general cheering, having been exactly two hours and
a quarter addressing the house.)
Mr. GLADSTONE rose amidst Opposition cheers. He
said —Without for a moment wishing to derogate from the
ability of the speech which the right hon. gentleman has now
delivered, I may venture an observation in which I am sure
many in this house will concur—au observation not neces-
sarily one implying censure—that the house has now been
placed in a peculiar position. We are approaching the dis-
cussion of a subject of unparalleled difficulty—one that
has been embittered in other times by proceedings
which, whether justified by the spirit of party and the
ordinary usages of Parliament or not, has in a certain
and even in a high degree obstructed public progress. We
approach this subject, on the invitation of the right hon.
gentleman, in a manner that is altogether novel. lam not
about to discuss at any length the propositions of the hon.
gentleman, which we shall best consider when we hold
them in their express terms in our haeds. Still loss am I
about to submit to the house a single remark which may
diminish the expectation or the hopes any of us may enter-
tain that the proposition which the right hon. gentleman is
about to make may happily settle the question. Still there
were certain remarks made in the speech of the right hon.
gentleman which I am not able to pass over altogether in
silence. The right hon. gentleman, in the early portion of
his speech, placed on certain terms not commonly found in
• a speech from the Throne an explanation as to the temper
in which the house should dual with the question of reform.
The signification which the right hon. gentleman—no doubt
a great authority in the definition of such words—put on
those words was that the subject of Parliamentary Reform
was no longer to be a question on which the fate of a
Ministry is to depend. (Hear, hear.) Now, no more grave
or difficult question can arise for the consideration of the
responsible Ministers of the Crown than to determine what
are and what are not the occasions on which the failure or
rejection of their propositions constitutes a sufficient cause
for resignation of office ; and if that general proposition be
sustained, as I think it is, both by opinion and experience,
there follows from it immediately this consequence, that
the Executive Government ought on every occasion to re-
tain in its own hands an unimpaired and unfettered power
of considering the most difficult questions in reference to
its own dignity, and the interests of the country, according
to the circumstances that may arise. These circumstances,
sir, it is impossible to define ; and I entertain a doubt
• whether the right hon. geutleman has even conduced to
the more easy settlement of this question by announcing
something like an abstract resolution resting on the pro-
position that the result will not involve the fate of the
Ministry. (Cheers.) The principle announced by the right
hon. gentleman is of so much importance, and is open, in
my mind, to so much doubt, that I could not allow it to
pass without a remark against it. (Cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman then proceeded to give us a lengthened his-
torical disquisition on the transactions of previous sessions
with regard to measures of Parliamentary Reform. I wish,
sir, to give the right hon. gentleman the opportunity of
correcting on a future occasion any misrepresentation I
may make of what ho said, as I was unable sufficiently to
• apprehend what he said. I did not clearly gather from his
speech what precise result he intended to draw from that
recital. It appeared to be to show that there was a special
responsibility in this house as distinct from the Govern-
ment with reference to this subject of Parliamentary Re
form. If that be so, I have no difficulty in subscribing to
the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman, for although the
opinion, when I expressed it, was objected to, I did enter-
tain the opinion that the house itself—from the action of
various causes and of independent members —had incurred
a special responsibility with regard to the question of Re-
form. (Hear, hear.) But I understood the right hon.
gentleman to go further, and to leave it to bo implied that
there beingau increase of responsibility on the house, there
was a diminished responsibility on the part of the Govern-
ment, and that it was obligatory almost on the house to
approach the settlement of this difficult question under the
guidance at least and leadership of the Government, but with
a responsibility of a different kind from that which usually
attached to the advisers of the Crown. I confess lam
doubtful whether such a proposal will add to the weight and
authority of the Government, and whether it will not, by
lessening the responsibility of the Executive for the propo-
sals which they make, also diminish one of the great pro-
pelling forces by which measures are carried in this house.
The right hon. gentleman has announced what 1 had heard
from various quarters, that he intends proceeding by reso-
lution. I shall not enter into any full discussion as to that
method of proceeding. I frankly own that my preposses-
sions are against it. It might be justifiable and necessary in
certain cases where it is necessary to obtain a simultaneous
concurrence of both houses, but 1 do not think this is such
a case. I will not ask what the precise nature of the resolu-
tions are, but I am satisfied that the plan of taking the
opinion of the house twice over on the same subject has a
tendency to produce delay. (Hoar.) A second point of
more importance is the vagueness which is almost inherent
in the nature of resolutions, the opinion being that such re-
solutions may be passed with greater facility than the same
propositions embodied in a bill. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentleman has shadowed forth the principal points to
be included in the resolutions he intends to propose. I
wish to state with the utmost clearness wha.tin any opinion
ought to be the course of independent members on this
question. Ido not ask, under the circumstances, how far
the Government, in making their proposals, have the
general confidence of the house. Notwithstanding their
mode of procedure 1 will not stand in the way—and I ought
not to stand in the way—of a settlement of the question,
if that can be obtained by the adoption with alteration of
their proposals. (Hear, hear.) I will cast whatever doubt
or scruple I have as to proceeding by resolution behind
me, if I find it possible to make an onward movement.
(Hear, hear.) What we are bound to do is to avoid every-
thing that tends to adjourn this question, whether it be
impracticable propositions or measures that must require
a. long time to carry into operation. The right hon. gen-
tleman has referred to the reconstruction of the law of
rating, and if I interpret rightly the terms of the notice
on the votes an important change in that law must be
contemplated. Such a change cannot be made in a mo-
ment, and when it becomes law it cannot come into opera-
tion immediately. Is the settlement of reform to depend
on the previous attainment of what the right hon. gentle-
man calls a perfect system of rating ? (Hear, hear.) I
understand him to say that he cannot fix the amount of the
reduction of the franchise -in the first resolution, as that
must depend on points to be disposed of by subsequent
resolutions. But does not the right hon. gentleman see
that many members mayrefuse to commit themselves to an
abstract principle of reduction, and justly, until they know
what that reduction is to be ? (Hear, hear.) If the amount
of reduction is to depend on the subsequent resolution as
to rating, I hope I may dismiss my apprehensions that the
re-adjustment of the system of rating is to precede
the settlement of the question of reform. (Rear, hear.)
At any rate I beg of the right hon. gentleman, if he should
think it worth his while to consider what I say, to recol-
lect that the very same motives which would lead me, for
one, with the utmost earnestness to co-operate with him
in building on his foundation, if I thought it pos-
sible .it would lead to a speedy settlement of this ques-
tion, would likewise lead me, I frankly own, to offer a de-
termined opposition to any proposition, or any method of
proceeding, which would appear to me to be likely to cast
it into the far future. (Opposition cheers.) We cannot
afford in this country to go on much longer as we are now
acting. It is time that this discord of class and class, or
this tendency to discord, this appeal to separate interests
to which I must say the speech of the right hon. gentle-
man—whatever may be the merits of the paragraph from
the Speech from the Throne—is not altogether free, it is
time, I say, that that line of proceeding should cease.
Until this question is altogether removed from the arena
of controversy we cannot expect to see the people of Eng-
land in the position in which we desire to see them—
namely, a happy or united people. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman has told us to-day the course in
which he proposes to proceed with his resolutions. I
think it better we should give an opinion on the important
question whether the resolutions of the right lion. gentle-
man do indeed constitute a plan. If they constitute a plan
to which we may assent; if wo should agree in them, or
join issue with the right hon. gentleman if we donot agree
with them, so as to raise fairly and promptly the great
question which is in fact raised for our decision, no objec-
tion will be taken, as far as I know and as far as I hope to
the mode of proceeding proposed. But that is the ques-
tion, after all, to be determined by us, and according to
the mode in which we ahall treat it our conduct will be
judged. Our object being to make progress on this ques-
tion—a progress which the country is entitled to expect—
we shall gladly assist the right hon. gentleman if he

concur with us in this view of the matter, in giving
effect to his idea so far as we are able consistently
to do so. But he will not I am sure expect
us to be parties to a course of proceeding which would
amount in effect to an absolute betrayal of public
duty—that is to say, to be parties to the adoption, not of
measures, but of a declaration preliminary to tho conside-
ration of measures—a course tending to produce doubt and
uncertainty in the public mind, to diminish the confidence
of the people in Parliament, and to adjourn a conclusion
which on every ground it is desirable that we should with-
out delay arrive at. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman has
asked the question on what principle was it that the House
of Commons was to be reconstituted ? With considerable
force the right hon. gentleman laid down the principles of
our constitution, and then, spreading his wings for au ex-
tended flight, he travelled both Eastward and Westwaid,
and gave us an account of the representative chambers of
various foreign countries. Nosy, I confess I am very doubt-
ful of the wisdom of this self-complacext reference to our
constitution, when contrasting it with other constitutions.
I do not think that our review of them under such circum-
stances is altogether accurate, and it is not expected that it
should carry on it the stamp of impartiality. (Hear, hear.)
Were this the proper time and place, indeed, I should b 3
inclined to challenge sonic of the particular statements on
this point made by the right hon. gentleman. But even if
they were perfectly accurate, I doubt whether much could
be gained by comparisons of this nature, especially when I
think that the right lion. gentleman is, to a certain extent,
engaging in a combat with a phantom. I entirely deny that
any party or government in this house has at any time pro-
posed to deal with the question of Parliamentary reform
otherwise than upon the principle of the British constitu-
tion. I assert that we have been ready at all times, and novel
more so than last year—to contend that it is upon those
principles we take our stand. It is true there may be diffe-
rences of opinion amongst us as to various points of detail,
but, however widely we may differ upon questions of general
policy, I do not believe that any one member in this house
would bo willing to depart from the principles of the British
constitution. (Hear, hear.) I frankly own it appears to me
that in the expression of his opinions the right hon. gentle-
man himself has somewhat departed from the principles of
the British constitution ; but am I to rise in my place and
assume that I have the exclusive possession of the key of
those principles ? Or am I to charge the right hon. gen-
tleman or any other member of this house with the aban-
donment of all regard for them? (Hear, hear.) I ask the
right hon. gentleman to enlarge his toleration so far as to
believe that oven those who have differed from him on
former occasions, and who may ultimately differ from him
in the latter development of this question—to believe that
whether they differ from him or not, they are animated
equally with himself by a regard for that glorious consti-
tution, the rich traditions and noble inheritance which it
has loft us, and that whilst upholding their rights of free-
dom they claim for themselves and their opinions that
consideration which they gladly and freely accord to
others. (Cheers.)
Tho motion was then agreed to.

Leave was obtained by Mr. Hunt to introduce a bill to
provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of
Government and local taxation, and to promote unifor-
mity in the assessment of rateable property in England
and Wales.

Mr. CUILDEItS and Mr. SCOPE expressed their approval
of the measure.

Some returns wore ordered, and the house adjourned
at a few minutes past 8 o'clock.

Miscellaneous American News.

Another sad steamboat accident has occurred.
The Plntte Valley, which left Memphis for Vicks-
burg on the 17th January, struck the wreck of a
sunken gunboat, and sank almost to the hurricane-
roof in about three minutes. It is estimated that
100 persons were drowned. Amongst them was
Judge M'Bride, of Missouri, and his family of 15
persons, bound for Texas. The steward and about
20 of the crew are supposed to be lost. Some 40
women were on board, few of whom were saved. A
tug took the survivors to Memphis.
The entire board of lowa State officers, including
the superintendent, commenced the new year by
signing the temperance pledge.
The importation of firecrackers is forbidden by
the new Tariff Bill. Mr. Fessenden- inserted the
clause because the great fire at Portland was caused
by crackers.

According to the news brought by the City of
New York, which is up to the 26th ult., the Judi-
ciary Committee of the House of Representatives
will not report upon the impeachment of President
Johnson until the close of the present Congressionzl
session. It is reported that John Surratt will be
summoned to give testimony in reference to Mr.
Johnson's alleged complicity in the assassination of
President Lincoln. The Indiana and Nevada
Legislatures have ratified the Constitutional Amend-
ment. The Maryland Legislature has abolished the
law permitting the sale of negroes into slavery for
crime. The Tennessee Legislature has amended the
franchise laws so as to admit negroes to vote. The
Supreme Court of Tennessee is considering the consti-
tutionality of this step. Itis stated that the Canadian
Council has determined to pay all claims for
damages by the Fenian raids and to present the bill
to the United States. The 43d, 60th, and 25th
Regiments have been ordered home from Canada.
The Philadelphia correspondent of the Times
says that General Butler, always anxious for some-
thing to do, has devoted his attention of late to
Canadian affairs. He has written' a letter to a
French gentleman at Montreal, which is published
in Le Pays of that city, in which he expresses his
opinion of the annexation or absorption of Canada
by the United States, regarding' it as both neces-
sary and inevitable for the future welfare of the
latter country. Butler says that every American
statesman appreciates the question, and can only
come to one conclusion respecting the advantages
which its solution through annexation would confer
on the country.

The Hampshire county receipts for 1866 were
$39,843, an excess 0f:52,949 over the expenditures.
The profits of the dog fund were $949.
The Persia brought intelligence from New York
o the 23d ult. Resolutions had been introduced
into the House of Representatives, declaring that
Civil State Governments do not exist in the South,
and that the South is not entitled to a voice in rati-
fying constitutional amendments. The Indians in
the Western plains were become very troublesome.
At Toronto two more Fenian prisoners had been
ordered to be hung. The advices received at New
York from Mexico report various successes• by
Juarez, and assert that he holds such a position
that, in the event of a successful fight with the Im-
perialists, he would be able to occupy the capital.
COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.

NEW Yoitx, Jan. 26.
The Stock Market has been highly excited, and the
" bears" have been in the ascendant, most securities ex-
periencing a heavy fall. A few failures have been the
result, but none of any great importance. The danger of
impeachment has been made the most of, and the growing
hostility between the Executive and Legislative is, inde-
pendent of rumours concocted by those interested, suffi-
ciently alarming. Most of the failures are among tho
brokers. Some speculative companies have 'experienced
a very severe fall, but none of real sound merit have mate-
rially declined. The New York Central went from 108 to
99, and the Hudson's River from 130 to 118. The Pacific
Mail Ship Company is now at 157, although lately quoted
at 170.

• Tho total receipts of the Hudson River Railroad for the
year ending with September, 1866, were $4,827,562—an
increase of $500,762, and the total transportation expenses
$3,050,426, a decrease of $126,186. The dividends paid
during the year amounted to $615,427, an increase of
$286,022. The receipts of the Harlem Railroad in the
same time were $2,783,699, an increase of $273,974; trans-
portation expenses $1,664,330, a decrease of $210,347.
Other yearly earnings were as follows: —Reading
84,164,072 ; Michigan Central, $4,260,125, decrease
$244,421 ; Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana,
84,643,422, decrease $183,300; Chicago and North-West-
ern, $9,088,991, increase $1,128,013; Chicago and Alton,
$3,677,795, decrease 8162,206 ; Rock Island and Pacific,
$3,478,325, increase $164,811. The New Jersey Central
Railroad will pay its usual quarterly dividend of 21 per
cent., and the Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati Rail-
road a quarterly one of 4 per cent.
An iu vestigation has been proceeding into some difficulties
between the New York Central and the Hudson River and
the Harlem Railways, which has shown a curious state of
affairs. The Hudson River Railroad has been used by the
members of the New York Common Council, from the evi-
dence of Mr. Horace F. Clarke, as a free line. That gen-
tleman states that ho has known as many as 1,500 New
York officials tohave free passes. It appears that the pro-
perty has been subjected to heavy fines, as fees to the
Common Council. Tho action now taken will probably
have a beneficial result.

Money is at 7 per cent. for call loans, but lenders prefer
loaning for short periods. Gold has been weak and de-
clining. Tho import of specie during the past week has
exceeded the export, the California steamer bringing
$532,000, while Saturday's steamers for Europe took out
only $156,000, and Wednesday's only $76,120. Tho ex-
ports (exclusive of specie) from New York for the week and
Year are $2,724,291 against $4,860,386, and $10,697,573
against $13,955,536. The corresponding figures for ina-
ports are $4,229,355 against $6,450,683, and $11,291,47

.•••••••+ sr••••••••
against $13,317,871. These figures testify to the dullneis
of trade, everywhere so much complained of. Foreign
exchange is quiet at 109 g. Official statements show that
the total issue of 5-20 Bonds under the act of March 3,
1865, was on the Ist of January, 1867, $268,665,350, of
which amount there had been issued in conversions, viz. :
of compound interest notes, $53,778,750 ; of 5 per cent.
notes, $620,700 ; of 7-30 notes, $108,255,400 ; of certifi-
cates of indebtedness, $257,000 ; total, $162,911,850; leav-
ing to be accounted for as sales $103,753,500. The avails
of the Bonds have been used in the purchase of seven-
thirty notes to the amount of $41,212,250, and the balance
in retiring compound interest notes, certificates of indebted-
ness, and the temporary loan. The premium on the
$11,212,250 of seven-thirty notes purchased under the acts
of June, 1864, and March, 1865, was $1,724,399; into, est
on the same, $768,286; total, $13,704,935. The sales of
five-twenty bonds amounted to $103,753,500; premium,
$5,946,315; total $109,699,815. The total issue of national
bank currencylast week was $47,720, making $298,652,680
now in circulation. The disbursements last week for the
war, navy, and inferior departments wore, respectively,
$596,065, $586,852 and $962,280. The total receipts of
internal revenue last week were $2,226,789. These re-
ceipts are falling off so much on account of the small busi-
ness now doing in the country, that Congress will hesitate
before reducing the taxes, fearing that the Government will
not in that case get sufficient income.

The railroads have lost during the winter by the dulness
in business and the severity of the weather, which has led
to uulooked-forexpenses, the July dividends therefore will
probably be injuriously affected. The following are the
latest quotations :—Stocks closed exceedingly heavy, Ame-
rican gold 134 f, United States Five-twenties (1862), 107 i.,
(1864) 105 i, (1865 new) 104, United States Ten-forties 991,
United States 7 3-10 loan 1041., New York Central Rail-
road 991, Erie 621, Hudson River 118, Reading 101, Michi-
gan Central 1021, Michigan Southern and Northern In-
diana 71, Cleveland and Pittsburg 821, Cleveland and Toledo
118}, Chicago and Rock Island 951, Illinois Central 1121
Chicago and North-Western 36, Chicago and North-Wes-
tern preferred 70, Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago 93},
Adams Express Company 65, American 68, United States
661, Merchants' Union 131, Wells, Fargo, and Co.'s 701,
Weitern Union Telegraph Company 45, Pacific Mail
Steamship Company 157, Atlantic Mail Steamship Com-
pany 1021, Canton Company 44, Quicksilver Mining Com-
pany 38k, Mariposa Mining Company 101, Boston Water
Power Company 261.

(From Bowles, Drevet, and Co.'s Circular.)

Eutts, Feb. 7.
The principal, and, we may say, the only important
event of the week has boon the failure of the firm of L.
Pullet Aine, at Lille, heretofore considered one of the
richest and most firmly established in Franco, bringing
down with it several of the best houses of Lille and Rou-
baix. The Banque de France is involved in this disaster
for an amount estimated at four millions of francs. Never-
theless, such is the Bank's credit that the effect of this
heavy loss upon the value of its shares has been insignifi-
cant.

The market is somewhat more animated, prices upon
the whole being rather higher. French Three per Cents.
are decidedly better, and close to-day at 69c. 50f. Ex-
change on London, 25 11 to 25 15. American
5.20's have fluctuated between 821 and 821. Since our
last issue there was at first an improved movement, but on
Monday a reaction took place on account of unfavourable
financial news from New York, and also as the result of
persistent speculative sales, and transactions have become
less frequent ; still, as may be seen from the above figures,
the variation has been inconsiderable, proving that the
growing confidence of capitalists is not easily to be shaken.
We have in this circular called the especial attention of
our Continental friends to the opening on January of the
great steamship route between San Francisco and China.
It is ono of the most important signs of the times, which
our European world has not yet fairly appreciated. As this
übject is of universal interest, we seek to give it the
IreateSt possible publicity.

(From E. F. Sattertlrwaite and Co.'s Weekly Circular,
February 6.)
The advices from New York by the Persia are to the
22d ult., they report a continued steady demand for Go-
vernment securities of all descriptions at prices fully up to
previous quotations. Railroad shares had fluctuated almost
daily, the latest prices showing a slight decline on the
week. For both State stocks and railway mortgages
there has been more inquiry than for some time past.
Gold was steady, and money still in demand at 7 per cent.
on best securities.

The advancing premium on gold in New York bas
operated against the price of United States 5.20 Bonds in
the London market, the decline on the week being about
to per cent. Illinois Shares have been very steady, but
Erie Shares have fluctuated between 39 and 40}, the price
hero being almost entirely ruled by the quotations re-
epived by telegraph from New York; they close firm at
39} to 40.
In Atlantic and Great 'Western Consolidated Mortgage
Bonds a considerable business has been done from 301 to
311 ; they close 31 to 1.
There is some inquiry for Pennsylvania Second Mort-
gage Sterling Bonds, from 89 to 90; also for Illinois
Central Six per cent. Bonds, from 83 to 84. The Seven
per Cent. Currency Bonds of this company are in good
demand, from 72 to 73.

COUNTRY MARKETS.