The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-06 00:00:00

PETITION.

The Bishop of PETERBORO' presented a petition from
the clergy and churchwardens of Camltridge against the
sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday.
ODESSA. MARRIAGE BILL.

Tho Earl of BELMORE moved the second reading of
the Odessa Marriage Bill. The bill was then road a second
time.

Tho house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
THE ABYSSINIAN PRISONERS.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether the British artisans who had
bean or were about to be taken out by Col. Merewether
to Massowah were to be exchanged for the captives now
detained in Abyssinia, or were to be sent into that country
after the latter were released; and, if so, whether it would
not require great attention to provent the transaction from
pimply resulting in the change of one set of prisoners for

ex-iot her ?
Lord STANLEY said that orders had been given to
Colonel Merewether that artisans were not to go into the
interior of the country until all the prisoners were released.
The artisans went on their own responsibility, after a full
explanation of all the circumstances of the case.
TILE TORNADO.

Mr. LUSK asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if eight of the crew of the Tornado were still kept
close prisoners by the Spanish authorities ; and seeing
that it was admitted in a despatch to Sir J. Cramp-
ton, dated Foreign Office, February Bth, 1867,
that all
,the crew of this_ship had been " arbitrarily
detained, on one pretext or another, for many months, and
that " they have been subjected to hardships as unneces-
sary as they were cruel," if it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to take any steps to obtain redress
for these unfortunate and ill-used British subjects ?
Lord STANLEY said the eight persons were detained
on the ground that their evidence might be required in
the event of the decision of the prize court being ques-
tioned and carried to another tribunal. The matter of
redress must be con.tidered when matters had further

progressed.
THE REFORM BILL—THE MINISTRY.

On the motion that the house at its rising do adjourn I
until two o'clock to-morrow,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
in the statement he made to the house last night he was un-
derstood to speak as ho did under some misapprehension. He
had informed the house that three of his colleagues had
retired, in consequence of tbo Cabinet of Lord Derby
having reverted to its original policy, but he found that
the original policy had not been announced. In the
statement he made on the 23th of last month,
he distinctly reverted to a statement that it was proposed
to deal with the borough franchise in a more extensive
manner, but the Cabinet had been obliged to relin-
quish it. The proposition of the Government
bad been very much criticised, but there was
no foundation for the remark that the sub-
ject of Reform had been taken up in a hasty and in-
considerate manner. In the autumn of last year
Lord Derby wrote to him stating that the ques-
tion of Reform must be dealt with, and that in no
niggardly spirit. That was his Lord Derby's first
impression, that was his last, and that was the one upon
which he was prepared to act. He bad had the expectation
more than the hope that he should have been enabled to
have introduced a measure sanctioned by the united ap-
proval of his colleagues ; but, unhappily, that was not the
case. His three hon. friends bad, in acting as they had
done, only yielded to their feelings like men of high honour.
The measure he had explained was not a hasty one,butone
of matured consideration, and ho felt it was one that could
bo defended on principle. It was not the measure that
ho preferred, but it was one that would have led to a great
extension of the suffrage to the working class. That proposal
however did not meet with approval, neither did it give
satisfaction to the great Conservative party. The day after
he had made his explanation the right hon. gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Gladstone) called this friends together, and he
was informed that a resolution was come to that no proposal
would be satisfactory that was not founded on a £5 rat-
ing. (Cries of " No, no.)
An HON. MEMBER—It was not authentic.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued—
It was about as accurate as information that'reached hon.
gentlemen opposite from his (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer's) side of the house. The matter seemed to the Go-
vernment to be fast sinking into the unsatisfactory state it
was in last session, when Lord Derby called his col-
leagues together and informed them that the subject
must be dealt with in the course ociginally proposed.
The result was that throe of his ei,lieng,ues resigned, and
if such a circumstance could have been prevented by his
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) resignation, there
was no personal sacrifice he was not prep trod to
make to keep a united Cabinet and united
party. There would, however, be no hesitation, no vacil-
lation in the measure the Government would propose. It
would contain the definite opinion of the Government,
and by that they would stand. (fle,ar, hear, and
loud cheers. It was a proposition that would
not be perplexing to Parliament, and it would also be
quite intelligible to the country. (Hear, hear.)
General PEEL said when he took office no pledge was
taken from him about Reform. He had held opinions
which he had felt called upon to change, and
no person regretted certain hasty expressions contained in
a speech that he had uttered more than he did, more
particuarly that relative to the Thames flowing with blood.

no should never cease to regret the expression. It was the
unfortunate five resolutions, as he might call them, that
lel to his retirement from the Cabinet. When ho found

that that proposal went down in fact to household suf-

rage, he could not give his assent to it, because it
would swamp and overwhelm the small boroughs. Two
other of his colleagues were of the same opinion, and that
circumstance had led to their separation front their friends.
Viscount CItANBORNE said he had come to the con-
clusion that the proposal of the Cabinet carne to house-
hold suffrage pure and simple, and, therefore, he could not
give the measure his concurrence and support.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH, whose rising was the signal for
general laughter, said—The house may well believe that
I would not for a moment presume to trespass upon it—
(laughter) - on an occasion of this sort for the mere pur-
pose of continuing a discussion in which I have no claim
to interfere. (Laughter and cheers.) I only wish to clear
up a particular transactien, of which an account has ap-
peared in the public papers. On Wednesday, the 27th of
February, there appeared in the Morning Adrertiser—(much
laughter)—a statement in these terms—" After the with-
drawal of the resolutions last night Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Disraeli had a long interview in one of the retiring cham-
bers of the house." (Renewed laughter.) The statement
of itself is of little importance, but it was contradicted in
authoritative terms, as being without any foundation what-
ever. This morning the original statement was repro-
duced, not only that the two right hon. gentlemen referred
to had a conference in a private room of the house on the
25th of February, but that the meeting was adjourned till
the following day. (Laughter.) A deliberate statement
of this kind by the public press is surely worthy of some
remark. (Cries of " Oh, oh," amidst which the hon. gen-
tleman resumed his seat.)
Mr. GLADSTONE, who was received with cheers, said 11
—There will be no difficulty, I think, in setting at rest
the mind of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down
with respect to a meeting which is supposed to have
taken place between the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer and myself on the subject of Par-
liamentary Reform. There is no foundation whatever for
the idea of such a communication having taken place.
What did happen was this—and it is a curious illustration
of what great things may grow out of small: On the
evening referred to a question was likely to come
forward of a very different order from the sub-
ject of Parliamentary Reform, on which 1 was
unequivocally anxious to give my support to the Go-
vernment, should the course proposed be such as I could
approve. I saw the right hon. gentleman, not for twenty
minutes, but perhaps for twenty seconds, in which the
right hon. gentleman briefly explained, and I said "Quite
proper," which may have been overheard—another proof
that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," a hosted
imagination having applied the remark to a reform bill.
(Laughter.) Sir, with regard to the statements which have
been submitted to the house this evening, I do not think it
would tend to the public advantage to comment cn the
state of things in the Cabinet on the question of parlia-
mentary reform. I shall not., therefore, enter into any
comment on the statement made by the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer, andfar less on those
of my right hon. friend the Secretary for War and the
noble lord the member for Stamford. But there is a parti-
cular portion of the statement of the right hou. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer which requires some no-
tice, because he has submitted a defence, or justitied the
withdrawal of his proposal of parliamentary reform, which
he submitted and so hastily withdrew, and thrown on this
the Opposition side of the house, the responsibility of the
course. I must, in the first place, continent ou the state-
ment of the right hon. gentleman that it was founded on a
principle. When I hoard these words fall from the right
hon. gentleman, I was curious to hear what interpretation
might be put on the assertion from his following remarks.
It was with surprise I listened to the statement that it was
on the increase of the representation of the working classes.
He said, in raising the constituency to 1,400,000, one-
fourth, or 350,000, would have been taken from the labour-
ing population, one-fourth front the landed interest, and
the remaining moiety divided among various sections of
the middle eliss. I do not stop to consider the accuracy
of tlfat description, based on facts it is impossible to ad-
mit, but I go to the point advanced by the right hon. gen-
tleman, that the proposition was founded on a prin-
ciple, because it proposed to admit the labouring
classes to the extent of a fourth of the con-
gituency. It is the, Apt UM@ DAD 18antQc1 that t 4

mit the working classes as a fourth of the whole con-
stituency is to be considered as a principle—l mean, es-
timating them in that numerical relation to the other parts.

.
During the whole of last session,when the bill which I had
the honour to propose was under discussion, the objections
constantly urged by the right hon. gentleman and those
who supported him were, that it was not founded on a
principle. I believe that, if the arithmetical proportions of
that scheme are carefully looked into, it as nearly as pos-
sible invested the working classes with a fourth ; there-
fore, if the right hon. gentleman is serious in the opinion
he expressed to-night, that the measure which was born
and died on the 25th of February was one founded on prin-
ciple, I regret that tho discovery he has now for the first
time divulged has not been sooner made, if it could not be
announced last session, so that much of the trouble that has
occurred, and possibly still awaits us, might have been
avoided. But much more important is that portion of the
right hon. gentleman's observations which refer to the de-
scription of his intentions, and the causes which led to the
resolution to withdraw the scheme proposed; and I must
enter my distinct and most unequivocal protest against the
statement of the right hon. gentleman—(hear)—which is
full from beginning to end of errors, totally unintentional,
but at the same time of the grayest character. It is neces-
sary that I should remark on it, as there is one point of
what I may call cardinal importance. The right hon. gen-
tleman says that if ho received inaccurate information, we
were subject to the same misfortune. But there was this
difference, that we do not found our statements in Parlia-
ment on it. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman says the
measure on the basis of a £6 rating franchise was intro-
duced either with our knowledge or full approval; that it
was not acceptable to members of the party who sit behind
him.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to say that it was with the expectation of being
favourably received by gentlemen opposite.

Mr. GLADSTONE—Of course I withdraw that state-
ment of what I understood the right hon. gentleman to
say, but I am right in saying that he came to the con-
clusion that he might fairly expect to receive support on
this side of the house. The right hon. gentleman can-
not find any reason in fact, I am sure, for forming such a
conclusion ; and of anything so improbable and so little
supported by events I am at a loss to conceive. In June
last year, when 1 unworthily held the plaee he now fills,
we had full opportunity of stating our views on a £6 rating,
and it was over and over again declared to be impossible
to support a £6 franchise. (Hear, hear.) How, then, could
he suppose that, having broken up our Government on the
question of Reform, he was to expect that the proposition
was now to meet with approval when it came on his re-
commendation? (Hear, hoar.) That was a groundless
and unreasonable expectation ; and if it had influence on
the course pursued on Monday week, I can only say that
there was not a due care and diligence in ascertaining the
solidity of the grounds on which it arose. But, more than
this, tho right hon. gentleman said that expectation was
disappointed by some proceedings taken by the Libera
party, who had met together and determined to support a
£5 franchise, and in consequence the Government felt that
its withdrawal of the scheme had become necessary. The
right hon. gentleman has been wholly and grossly misin•
formed on this point. He has proceeded on seine rumour
or report as groundless as that to which the hon. member
for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) has referred. With respect
to the proceedings of the Liberal party on the occasion
alluded to, I may almost say that the subject of a £5 rating
was not mentioned. (Hear, hear.) It certainly was men-
tioned by a single member, only to call forth an expression
of opinion that any mention of such a subject was prema-
ture. And, so far from there being any determination,
they wore not in a position to offer any opposition, as we
were then only in possession of the plan promised by
the right hon. gentleman, and much might occur between
the delivery of the speech and the formation of a bill.
Until a bill was actually introduced it was impossible to
decide on what course we should resolve. But, the object
of warm and general desire being to settle this question,
the feeling was to support the first and second reading of
the bill—(cheers)—and on the motion for the Speaker
leaving the chair to go into committee, then would
be the time to propose the amendments that we con-
sidered necessary for the improvement of the measure.
There was nothing, therefore, in the proceedings of the
Liberal party to justify the right hon. gentleman in his
attempt—and I think 1 may apply the epithet—the un-
generous attempt, to cast on this side of the House the re-
sponsibility of the failure of that measure. (Cheers.) I
have only one word more to say, that I feel the paramount
importance of the opinion expressed in the closing words
of the noble lord the member for Stamford on these col-
lateral discussions. I think they are calulated to introduce
into our language or minds that which would not conduce
to furthering the objects we have in view, and therefore I
will abstain from further and preliminary comment. I do
not think it necessary to dwell on what the right hon.
gentleman has said ou infirmities of my own. To be made
acquainted with our faults is one of the most efficient steps
in moral progress, and a benefit to be received with thank-
fulness. 1 have frequently received assurances of this
kind from the right hon. gentleman, and I sincerely re-
turn him my thanks. (Laughter.) But ho referred to an
expression of my own in reference to what full from the
right hon. gentleman yesterday with respect to the forth-
coming measure, and said that it was in his view gra-
tuitous. I might say in reply that they were deliberate
and wore opportune—(hear, hear)—and that the bill is still
in a vague and undefined shape does not lead me to repent
of the observations I made. My object was to press on
the Government a full sense of the responsibility of their
present position with regard to the proposition they may
be about to make. We are toll that they are the best
judges of their own responsibility. I admit that; but
at the same time I feel it to bo a duty we owe to the
public, and it is indeed rather an act of friendship than
otherwise to the Administration, at a time when great
and serious issues are about to bo raised, to express in
becoming and respectful terms our apprehensions
as to the importance of the crisis. (Hear, hear.)
My right hon. friend the Secretary of War says he has
no faith in securities as such. I thank my right hon.
friend not only in justifying ma in the few words I used
yesterday, but for his suggestion. As the time ap-
proaches—though not perhaps so very near—when we may
make another step towards information, I have no disposi-
tion to bring on topics of an intermediate character.
Mr. LOWE rose, with several other members, who, how-
ever, gave place on calls for tho right hon. gentleman. Hu
said—There is one cause which has found no defender in
these. discussions. The right hon. gentleman the member
for South Lancashire is naturally in favour of a £7 rental,
while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two pet views
of his own ; he is both in favour of a £6 rating and of a
household suffrage. When the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer accused the member for
South Lancashire of opposing his bill because it was based
on a principle—that, namely, of a £6 rating—seeing that
the principle is only a translation of a £7 rental]2into a £6
rating, the right hon. gentleman, by implication, admits
the principle in the Government measure of last year, and
throws the onus on himself of all the delay that has
occurred. He gave what was tantamount to an assurance
to those who wanted to defeat the measure, and there can
be no doubt on what principle most members acted ; be-
cause the measure did not carry with it any sufficient
safeguard ; in fact, that it was the first stage on the way to
household suffrage, at which we have arrived to-night.
(Laughter.) Isit likely that there should be a ready acqui-
escence now in a contrary course, when, for the first time
in English history, a Minister of the Crown pronounces
the ominous and fatal words of "household suffrage ?"
(Laughter.) If we were in want of such a policy, we
might have got it easier than by placing the right hon.
gentleman where he now sits, without any of the eject-
ments we have seen, and disruptions of party. But was
it to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a
measure of household suffrage that we combined against
tho measure introduced by the late Government ? (Loud
laughter and cheers.) Duty calls forth a tribute to tho
consistency of the hon. member for Birmingham in always
maintaining his opinion in favour of manhood suffrage,
and in manfully resisting proposals short of that principle.
He approached household suffrage from below, while the
Chancellor of the Exchequer came from above. It is really
difficult to discern any real distinction between the opinions
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. gentle-
man, unless it be that the one comes to the question from
above, the other from below. (Laughter.) There must
now be some strange attraction of affinity between the
groat twin brethren. (Laughter.) The ship they ride on
is called Hypocrisy, and the chief they serve under is
Anarchy. What have they to say to this alliance? Are
they consenting parties after the victory of their principle
last year on the question whether the ancient constitution
of this country shall be preserved in its integrity, or whether
it is to be sacrificed to the views of the hon. member for
Birmingham and the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ? The decision rests with them and the
country, and we all pause to see what decision they make.
I cannot help saying this, because it appears that the ma-
jority of last year has now got nobody to defend it. We
cannot expect any defence from the minority whom we
defeated; those to whom we trusted the destinies of this
country—(cheers)—have under-bid the majority whom
they opposed because they were going too far, and have
placed themselves in a position which differs only from
them in being infinitely more democratic. We have had a
great deal about figures to-night, and of hon. gentlemen
who sat up on Sunday to read them, and we are told that
the bill will be introduced on the 18th, and will then be
urged forward at the greatest possible speed de die in diem,
We have had delays enough, and if the right hon. gentle-
man wishes to facilitate the discussion in this hens; he had
better place on the table the figures which are to form the
subject of that discussion. We have not got them at pre-
sent. We have got the book of last year, in which we
find a number of statements with regard to municipal
franchises; but, as is shown in a very excellent letter
by the hon. member for Cheltenham, which has ap-
peared in the Times, we have only 72 boroughs in which
the two things are conterminous, and we can make
a comparison between the municipal and the proposed
Parliamentary franchise. It will, therefore, be of the ut-
most service to the house if the right hon. gentleman will
furnish us with the opportunity of going through the pro-
Ces§ which the three Secretaries el 5 tato lime &ono thrcough

—(a laugh)— and seeing what is the real effect of the mea-
sure they propose. If we are to have these figures after
the Reform Bill has been brought in, we probably shall not

be in a position to go on with it as the right hon. gentle-
man wishes. Therefore I do hope he will consider the
propriety of giving to the house in this instance some means
of judging of the proposition he will make, so that we may
not be as we have been, always in the position of receiving

communications in such a manner that we are unable to

act upon them. 1 thank the house for allowing one who is
eminently of a past generation—(laughter)—and who re-
presents that which was a power last year, but which has
been taken over by the right hon. gentleman to the other

side—to say a few words on this subject. The truth is,
what was a conflict last year has become a race this year,

and the two parties are trying not which shall attack and
which shall stand up for existing institutions, but which
shall surpass the other in the attompt to reach the goal of

a perfectly level democracy. (Cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—I desire to offer a word of expla-
nation with regard to au expression of my right hon.
friend, not at all intentional, but which was the result of a

misapprehension. He said at the commencement of his I
speech that I had defended the £7 franchise. Now I had
no intention of entering into a defence of that franchise.
The meaning of what I said was this—that the right hon.
gentleman appeared to me to found his claim for a principle
in the measure of last Monday week upon a numerical re-
lation that would have been just as applicable to the mea-
sure of last year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Perhaps
in explanation I may just observe that there were two
misapprehensions by the right hon. gentleman, on which
in fact his speech was mainly founded. (Laughter.) In
the first place, when I referred to some vote of certain
gentlemen opposite, I really did not refer to the bench
which is opposed to me ; I meant to speak generally of the
party opposite, and not of the right hon. gentleman.
(" Oh, oh," and some interruption.) I hope gentlemen
will allow me the same hearing as they gave to the sight
hon. gentleman. My friends around me—(bowing to Lord
Stanley and others on the Ministerial bench)—know that
I did not intend to make the slightest reference to the
right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The second mis-
apprehension was that the right hon. gentleman thought
I withdrew that intended measure in consequence of the
assumed want of support from the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) and his friends. On the contrary, I
stated that the main reason why we withdrew it was the
general discontent of the Conservative party.
Mr. HORSMAN : I was not aware that any discussion
was to take place, or explanation was to be given to-day.
The noble lord's statement has rather taken us by sur-
prise; but 1 must say I agree with what has been said by
my hon. friend the member for South Lancashire, that it
is very difficult to sit still after that provocation given to
us by the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What we have heard to-day from the noble lord and the
right hon. gentleman makes a great change in the situa-
tion. The Liberal party, I trust, will not withdraw from
the resolution which they expressed, to give the Govern-
ment every assistance to settle the question of Reform ;
but I must say, we go on to give that assistance under
different feelings every day, under greater difficulty, and
with greater responsibility. When a Ministry in a
confessed minority undertakes to carry on a Reform
Bill, such a state of things can only be tolerated because
they make up in some way by character and ability
what they want in numbers, or because they are
supported by an opinion which is in itself a force. Is that
the case with the present Government? They are, I must
say, the weakest Government that even in our time has
sat upon these benches, dealing with the greatest question
of the day. How are they dealing with it? There has
been a vague and general determination on this side of
the House to giro effect to the very judicious counsel
given to us by the right hon. gentleman the member for
South Lancashire, at the commencement of the session,
to combine for two objects—to effect a settlement of
reform, and to effect it if possible without a displacement of
the Government. But I must say the speech which we
have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer renders
the reconcilement of those two results more difficult. They
have undertaken to deal with the question of reform. How
have they undertaken to deal with it ? Why, the revela-
tions that have been made to-day show us that, so far as
official confusion and legislative weakness go, there has
been everything on our part to complain of, and now there
is apparently an abandonment of principle and a breaking
down both in credit and in character, unexampled, as far
as I can remember, in the modern history of Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) What is the next step? We learn that a
Conservative Government, existing upon sufferance, are
about to launch what they themselves would last year have
called a democratic Reform Bill. My right hon. and gallant
friend opposite (Gen. Peel) says he has changed his opi-
nion, and that he respects men for changing their opinions.
Let us consider for one moment the nature of the change
under the cireumstances in which it was made. In 1859
the present cabinet changed thoiropinions, and brought in
a Reform Bill. They had been anti-reformers up to 1839.
(No, no.) They brought in, I say, a Reform Bill in 1859 ;
but the moment when they abandoned office they abandoned
their conversion to reform, and it was only after a lapse of
nine years, when they returned to those benches, that the
convictions which they had left in their red boxes were
again found, and again we have a second conversion. Now
I do not hesitate to say that I hold it as a rule, and an un-
answerable rule, that for any groat party to hold itself free
and the moinent it finds itself in office to turn round on the

opinions which it has consistently and persistently main-
tained in opposition, is politically wrong and morally inde-
fensible. I do not know any instance which history gives
us that is not a confirmation of that opinion. Even those
cases which are relied on of the Duke of Wellington and
Sir R. Peel rather confirm than shake this opinion. The
Duke of Wellington, who was the most powerful and po-
pular man of his time, whan be proposed emancipation was
driven from office, which he never resumed, lost his influ-
ence, and hopelessly broke up his party. A common dan-
ger drew them together in a common defence, and nine
years afterwards Sir Robert Peel again united his party
with great skill and capacity ; but once more he was driven
from office, his party broken, his influence gone; and he
never regained the position he had lost. But there was
this difference. They commanded groat Parliamentary
majorities ; they were sincerely converted. If the Duke of
Wellington had been driven from office before the passing
of the Emancipation Act, he would have fought for it in
Opposition. If Sir Robert Peel had been driven from office
before the passing of the great free-trade measure, he would
always have been a free-trader. But the present Govern-
ment, driven from office in 1859, changed their opinions,
and opposed the bill of the Government of 1860. (No, no.)
I repeat, they opposed the bill. After six years they re-
turned to office, and I ask, what proof have we that their
second conversion is more sincere than their first, especially
when we learn that their new conviction is that Reform is
not a question that should decide the fall of Governments ?

In reality, the Government have given a choice of mea-
sures, and have acted the part not so much of Ministers as
of auctioneers, knocking down the constitution to the
loudest bidder. I won't refer to the £6 franchise, which
almost fell stillborn in4B hours after its appearance, and we
have heard no more about it ; but wo heard immediately
afterwards that they had returned to their original policy—
a policy which, if there be any truth in language or mean-
ing in words, there is not one member in that Cabinet who
did not, 12 months ago, loudly and earnestly declaim was
in his inmost conviction a policy of revolution. This may
be supposed to be done for popularity. In my opinion it
should rather be a matter for morality. It should always
be borne in mind that a Government which wishes to be
popular must commend itself to that which is inherent

in tho English character, and must base its popularity on

political respect. I do not think the course Government
are taking is likely to secure for them that respect. We
respect the hon. gentleman and the noble lord for aban-
doning their places and retaiuing their principles, rather
than those who abandon their principles and retain their
place's. (Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY—The speech of the right lion. gentle-
man who has just sat down, and that of the right hon.
member for Caine, have both been founded on some idea
which I venture to say is an utter misapprehension. They
have both spoken as if they believed it was the intention
of those who sit on these benches to go further in a demo-
cratic direction than those who sit opposite, and to outbid
them in bringing in a bill proceeding in that way. Now, I
say plainly and distinctly that I cannot conceive any cir-
cumstances under which, in our position and with our
antecedents, that would be an excellent course to adopt. I
am sine it would not be an honourable course, nor one
that those who sit on these benches would be disposed to
follow. (Hear, hear.) I say that, in order to save some
members of this house from disappointment. If the right
hon. member for Caine, or any of those who think with I
him, believe seriously that it is the intention to bring in a
bill in the sense of that policy which has been ably and
consistently advocated by the hon. member for Birming-
ham, I can assure him ho is utterly mistaken. I hope gen-
tlemen will recollect that they are discussing a measure
which is not now before the house, of which they have
heard no statement whatever, of ,the general purport and
effect of which it is impossible they can know anything,
and of which I submit they cannot accurately judge merely
by some fragmentary expressions which have been used in
relation to some portions of it by members who have
spoken in this debate. We are quite ready to stand or
fall by the judgment of the house on the measure wo
bring is. (Hear, hear.) We only ask for ordinary fair
play to say what this measure is before we proceed to dis-
cuss it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT shall not prolong this discussion more
than two or three minutes, but I cannot help saying that
I think wo have had an instructive evening. (A laugh.)
Probably if hon. gentlemen opposite, and perhaps some
right hon. gentlemen on this side, could have seen in
vision a year ago what they see to-night, the result of our
deliberations last session might have been very different.
The right hon. member for Caine admits he is very much
out of court, and that he ought not to be here at all.
(Laughter.) Yet he was the great adviser last year to cer-
tain weak-minded gentlemen, and certain other passionate
and fierce politicians who sit now in a very meek spirit
opposite me. You will recollect his (Mr. Lowe's) speeches
from that bench. There were violent—and I will say there
were some logical—parts of his speech which he himself
AVOW t 9 JIM said. TAW 9-41.9.) (Laughter.) Then

there were parts which I very much regret. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman made these speeches. He fanned
the flame of discontent, and a number of gentlemen, who
somehow or other were nearly all leaders, were those who
in former times had been in office, and who also fanned
that flame of discontent, combining with it pure party
spirit, in order to throw out a Government which had
offered to the country a measure of which the country dis-
tinctly approved. (Hear, hear.) When 1 say the country,
understand me, I mean that if there were any who could
not approve, they did not signify their disapprobation ; but
the multitudes, at whose request or demand your Govern-
ment now propose to act, did in many hundreds of public
meetings signify their approbation of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Well now, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to dismiss for ever
from their councils the right hon. member for Caine.
(Laughter.) lie has once led you into very great diffi-
culty, and if you will take his advice now ho will
greatly increase that difficulty. He is against extend-
ing the franchise by any reduction of it to any portion
of his countrymen. That is not an opinion which I
myself hold, nor, as he admits, is it held by any other
member of this house. If that bo so, clearly on this,
which is the question to-night and of the session,
he is, as he says, out of court; and if ho does
not withhold his advice in future, I recommend you not to
adopt it. The hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is
very angry with the Government. Nobody has so much
reason to be angry with the Government as I have, because
I believe nobody grieved more last session after a bill
which NO wished to pass. But could an hon. gentleman
expect, who coalesced with gentlemen opposite to drive out
the Government of Lord Russell andput in the Government
of Lord Derby—did he so little know the state of public
opinion, that he believed the Government of Lord Derby
could take office, and refuse to deal with the question of
reform ? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows,
Lord Derby knows, and every man in the house knows
perfectly well, that if the Government had met Parliament
this session and declared they had no measure of
reform to offer, they would resist any proposition for the
extension of the franchise, the first week of the session
would have been to them the week of their extermination
as a Government. There would have been an end to them
now and for ever. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, the right hon.
gentleman is very angry with them because of the words
" household suffrage." The right hon. gentleman has a
household suffrage bill in his pocket, and he came down
to-night with the expectation that it was to be brought in.
(Much laughter.) In fact, we scarcely know, under the
leadership of the hon. member for Caine and the hon. mem-
ber for Stroud, where we are or where we shall be. His
bill for household suffrage has limitations. It may have
been under the examination of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and Lord Derby; and I know the right hon. gen-
tleman has been taking about his bill first to St. James's-
square, and then I believe to Carlton House-terrace ; but
there has been no market for the article. (Laughter.) I
am not in the least surprised, therefore, that he should
get up and try to damage the wares of the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me say one
or two words to righthon. gentlemen opposite. You know
as the hon. member for Caine has truly said, that I have,
always, so long as I have discussed this question, thought
household suffrage was the true basis of the franchise.
(Hear.) I have been willing to support measures on that
condition. lam willing to support them now, if the house
could agree upon that, or any measure short of that, for I
believe that is the just foundation of the borough franchise
in this country. (Hear, hear.) We have been accustomed
to hear of the evils arising from numbers of voters. You
have had constituencies so narrow and contracted that you
have got some sort of an idea that things which are safe in
the hands of a million voters would be unsafe in the hands
of two millions, as if the second million of your country-
men were not fitted in the same way as the first million,
and as if they had not almost entirely the same interests.
(Hear, hear.) There is no other country in the world in
which the monarchy, the aristocracy—where there is one
—or the wealthy class, is afraid of votes. Whether you go
to America or Australia, or nearly every kingdom of Eu-
rope, you never hear discussions by any legislative body
such as you find in this house. Other countries have no
dread of their countrymen, and have no fear that the giv-
ing them votes would be destructive of the order of society
or of the constitution under which they lived. I ask you
whether last year, when the great body of the working
people met to express an opinion on the bill of Lord Rus-
sell, whether they were not moderate and judicious in the
course they took with regard to that bill, and in tho j udg-
ment they expressed upon it? (Hear, hoar.) I will ven-
ture to say they took a part much more patriotic in its
results than that which you were unfortunately advised to
take by the right hon. gentleman behind me ; and I will
venture further to say that such is their moderation, atm
such their comprehension of this question, that they will
judge with great fairness and great patience any measure
which the Government shall lay before the house ; and,
if they should fail, the measure placed before tho house
by the Government which shall succeed them. But now
I implore you—and you know I am not speaking in the
interest of the right hon. gentleman the member for
South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), nor of his friends
who may hereafter occupy those benches, nor in the spe-
cial interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom
I have no political connection—l speak in the interest of a
great cause and of millions of people, who at this moment,
every day, read every syllable that is uttered in this house,
and I ask you to deal with them as one class, or ono pal ty,
or one section of a people should deal with every other
section of that people—with a generous and liberal esti-
mate of their character, and of that which is due to them.
(Hear, hear.) Don't try now, by any tricks—(laughter)—
to cheat them of that which they have a right to expect
from the declarations which you have made. (Hear, hear.)
If you cannot go so far as I would wish you to go, try
something less ; but let us have it simple and distinct, so
that they will know that what you profess to give they will
really receive. (Cheers.) I recollect in the demonstration,
as it is called, which met here the other day—the right
hon. gentle man (Mr. Lowe) says that those great demons-
trations have left no echo behind them. Lord Derby could
tell him a very different story. (Hear, hear.) If I under-
stood rightly, the measure which the right hon. gentleman
intends to introduce is rather the product of the brain of
Lord Derby than of his own—of Lord Derby himself, who
is not supposed to be rash in his propensity as an innovator
on the institutions of his country ; but Lord Derby is in
favour of that wide extension of the suffrage to which it is
ntioortohsletreemwayerbey-flaangds- by-and-by
along the
hthoapteddgemenotulesmtrea consent. But in
streets, and on one of them—that carried by the carpenters
there was a motto which, though it is not in the choicest
English, will still be understood by many present. I com-
mend it to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite and to
the house, as conveying in it all the wisdom which I could
possibly hope to put in any number of words I might
utter; they said, " Deal with us on the square, we have
been chiselled long enough." (Laughter and cheers.)

Mr. SMOLLETT asked why, with their nu merical ma-
jority, the great Liberal party did not displace the pre-
sent Government and deal with Reform themselves ? He
hoped the answer to that question would not be that the
Liberal party distrusted their leaders and had no faith in
them, because if that were the case it would discredit re-
sponsible Government, and be anything but satisfictory to
tho house or to the country.

Mr. B. STANHOPE said the reason why the Conserva-
tive party approached the Reform question in the way they
did was on account of the Liberal party having cut the
ground from under their feet.
The subject then dropped.
Mr. WATKIN, in moving for a committee to inquire
into tho operation of the Limited Liability Act, based his
motion on the ground that the act had failed to carry out
its original object, as he showed by a long review of our
recent commercial industry that it had been coincident
with excessive speculation, and had led to unnecessary
and expensive litigation. The effect of the inquiry, he
suggested, would be to show that the act might be usefully
modified and its machinery improved, and he expressed a
strong conviction that the result would be to show that the
area of irregularity was small.
The motion was supported by Mr. MoniusoN and Mr.
Alderman SALOMONS ; and
Sir S. NORTRCOTE assented on the part of the Go-
vernment to the appointment of a committee, as Yr.
Watkin's object was not to impugn the policy of the act.
Re intimated that it was not the intention of the Govern-
ment, considering the circumstances of the session, to pro-
pose an inquiry into the operation of the Bank Act this
year.

Mr. M‘LAGAN brought in a Bill to amend the Scotch
Gamo Laws.
The adjourned debate on Mr. Leeman's Sale and Pur-
chase of Shares Bill was resumed, and after some discus-
sion the second reading was carried 13y 86 to 41.
A debate arose on Mr. GoldneY's Execution of Deeds
Bill, which was opposed by the Government, but ultimately
the further consideration of it was adjourned until Friday
week.
The House then adjourned.

The Boston, llartford, and Erie Railroad now
runs its trains direct from its depot in Boston to
Southbridge, 61 miles, a longer distance than is
controlled by any of the seven principal lines lead-
ing out of that city, except the Boston aud Alaine, and
Old Colony and Newport. The old Air Line cor-
poration from Boston to New York, and the Pro-
vidence, Hartford, and Fishkill Company have both
lately consolidated with the Boston, Hartfor3, and
Erie, which now controls a tot al length of 231 miles of
tract, built, and in operation. The important links
of the road yet remaining to be built are—from
Southbridge to Palmer, 18 miles, to a connection
with the Western Railroad; from Mechanicsville to
Williamantic, Connecticut, 26 miles, to a direct
connection and a new through route to Hartford
and New York; from Waterbury, Connecticut, to
Fishkill, N.Y., 77 miles, to a close connection
with the Erie Road, and a through line to all points
west,