The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING.
Tho Loan CHANcELLon. took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY for going
into committee,
Lord HALIFAX rose and moved the following amend-
ment—" That, with regard to the redistribution of seats
the proposed scheme is inadequate, and that it is ex-
expedient to provide the means of giving more representa-
tives to large and important constituencies than was given
by the bill, and said that if ho adopted another plan to
the one which he had now adopted, he should have incurred
the censure of the noble lords. He was actuated by one
motive only, that was that this question might be settled as
satisfactorily and speedly as possible (Hear, hear.) He
thought that the other side of the house was more likely to
carry such a measure than they on that side were. It was
Government only that could effect this. The motion he
had put on the paper was therefore no party motion. He was
a man of party, and if he meant this motion as such ho
should have avowed it to be so. But that this matter was
above party feeling he would not have brought forward a
rival scheme, for that would be a party motion. He
thought that with regard to the redistribution of seats the
scope of the bill was inadequate, and on that ground alone
he brought forward this motion, and without any reference
to party whatever. (Hear, hear.) He wished, before he
went to the question of redistribution of seats, to say one
word about the other side of the bill. The Government
had proposed a very large measure of Reform, and he had
to say for one that with it ho was perfectly satisfied. He
had none of those fears with regard to the operations of
the bill which had been expressed in that house. He consi-
dered that there would be no abuse of the privileges
conferred by the scheme. He only wished that
the other half of the bill had been conceived in the same
liberal spirit. With reference to the discussion on the
bill, he would ask would they merely register the opinion
of the other house of Parliament, and not discuss the
question themselves because it had come to them
late in the year? He thought not. If any borough should
lose its seat through disfranchisement, which was under
the influence of a member of that house, it would be a
grateful concession on the part of their lordships to allow of
the increase of redistribution that would produce this change.
He proceeded then to point out the prominent de-
fects in the scheme. It would give in large boroughs
certain extra members, but in the small boroughs
hardly any alteration would take place. There
were 10 boroughs which had only 5,000 each,
the population of the whole amounting to 38,000 ;
and six of these boroughs had less in population than
they had in 1831. Then there was the borough of Liver-
pool having a population of 410,000, 11. times the popu-
lation that of the whole ten boroughs just alluded to ;
and there was an increase in the borough of Wolverhampton
almost as great. It would be seen that as the large
boroughs had increased so had the smaller ones di-
minished. He should like to see certain districts cut up
into equal proportions w.th an equal number of members.
As under the present scheme there would be the same
iumber of members to a county having 150,000
ahabitants as there would bo in one having only 30,000
or 40,000, he would rather see that there should be a
proportionate number of members to each division. The
noble lord then contrasted the boroughs which were
to have additional members with the boroughs which
were not mentioned in the bill, and stated that there were
many of these boroughs which really had a larger popula-
tion ; for instance, there was the borough of Darlington,
which had 15,000, and that of Stockton 13,000 population,
while many towns around had far larger populations. A
prima facie case, therefore, was made out against the
scheme, which was that it was unfair and inadequate.
These were not solitary cases, there were many similar
ones. He thought he had shown them that the scheme
of the Government with regard to the smaller
boroughs was unequal, and that it was likely to
cause discontent throughout the country. If he had satis-
fied their lordships that there was just cause that some
alteration should be made in that portion of the bill he was
satisfied. In conclusion, he impressed upon their lordships
the policy of availing themselves of the opportunity now
presented for making the redistribution part of the measure
coincident with the scope of the enlarged franchise, and
thus place the settlement of the question on a more per-
manent basis.
The Earl of MALMESBIJRY expressed his sense of his
inability to fill the place of the Premier, and, having asked
the indulgence of the house, replied briefly to tho charges
of inconsistency made against the Government the other
night, and said he had never expressed an opinion on Par-
liamentary Reform. At the time of the passing of the Re-
form Bill he was too young to have any opinion on the sub-
ject, but he well recollected that the intention was no doubt
the generous wish to enlarge the suffrages and constituen-
cies, but there was also a second one—to prevent a Tory
Government from coming in as long as possible. They
succeeded in both objects. The Conservative party ac-
cepted the measure, and everything went on quietly until
the second object was frustrated by time. Then for the first
time the noble earl opposite began to grumble, and the
country was told that a new Reform Bill was necessary.
Without following out one bill after another, the country
found it was a see-saw, and grew weary of the procrastina-
tion. When the Conservative party proposed to bring
down the county franchise to the level of the boroughs it
was negatived. When last year they had to meet nothing
but a sliding scale of reform, it became obvious not only to
him but to thousands that the only resting place was hou-e-
-hold suffrage. That was the explanation ho had to offer,
so far as the Opposition was concerned. But he had now
to turn to what fell the other night from the noble earl his
late colleague, who accused him of holding secret opinions
in favour of household suffrage, and therefore being an
organised hypocrite.
The Earl of CARNARVON—I beg my noble friend's
pardon, but he is putting words into my mouth 1 never
used.

The Earl of MALMESBURY certainly understood him
to say that if the Conservative party held secret opinions
in favour of household suffrage it was an organised hypo-
crisy. (Hear, hear.) Wh,tt is the great difference ? Al-
though anything but an impartial authority on the sub-
ject, the noble lord's memory would doubtless enable him
to bear testimony to the fact that long before the question
of reform was discussed in the Cabinet, long before they
be -ame colleagues, when he (Lord Malmesbury) paid him a
visit in the country, they had along conversation in which
he told the noble earl in distinct terms that he thought
there was no resting-place but household suffrage, and
that it was the only hope of passing a Reform Bill. He
not only had that conversation, but be wrote a long letter
on the subject, and gave reasons in favour of his opinion
which he would now repeat to the House. In a Conser-
vative sense he advocated household suffrage. He believed
that if Republican principles exist (and he trusted that the
extreme principles are only held by a few) they are enter-
tained by that class in the category between £7 and house-
hold suffrage. Generally speaking, they are not friends of
the Church, but dissenters, of strong opinions. (Laughter.)
The class immediately below them is a very loyal one.
A noble earl the other night said, that many of this class
are so ignorant that they do not know the name of the in-
cumbent of their parish. If that be so, it cannot be said
that there is any one of them who does not know the name
of the Sovereign. (A laugh.) They are contented, and
like the throne; and even should the Sovereign at times
be personally unpopular, they have never despised the
throne. But with the other, to which he had referred,
it is very different; the Sovereign may be popular, but
they distrust the throne. He always thought there are
only two principles to be considered on entering on the
question of Parliamentary Reform—the principle whether
the suffrage is to be universal or restricted. When we
came to a restricted suffrage, that is a mere matter of
detail, and a man must judge according to the circum-
stances of the time. A great deal has been lately said in
the way of prophecy. In fact, their lordships have be-
come such famous prophets that the House will likely be
consulted by the public on future events, and will stand
before the country rather as an oracular than a
legislative assembly. He had very little faith,
however, in such prophecy, except when the pro-
phet has it• in his power to carry his vaticina-
tions into execution. The noble viscount who has just
sat down is one of these. He says that he looks to this
measure as one that cannot be permanent. But what is
permanent; is there Anything 'permanent but change ?
See in what position the measure stands, and if the re-
commendations just made can really be carried out. He
asked the house not to look at this as by any means a
perfect measure. In the nature of things it could not be
so. If it had not been a bill of compromise it could never
have arrived at this point. It has been under the considera-
tion of the House of Commons for five months. Will the
House of Lords at the eleventh hour tamper with the bill,
the work of so many laborious weeks and nights—of so

much diplomatic skill on both sides ? Would it be discreet
and becoming of the Honss of Lords to interfere with a
question so intimately connected with the House of Com-
mons in the way proposed? (Hear, hear.) The noble
viicount proposes to disfranchise all the boroughs below

5,000.
Lord HALIFAX did not propose any number.
The Earl of MAL3IESBITRY observed, that only in-
creased the difficulty by raising an abstract proposition.
Then the noble earl on the cross bench (Earl Grey) has
another proposition for the disfranchisement of 22
boroughs. But if the noble viscount does not state any
figure, surely it is not the business of the House of
Lords to fill up the blanks in his resolution. Suppose
again that the 22 prizes are thrown open, on what coast
are they to be stranded—on Ireland, Scotland, or England?
It is really nothing less than a new Reform Bill. (Hear,
hear.) You cannot ask the House of Commons, already
beginning to disperse, to consider the question over again;
and we should, therefore, be all thrown again into the
chaos of uncertainty. There is this strong reason against
the
proposition of the noble viscount, that the bill, when
amended, unanimously passed the House of Commons.
Did any noble lord think that any Government could send
down to the House of Commons a bill so extensively
altered as the noble viscount desired? 'Was it likely that

the House of Commons would assent to such a change, or !.
would suffer the work of the last five months to he
rendered nugatory ? He must, therefore, on the part a
the Government, ask the house to reject the motion.
Lord CARNARVON objected to the redistribution_
scheme contained in the bill as quite disproportioned to the-
extended franchise, and remarked that the county repre- ,
sentation being the only check left upon household suf-
frage it was unduly limited, being only one-third of the
whole representation. He could not support the abstract
resolution now proposed, but he would be prepared to vote
for Lord Grey's proposition to deprive of double repre-
sentation boroughs with less than 12,000 inhabitants.
Lord DE GREY and the Duke of CLEVELAND spoke in
support of the resolution, while Lord Lifford, equally de-
precating the Government scheme, professed his inability
to support the abstract proposition now made. Lord Rom-
ney, rogarding the resolution as a vote of want of confi-
dence, declared his intention to support the Government.
Lord RUSSELL, desiring that the present measure
should be a settlement of the reform question, regretted
that the Government should resist the resolution, as ho
considered their redistribution scheme too imperfect to be
permanent.
Lord Taunton supported the resolution, as did also Lord
Harrowby, who desired to increase the county representa-
tion as a counterpoise to the lowered franchise in boroughs.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM justified the scheme em-
bodied in the bill, and urged that it would be indiscreet to
make any material alteration in respect of redistribution.

After some observations from Lords Stratford de Red-
cliff° and Forteseue in favour of the resolution, the house
divided, and there were 59 in favour and 100 against the
motion of Lord Halifax, which was therefore lost.

The house then went into committee upon the bill, and
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3 a conversational discussion was raised by
Lord Ellenborough as to the meaning of the words "all
poor rates," and eventually the clause was amended by the
insertion of the words "rate made for relief of the poor."
On clause 4, an amendment moved by Lord ROMNEY in-
creasing the term of occupancy required for exercising the
lodger franchise was negatived without a division.
A more important question was raised on this clause by
Lord CAIRNS, who proposed an alteration which would
admit as voters the occupants of rooms in halls and colleges.
This was generally supported by the members of the Go-
vernment, and strongly opposed for various reasons by
Lord Grey, Lord Westbury, Lord Abingdon, and Lord
Granville. Eventually, on a division, the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
On the proposal of Lord CAIRNS to make the limit of
the lodger franchise £l5 instead of £lO,
Lord MALMESBURY intimated on the part of the Go-
vernment his readiness to accept the amendment, but
Lord GRANVILLE earnestly deprecated such a step,
and reminded the house that if this amendment was car-
ried, all hopes of a settlement of the Reform question
would be scattered to the winds.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said such an altera-

Lion would only increase the regret of their lordships at
the absence of Lord Derby, while Lord HARDWICKE said
he was glad of a motion to increase the franchise in any
way. lie therefore seized with avidity upon the oppor-
tunity of heightening the lodger qualification.
Lord KnfuERLEy opposed and the Duke of RUTLAND
supported the amendment.

The Duke of ARGYLL, while admiring the strength of
the party ties of the Government, wondered at the weak-
ness of their political convictions. If Liberal peers pro-
posed liberalising amendments, they were met by the ob-
jection that in altering the bill they were breaking a com-
pact with the House of Commons, but when a Tory
amendment limiting the franchise which the other house
had agreed to was put forward, it was adopted without
a word of explanation. Such a course on this question
would be regarded by the country as an indication of the
reaction which had already set in.
Lord MALMESBURY defended the course taken by
the Government, and said there was no analogy whatever
between this question of the lodger franchise and that of
the implied compact as to the redistribution of seats.
Lord CARNARVON, though not opposed to the amend-
ment, was not, under all the peculiar circumstances of the
present case, prepared to go so far as to vote for it ; and
Lord RUSSELL thought that by its being carried, and
the qualification raised, a fresh opening would be given to
an agitation fur manhood suffrage, and to get rid of any
limit whatever.

After a few words from Lord Ellenborough, Lord Gran-
ville, Lord Shaftesbury, and Lord Grey, who were opposed
to the amendment, and expressed their regret that the Go-
vernment bad departed from the text of their bill, a divi-
sion was taken on the original question, that the figure
£lO be retlined, when the numbers wero—

Contents
Non-Contents
Majority

121
-32

Tho amendment was consequently carried.
After a few word, clause 4 was agreed to.
On clause 5, relating to county property franchise,
Lord HARROWBY proposed an amendment altering
the copyhold property qualiacation from £5 to £lO, which
was agreed to by the Lord Chancellor, but op2osed by
Lord Granville.

After a very short discussion, their lordships divided on
;he question that clause 5 stand part of tho bill, when tho

numbers were,—

Contents
Non-Contents
Majority

... 56
... 119

Clause 5 was therefore struck out, Clause 6 was agreed
to. The House then resumed, and the other orders of the
day having been disposed of, their lordships adjourned at
half-past 12 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
DENMARK AND PRUSSIA.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether the French GovernMent had re-
monstrated with that of Prussia against their requiring
any engagement as to the protection of the German popu-
lation of North Schleswig from Denmark as the condition
of their giving effect to the fifth article of the Treaty of
Prague ; and whether the English Government had offered
any opinion on the subject.
Lord STANLEY said it was quite true that communi-
cations had passed between France and Prussia, but he
should not be justified in stating the nature of those com-
munications, as the information ho had received was of a
confidential nature. Her Majesty's Government had ex-
pressed no opinion whatever on the subject.
THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.
Sir J. OGILVIE ask6d whether it was intended to bring
this bill forward for discussion this evening.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
not intended to do so that evening or any other evening
during the present session. (Laughter.) It had been
asked that the bill be reprinted, and on the motion for
going into committee he should move that the house do so
proforma, and at the same time move that the bill be re-
printed with the alterations made in accordance with those
of the English bill ; but before he could so it was necessary
it should be known what was done in another place with
respect to the English bill.
Col. FRENCH asked whether it was proposed to raise
any discussion on the motion for going into committee I
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
anticipate any discussion would arise, as the motion would
simply be that the house go into committee pro forma.
Mr. M‘LAREN asked when the discussion would b 3
Laken ? (A Voice—" Next session.") (Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
bad already stated that it was not intended to proceed fur-
ther with the bill during the present session.
Mr. M'LAREN said that the hon. member for Ayrshire
had announced on Friday last that the bill should not go
on without an opportunity being given of discussing the
matter.
Sir J. FERGUSSON said on Friday he was authorised
to say that no progress would be made in the bill without
an opportunity being given for discussion. He never said
that further progress would be made.
THE FENIANS.
Major KNOX asked the right hon. gentleman opposite
if it was true that he bad stated that champagne and
other delicacies had been furnished to the Fenians by the
place he' had the honour to represent.
Mr. MONSELL said his observations applied to Dun-
garvon and not Dungannon.
THE PACKET SERVICE VOTE.
In reply to Mr. Cuawrolu?,
Mr. HUNT said he had intended to-proceed with this
vote on Wednesday, but as it had been represented that it
would be exceedingly inconvenient to members generally
if he did so he would fix the matter for Thursday next.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
In reply to Sir G. GREY,
The CHANCELLOR of the TIRO HEWER said it was
not intended to proceed further with this bill during the
present session.
The order for the committal of the bill was then read and
r.rMeApElyyTßßtolo,3loPNOr.LHslaoTidpAN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
ordered to be discharged.
Mr.
;when the order of the day for the
second reading was arrived at he would state what course
ho intended to take with regard to the bill.
THE PURCHASE SYSTEM.
Col. NORTH rose to bring under the consideration of
the house the cases of Lieut. Frederick Nind Woodall and
Lieut. and Adjutant H. Curry, of the 74th Highlanders;
and Lieut. and Adjutant R F. Stirke, 69th Regiment.
The hon. and gallant gentleman said the cause of these
officers was one of peculiar hardship: they had been pur-
chased over no less than five times, and the whole cause
of their non-advancement in their profession was
simply because they were not in possession of the
means of obtaining their promotion under the pre_
sent objectionable system of purchase. The officers
he had mentioned were men of the highest honour
and undoubted courage, and it was to be regretted that
such efficient officers should bo so unjustly treated. Ile
concluded by moving the following :—" That in the
opinion of the house no monetary consideration should
delay the promotion of those three officers."
sir J. PAKINGION paid ho &mild decline to touch

upon the question of any expenditure from the reserve
fund until he had seen the report of the committee which
had been sitting to consider the subject. With respect to
the 3d West India Regiment, it was a peculiar case, and
he had already dealt with it. (Hear hear.) With respect
to the officers of the 74th Regiment, he was quite content to
accept the high character that had been given to them by
ti to hon. and gallant gentleman, and he also admitted that
it must be extremely depressing to be purchased over
nc . less than five times. The unfortunate circumstance
wa is an incidental of the purchase system, and it turned on
th, 9 change that had been made in the army by the late
Government. By that Government it had been decided
to reduce the strength of the army by cutting off two bat-
tal;ons from every regiment quartered at home. Great
hardships and inconvenience had ever since that arrange-
ment come into operation, occasioned from the circumstance
of having regiments of one strength abroad and another
at home. (Hear, hear, hear.) When this arrangement
caine into operation there were abut 40 regiments at
home, and knocking off two battalions from each 240
officers had to be provided for. An arrangement was
made for the promotion of 60 captains without purchase,
with the understanding that the other officers should re-
main as supernumeraries in the other regiments to be
absorbed as/opportunity offered, and the case of those
three officeis, which he much regretted, arose entirely out
of those arrangements and nothing else. Ile could not
assent to the resolution moved by the hon. and gallant
member.

Mr. MONSELL hoped that as the 74th was about to be
sent abroad and would be strengthened by the addition
of two battalions, he hoped the case of the two officers
would be favourably taken into consideration.
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 54
Against it 65
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
TIIE REVENUE OF INDIA.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. OTWAY asked the Secretary of State for India
whether there was any, and if any, what limit to the sums
of money which the Secretary of State for India in
Council might expend in this country without obtain-
ing the sanction of Parliament ; and, should the
balance in the Home Treasury be insufficient to meet
any exceptional expenditure incurred by the Secretary of
State for India in Council, whether there was any, and if
any, what limit to the sum for which he may draw on the
revenues of India ; and if the Secretary of State for India
could fix the day for the discussion of the Indian Budget.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said there was no limit to :the
home expenditure of the revenues of India, which were
vested in the Secretary of State for India in Council.
There were limits, however, with respect to the salaries
of the Secretary of State and the members of
the council. With respect to allowances that were made
to officers dismissed for misconduct, the money was
awarded those persons to prevent them from actu-
ally coming to starvation. It was thought very
objectionable that persons having enjoyed certain positions
in India should be seen in this country in a state of desti-
tution.
In committee of supply, the British Museum vote, moved
by Mr. WALPOLE, was agreed to—the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER stating in the course of the discussion that
early next year he hoped to propound a comprehensive
scheme for the better accommodation and exhibition of
our national collections.
_ _ _

Tho Education Vote (£705,865) was moved by Lord
R. MONTAGU, who went into the educational budget of
the year in considerable detail, contrasting the expendi-
ture, and the results with the figures of former years. For
the building aud enlarging schools and teachers' houses
£30,000 is asked in the estimate, as against £24,000 actually
spent last year, which had been supplemented by £91,000
of voluntary contributions. For elementary schools,
£427,345 is asked, and for night schools £16,000, as
against £416,582 and £13,302 spent last year, supplemented
by £369,000 voluntary subscriptions and £56,000 endow-
ments. For normal schools £74,000 is asked—a slight
decrease on last year—and for administration, inspection,
and office expenses £81,790. Passing to the results, Lord
Robert mentioned that during the past year 80 schools had
been built, 50 enlarged, and 61 teachers' residences had
been built, affording altogether new accommodation for
20,516 scholars. There had been inspected 13,586 schools
—an increase of 636 schools over the previous year ;
1,510,871 children were on the books at the end of the
year, of whom 1,287,604 had been present at the inspec-
tion, and 664,000 had been presented for examination, and
more than five-sixths had obtained passes in reading,
writing, and arithmetic. The number of night scholars
on the books was 42872, a sensible increase over last
year.

The usual long and discursive conversation on various
points preceded the granting of the vote.
On going into committee on the Parks Regulation
Bill,
Mr. LOCKE strenuously opposed the bill, objecting par-
ticularly to what he insisted was a principle novel in our
1 or, giving magistrates jurisdiction over political orfend.:;rs,
instead of sendiog them before a jury, and to the clause
which allowed the Ranger and the first Commissioner to
make regulations the breach of which is to be punishable
by fine. Now that a satisfactory Roform Bill was on the
eve of passing a measure of this kind was unnecessary ;
and he moved that the house deems it inexpedient to
proceed with the bill this Session.

Sir C. RUSSELL supported the bill, on the ground that
London was now threatened with another Hyde Park
demonstration against Mr. Hughes' Sunday Trading Bill.
Lord AMBERLEY denied that these meetings had been
shown to cause public inconvenience or to interfere seri-
ously with the street traffic, maintaining that Hyde Park
was the most fitting place for great public meetings, and in
an ironical vein complained of the ingratitude of the Go-
vernment towards the Reform League, which by its
demonstrations had co operated so powerfully with them
in passing their Reform Bill.

Mr. COWPER supported the bill to preserve. the parks
for the purposes of recreation, arguing that the power of
preventing public meetings was vested in the custodians
of all other parks ; that they never had yet boon allowed ;
and that if the house refused th's bill the parks would
become the arena of all kinds of controversies, political,
religious, and social.

Mr. Sergeant GASELEE opposed the bill.
Mr. HARDY denied that the bill interfered with the right
of public meeting; its only object was to prohibit the
holding of meetings in certain places properly devoted to
purposes of recreation. That such meetings there was
illegal was beyond a doubt, for up to 1855 nobody had
ever attempted to hold them, and the bill simply gave
additional facilities for enforcing a legal right.
Mr. GLADSTONE, though not disposed to refuse to
legislate for the purpose of giving these additional facili-
ties, was of opinion that this bill hal not been well con-
sidered—and at this period of the Session it was not pos-
sible to consider it—that the peculiar delicacy of the
subject had not been kept sufficiently in view, and that it
was altogether inopportune. This was not a question to
be decided by argument alone—feeling must be considered
as well ; and objecting to increase the power of the Execu-
tive in connection with the events of last year, and appre-
hending that legislation at present would bear the appear-
ance of an attempt on the part of Parliament and the
Executive to revenge themselves for something like a
defeat, he supported Mr. Locke's resolution.

Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER remarked
that the right of public meeting was a valuable safety
♦alve, as useful, perhaps, to those in authority as to any
body, and, admitting that the Londoners were not so well
off for open spaces to meet in as the people of other towns,
h 3 maintained that it was more convenient in great colos-
sal cities that meetings should bo held in buildings such
as the Manchester Free-Trade Hall, adding that if a groat
public demonstration were needed there was Primrose-
hill. But the bill was a mere social and police arrange-
ment, and the only question for the committee to decide
was—ls it desieable that the parks should be retained for
the amusement and recreation of the people ?
Mr. BRIGHT dwelt on the importance and the use of
public meetings, and eulogised the conduct of the people
at the recent Reform demonstrations, metropolitan and
provincial, arguing that at meetings in Hyde-park the risk
of collision would be less than at Primrose-hill, as the
ground was larger, and that, as they would bo wi flossed
by a larger number of persons, their effect as demonstra-
tions would be greater. The urgency of the case was not
proved, neither was the ncossity for increasing the power
of the exe .utive to deal with public meetings; and ho
pressed tho Government to drop the bill, pleading that, if
at the commencement of next session it should still be
thought necessary to legislate, the subject could be ap-
proached with greater chance of success and without the
same risk of provoking popular resentment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the bill, and on a division
Mr. Locke's resolution was defeated by a majority of 45 --
133 to 88. The house went into committee, but no pro-
gress was made with the bill.
Several other bills were forwarded a stage, and the house
adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock.

[ADVERTisEmENTJ—Henceforth no one will doubt the valuable
properties of Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta AraNca
Invalids' and Infants' Food, since to the thousands of blessings
it has already received from Invalids whose position had been
deemed hopeless, we may now add that of his Holiness the Pope
owfhunsoseuhcceaealtshfuhlasmebediecanlptererafetcmtleynret. sltvoereqduboyteiftroamftetrhtehi,rt,Gyayzeeatrtes
du Midi," July 25th :—" Rome, July 21, 1866.—" The health of
the Holy Father is excellent, especially since, abandoning all
other remedies, he has confined himself entirely to Du Barry's
Revalenta Arabica Food, of which he consumes a plateful
at every meal. It has pi oduced a surprisingly beneficial
effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praise this
excellent food too highly." We extract a few out of
more than 68,000 cures:—Cure No. 58,216, of the Marchioness
de Brehan, of seven years' liver complaint, wasting away,
debility, nervousness, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad
digestion, constant sleeplessness, and the most intolerable ner-
vousvaiasthma,
Lordyears'
daceosjncosritiiy7tliecon,nrageofinaNytuiof.reo4nm6l7,doys:pspamesprm.sia, nervousness,
Lieutenantttnyygeagitation..c—aoruahi
nlriv,acteurrfeorilo.ofln
many
Stuartdyspepsia.r d e eNc ioe. 84,
9,832 Lord:
of. Frimley, Surrey, of 30 years' diseased lungs, sajp,aitsmtlienelmsg oitefsosbb,leooarntsd,l
liver derangement, and partial deafness Important Caution.—
Beware of the many unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations
to which, without authority, Baron Liobig's name is most auda-
ciously attached.

In Lies at is. lid.; 1 lb., 2s. 9d. 2 lbs., 4s. 6d.; 5 lbs., nfil.;
12 lbs., 225.; 24 lbs., 40s.—BanaY Du BARRY and Co., No. 77,
Liegent-street, London; also Fortnam and Mason, 182, Piccadilly ;
and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; 63, 150, and, 298,
Oztvrti-stroot 880 801 A PM au mom asid chelulata.