The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

PATENT SELF-ADJUSTING TRUSSES.

SALMON, ODY, and CO. most respectfully in-
form the public that their PATENT SELF-ADJUST-
ING TRUSSES afford more ease and security for the relief
of Hernia than any other instrument for the purpose. They
will answer for right or left side, requiring-no under-strap or
any gallingbandage. Persons in the country are requested to
send the circumference of the body one inch below the hips.
CAUTlON.—Purchasers are requested to observe, that
SALMON, ODY & Co., 292, Strand, London, is marked upon
the leather case.

BLAIR'S GOUT AND RHEUMATIC PILLS.
Price is. lid. and 2s. 9d. per box.
This preparation is one of the benefits which the science of
modern chemistry has conferred upon mankind ; for, during
the first twenty years of the present century to speak of a
cure for the Gout was considered a romance; but now the
Ifficacy and safety of this medicine Is so fully demonstrated,
Ry unsolicited testimonials from persons in every rank of life,
122
9a nt.
ta
:a:Pek These
nab
dint
dc.atteol:
pyvienviotenasloppfratocrhtl.eapirtressetnhtisagaes one of the most im-
portantrn e Pills require no restraint of diet or confinement
urin,cr their use, and are certain to prevent the disease
Sold 13' !medicine vendors. Observe " Thomas Prout,
London," on the Government stamp.

'ON MEDICAL GALVANISM
Just Published
ABKVIANISM IN THE TREATMENT OF
vTAY.T,
ICIoRNGANIC WEAKNESS, &c.
NERVOUS D
DEBILITY and
Ricuslarli in reference 13FstrtaNmcpTs,IONAL
QELF-PRESEit' Pnce ls., post free,
, 7 on NERVOUS MeneeeditcoatlheTiNre;t:Rs:
nivr Life aa
WEAKNESS. more p
e GENERATIVE SYSTEM;
BY SAMUEL LA'l"ll3%
MI;0571, Ho.
MITIES and DISORDarEt
tracinc, the Origin of these °dfit
which vitiate the very fountains nifidi cptri
eo
mn afflictions tto causes
and on
Practical relydesObsevation
the extraordinary re-
strov the vigour of Manhood.
Impotence, and Sterility, in which case SCI
in
SapP
on the Cure of these Diseases, an
successki without the aid
perlimedatwoiirthhceouat,
storative power of LOCAL GALVA/
pain or danger, and is frequently
of medicine•
37, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LONDO"N,
Registered Licentiate of the London Society Of Apothecaries,
Doctor of Medicine of the University of Erl
Member of the London Hospital„Medical norary
An erroneous impression exists Hospital
public annoYijuilg;iie t
on these disorders emanate only from unqualified persons,nB
but as the new Medical Act provides that none but registered
practitioners shall assume any medical title, those that d
are
legally qualified can readily be distinguished—a point ofgreat
importance in cases where secrecy, confidence, and skill are
equally requisite.
In the new edition of `Self-Preservation,' facts of par,
mount utility are brought together—facts appealing to the
prudence of all who are suffering from affections which in-
volve the enfeeblement and ultimate loss of those powers
without pitiable an forfeits the dignity of nature, and sinks to
the most p depths of physical and moral degradation.
In cases where the vital essences have been weakened by the
influences of tropical climates, by pernicious habits. indiscri-
minate excesses, improper diet, hardship, or by injudicious
' treatment, the means of cure adopted by the author, in con-
-1 junction with the application of Local Galvanism, have gene-
rally been found successful, even in cases where recovery had
been pronounced impossible.
Published by the Author, price ls., or free by post for thir-
teen stamps, and may be had of Allen, Warwick-lane, Pater-
noster-row; London ; Westmacott, chemist, Market-street,
Manchester ; J, Guest, Bull-street, Birmingham; Baraclough,
LPaorgavLASochhe-ffisgeuldar;eß, aGyinaesrg,owHiphHistrreoewt,ellouwtheasmtniptoorndamWd:
Bdtaiire43f3:dt, DumblinEleovrenfrotimil the Author,
and from
inwhsois,mtmay
EheigheAtralltitebids
red 37, Bedford-square, Loudon.

HART'S PATENT ECONOMISING GAS
BURNER, the great desideratum of the age to all con-
sumers of Gas. By its use the objections to the introduction
of Gas into private dwellings are removed, inasmuch as every
particle of gas, on reaching the orifice of the burner, is fairly
consumed, and thus the diffusion of those noxious vapours so
injurious to health, and destructive to works of art, bindings
of books, &c., is entirely prevented.
The burner can be fitted by the most inexperienced hand to
any chandelier or bracket.
May be had at the Depot, 69, Fleet-street, E.C., price Two
Shillings each : one sent on receipt of 30 postage stamps.

GLENFIELD PATENT STARCH,
USED IN THE ROYAL LAUNDRY,
AND PRONOUNCED BY HER MAJESTY'S LAUNDRESS to be
THE FINEST STARCH SHE EVER USED.
WHEN YOU ASK FOR
GLENFIELD P &TENT STARCH,
SEE THAT YOU GET IT,
As inferior kinds are often substituted.
Sold by all Chandlers, Grocers, &c., &c.
WOTHERSPOON & CO., GLASGOW AND LONDON.

THORLEY'S FOOD FOR CATTLE.—Every
person having an interest in domestic or farm animals
should obtain a supply of this celebrated and economical
food, which will prove invaluable during the approaching
season. For keeping horses in good condition it Is unequal-
led. Pigs fatten with surprising rapidity upon it. and their
flesh increases in flavour and value. Cowkeepers will find
great advantage in the increased quantity and improved qua-
lity of the milk during its use. All animals are benefited by
it. A pamphlet on this interesting subject, accompanied by
Testimonials from the principal Nobility, Gentry, and Agri-
culturists, forwarded on application. In casks containing
448 feeds {measures enclosed), price 505., carriage paid to any
Railway Station in the United Kingdom. Pcrst-ofilce orders
payable to Joseph Thorley, 77. Newg-ate-street, London.
N.B.—The public arecautioned against being imposed upon
by worthless imitations.

ELECTION INTELLIGENCE.

MEETING OF LIBERALS.

Yesterday afternoon a meeting of the Liberal
electors of the City of London, convened by " The
Liberal Electors' Committee," was held at the Lon-
don Tavern, for the purpose of giving them an op-
portunity of hearing statements from Lord John
Russell, Baron Rothschild, Sir James Duke, and
Mr. R. W. Crawford, the four sitting members,
and who are candidates for re-election. The meet-
ing was very fully attended. Mr. H. G. Prescott
was called to the chair.

Sir JAMES DUKE, Bart., M.P., first presented
himself, and was received with loud cheers. He
said he was quite sure the meeting would not ex-
pect him to address them at any length before the
noble lord, because all present knew what were his
views in respect to progress and reform, and all he
should have to do would be to act under the noble
lord, with whose views he entirely concurred. For
many years past he had acted with an honest
desire to further the great work of Reform, and, if
elected, he should pursue the same independent
course he had previously pursued. At the same
time he was bound to say that he could not pledge
himself to the details of the measure, which, in his
place in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell
had faintly shadowed out. As far, however, as it
went, he cordially agreed with the brief view his
lordship had given. He thanked the citizens for
the kind reception they had always accorded to
him, and whether again returned to Parliament or
not, he should always retain a grateful sense of
the kindness he had received.
Baron ROTHSCHILD said this was the first time

he had had the opportunity of addressing his con-
stituents since the House of Commons passed the
bill enabling him to take his seat. During the
short time he had been in the house he had voted
several times. He voted, after due consideration,
for the resolution of the noble lord on the Govern-
ment Reform Bill. He believed that if they had
gone to a second reading, and then into committee,
the bill might have been made a very good one,
but it would have been so entirely altered that at
the end of a month or six weeks, after deliberating
and thinking over it every night, they would have
arrived at precisely the same conclusion to which
Lord John Russell's resolution had led them, and
the Government would have been so beaten on
points of detail that they would have been obliged
to give up their bill. They never could have stood
being in a minority so often. Under those circum-
stances he considered that the noble lord's was the
only course that could have been adopted. (Hear,
hear.)
• Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who was very warmly
received, said—Gentlemen, I rise to address myself
to the important question of the approaching dis-
solution, and the election for the City of London,
and I fear that I must detain you for a con-
siderable time longer than either of those gentlemen
who have preceded me have done. The reason is a
very simple one ; they have taken, no doubt, a
very clear and liberal course, but they have not
had, as I have, to sustain the blame and the
reproaches arising from different quarters, for my
having taken a very prominent part in the events
of the last year. I hope you will indulge me while
I give some historical notices of what has happened
during the course—l should say of the last 15
months. The noble lordthengsaB7the defeat of the
aresume of the
proceedings of the session of 18
Conspiracy Bill of Lord Palmerston, his consequent
resignation, and the formation of Earl Derby's
Government, charging the Conservatives with
illiberal and factious conduct towards Lord Pal.
merston, and with ignoring their Conservative
principles and taking up Liberal measures, in order
to keep their offices—among other matters instan-
cing the Jew Bill. The noble lord took great credit
to himself for the course he pursued in saving the
Government from the consequences of their India
Bill, but said he did not consider he was for ever
to play the part of a Royal Humane Society's
officer to save the Government from drowning. The
noble lord then came to the Reform Bill of the
present session, and said—When the Government
brought forward that bill it was not difficult at
suchonce to perceive the defects. Those defects were
nn thatnti o
a n to
ei
is
aeyseo o seemed eeodne
could
uotl,
thing—perhaps
n he
that—allpoewri the
dt waso pass.
impossible
Let_
thate suche
others to refer to—which was noar co I
nmtraoyvehrated
during the seven
was proposed in thisnlg nights' debate. dthebatatteh.ereltswhoausldthihse the
It
e
power to create
non-resident freehold voters in
boroughs. Many
of those boroughs—in fact, a
large proportion of them—have 100,000 acres of
The borough of Midhurst, as we were told
byiland. t
S late representative, goes into 19 parishes. It

might be that a considerable landholder had in one
of these boroughs a considerable quantity of land,
to which he was entitled as owner. But it might
also happen that the £lO voters in the town, who
had a right, might have some independence and
spirit among them, and either decline to name
the person agreeable to the landholder, or affix
such conditions to their selection that none but- a
person professing Liberal opinions, or in conformity
with the majority of the electors, could have any
chance of securing the seat. If any such sense of
independence had appeared, according to the bill of
the Government three or four, or even five hundred
votes might have been created in the borough at no
great expense—not near so much expense as the
great landholders used to incur to obtain power over
a borough before the passing of the last Reform
Bill—and these votes might all have been given
to the dependants on the landholders 200 miles or
more away from the borough for which they were
to vote, who never saw the place at all. Nor was
this all% the bill was so contrived that by means of
voting papers an agent of this landholder might
write to the returning officer and ask to have these
500 papers sent to him. It was not necessary that
the voter himself, the gamekeeper, gardener, or
whoever he should be, should receive it. The agent
might have received it, have got it signed, and
without any of those men going near, these voting
papers would have been used at the elections as
good votes, while overpowering the voice of all the
resident inhabitants. Now was this, I ask, fairly
to be called a Reform Bill. (No, no.) To my own
mind it was the reverse; it was a repeal of the bill
which I hall the 'honour to introduce In 1831, and
which proposed to give to the inhabitants of the
places to which the choice of members were given
—to give to the residents of those places the power
to select the members they thought fit to represent
them. By this the freeholders who lived in Man-
chester, Leeds, York—there were upwards of 9,000
in the West Riding—were deprived of their votes
for the county, except during their own lives. Such
was one part of the bill. There was another. The
term which I applied to it has been called a mis-
nomer, and by some a bull—l called it a provision
" conspicuous by its absence ;" but I may be per-
mitted to acknowledge that the phrase was not ori-
ginal, but was taken from one of the greatest his-
torians of antiquity. This provision, " conspicuous
by its absence," was leaving the borough franchise
without any reduction other than the savings bank
provision, which might have affected a certain
number. It appeared to me—and certainly it was
the basis on which seven or eight years ago I wished
some amendments to be made in the last Reform
Bill it did appear to me that the working
classes of this country having become during the
last twenty-five years far better informed, more
enlightened, more capable of understanding the
duties incumbent on electors for members of Par-
liament—a great proportion ought to be permitted
to vote for members of Parliament in boroughs.
(Cheers.) I say nothing of the proportion. There
has been much discussion on that point • whether
it should be an £8 rental, a £1 rental, or a £6
rating and leasehold franchise, while others have
thought it would be necessary to impose conditions
of long residence. But I do not purpose on this
occasion to enter into these questions ; but what 1
do maintain is that, besides the £lO householders,
you ought to admit a great portion of the working
classes of Britain to vote for members of Parliament.
Now ministers maintained in the course of the dis-
cussion not only that such a provision was not
necessary, but that it would be exceedingly hurtful.
The Colonial Secretary, in a speech of great elo-
quence, placed before our eyes the horrors of a
French revolution, together with all the results
which followed from the very unwise conduct of
the leaders of that revolution. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke with much more moderation,
and undoubtedly made the best speech in defence
of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He said in
substance, " I don't expect from the working classes
of England massacre or robbery. I do not expect
this, but I do anticipate that there will be a vast
increase of expenditure, and that there will be a
diminished and diminishing taxation, so that the
finances of the country will be exposed almost to
ruin. I expect there will be war rashly entered
into and ignominiously concluded." These were
the things the Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
pected. I must say I expect nothing of the sort.
(Cheers.) I expect that if these provisions are made
with due consideration—if we admit those who are
worthy to exercise the vote according to the consti-
tution of England, I do not believe these men
will vote either for extra expenditure, diminished
taxation, or anything, in fact, which would reduce
the power, or impair the good faith of the country.
Nor do I expect they will enter into rash wars. I
believe the people of this country wish for peace
with all the world. (Cheers.) lam sure it is their
interest to do so, and I believe while they would
resent any attack on the national honour, or any
attack on the national territory, that they have as
enlightened views as any class in the country with
respect to the blessings of peace and the benefits
which flow from it to liberty, to commerce, and to
the happiness of man. (Cheers.) Such were two
of the many objections which I took to this bill.
The question occurred whether to propose to throw
out the bill on the second reading, or to agree to it,
and go into committee, would best point out its
defects. Of those to whom I spoke, and I spoke to
people of all kinds, to some of the most liberal, to
Liberal Conservatives, and to others who would be
considered extreme Radicals (for I spoke to them
all, that I might guide my own opinion), I found
several of these gentlemen said that to throw out
the bill on the second reading would be a violent
course—that it would prevent any further proceed-
ings in any case with the bill even if the Govern-
ment consented to alter it. Then there camethe
question of discussing the bill in committee. When
a bill is objectionable in principle, the usual way is
to oppose it on the second reading ; but there are
other considerations affecting this question, and the
two objections I mentioned are vital to that mea-
sure. The question was, how far we could get it
altered in committee. Now, if the Government had
said, with respect to the objection, " We are ready
to alter our bill ; we are ready to leave the free-
holders in counties; and to give no power
to create freehold votes in boroughs ; we are
ready to propose what we think a reasonable
reduction of the franchise in towns," there would
have been a great majority in favour of
the second reading of the bill, and the Ministry
would have been allowed to change its provisions.
But they gave no such assent to the principles that
were laid down. They said—and it was fair
ground for them to take, believing their bill to be
a sound and good measure—" Go into committee
with us ; prove your case, and see if you can obtain
a majority for your proposition." They said, also,
through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer, "If you do get a majority against any
provisions of the bill, or in favour of introducing
new provisions, we shall hold ourselves at liberty
to go on with the bill or to drop it—to assent to
such alterations or to refuse our assent." That was
perfectly fair ground for a Government to take,
but a most unsafe ground for an Opposition to
accept ; for allow me to tell you something of the
House of Commons which, I think my hon. col-
leagues who are present will hardly contradict.
The House of Commons is an august body. It was
called by Sir J." Graham, "the noblest assembly of
free men in the world," but it has certain habits,
habits which are not sometimes conducive to satis-
factory decisions upon the details of a bill. It is
the custom of the members of that " noblest as-
sembly of free men" to disappear from the house
about seven o'clock.—(a laugh)—and one has very
little chance of seeing them in numbers again until
about half-past ten in the evening. (Renewed
laughter.) If we had gone into committee upon the
Reform Bill of the Government there would have
been every chance that many Liberal members
would have said, " Well, there is no probability
that such a clause, which is very important, will
come on before ten o'clock; I will pair till that
time." Other hon. gentlemen might have said,
" I can't get a pair, but I dare say I shall be back
in time for the division ;" and then a division
might take place upon some very important point,
although involving an alteration of only two or
three words, at nine or ten o'clock. The Govern-
ment would be present in strength, because any
Government has the means of keeping its members
and its nearest adherents together—(a laugh)—
and about eleven o'clock there would have been a
great muster of Liberal members, who would
have said, "Why they have decided this im-
portant clause ! Who would have thought
it ? It is a very great pity." (A laugh.) Here is a
right admitted which is very fatal to freedom of
election, or persons have been excluded from the
franchise who ought to have possessed it. If we
had deemed such a thing possible, we would have
been here at nine o'clock, but we could not believe
that while we were at dinner such important pro-
visions would have been carried. Why did not
members speak longer ?" (Laughter.) In this
way it is very likely the Liberal majority might
have been lost ; whereas if it is known that there
is to be a debate upon a great principle, and that
on a certain night at 11 or 12 o'clock, there is sure

to be a division, members assemble and attend, and
you are sure to have a fair division representing
the opinion of the House of Commons. (Hear.)
Now, this is a matter of practice to which I have
been long used, and my opinion was confirmed by
an hon. member who held an official position in a
late Government, and who said—" For my own
part, whenever I have charge of a bill for the Go-
vernment, if I carried the secondreading I thought
it was safe, and I never found that any
opposition could make much effect upon the clauses
in committee." But there is something further to
be said with regard to changes in committee. As
one of my colleagues has truly observed—" Sup-
posing the Liberal party had been in force, and
attending to the opinions of their constituents had
carried by great majorities improvements in the
bill, it was impossible to say at what time the Go-
vernment might have said that the bill was totally
changed, and that they would not proceed with
it any further." But there was a further danger.
The Government might have said, " We do not ap-
prove of all the provisions you have introduced, or
of the rejection of some of the clauses you have
thrown out ; but we will send the bill to the House
of Lords, and let them form a judgment upon it."
I have no doubt that, in such a case, my Lord
Derby would have said, " This is hardly my bill
—(a laugh)—l cannot acknowledge the child—it
has been so changed ; but I will restore all
the provisions of which, in the Cabinet, I approved
and will render it as I think a good measure."
Then, some time in the end of June, it would have
been sent back to the House of Commons, and we
should have had to.collect members from all parts of
the country to see how we shoulddeal with the amend-
ments which had been made in the House of Lords.
These, gentlemen, were, therefore, the reasons upon
which I determined to proceed with the resolution,
not without the advice and concurrence of those for
whose opinions I have the highest respect. I con-
sulted my old friend Sir James Graham. I con-
sulted Mr. Sidney Herbert, and I consulted Mr.
Bright. Well, I thought it was right in my posi-
tion, as I have already said, to get as much
concurrence of opinion as possible. It had been
called by hard names, but I think that concert
amongst men for great public objects, having nothing
in view but that which is for the public good, is
honourable to all who are concerned. (Hear, hear.)
Well, gentlemen, the resolution was carried by a
great majority. Now, the ministers had various
courses to pursue. (Laughter.) They might have
introduced a new bill more in conformity with the
wishes of the House of Commons. It was not diffi-
cult in the present House of Commons to frame a
bill which a great majority of that house would
have supported, and which would only have been
exposed to differences of opinion when it had passed
into committee. That would have ensured the
passing of a Reform Bill in the present year; and
mind, when I say a Reform Bill, I am not speaking
of a bill which would last four years, or hardly so
long, but that we should pass one which should be
worthy the wisdom of parliament to offer—worthy,
the generosity and patriotism of the people of Eng-
land to accept. (Hear.) Well, gentlemen, I can
only say that ministers not having chosen to bring
in a bill, and having thought it their duty to their
Sovereign and their country not to resign their
offices, there only remained the other course—viz.,
to dissolve parliament and to appeal to the con-
stituent body at large to declare what that Reform
should be. If I complain of them, it is not for
taking that course, but it is for not stating clearly
the issue that is to be tried. They have none of
them in their addresses ventured to say " You shall
decide upon our bill, whether it is a good or bad
one." They have not ventured to say, "We have
another Reform Bill in preparation, and we
ask you to confide to us the management of that
great question." They have made it a personal
matter—they have complained of the divisions
among their opponents—they urged that there are
sections amongst the Liberals holding different
opinions, and that upon these grounds they must
continue to hold office. I think that it is an un-
worthy way of putting the question to the electors
of the United Kingdom. The question is this—
whether the new Parliament can have submitted to
it a bill answering the requirements of the present
time, and which is likely to meet with acceptance.
I have given my opinions—others have given their
Gboepeeinnntileoennzes.an7din in
Allalstkhask
efaorosuie. sttoo trust me as a sincere
reformer—(loud cheering)—and one who has lo
(Renewed
i
n my applausehands,
as one of the four members for the city of London,
the important trust of deciding what shall be the
Reform Bill which is worthy of being passed, I re-
fuse to bind myself to any details either that I or
others may propose. I have given in my place in
the House of Commons what I think would be a

fair outline. It may be found upon consideration
that that outline may be changed or altered with
advantage to the country. I ask for a free exercise
of my opinion on this subject. I ask you to trust
me upon this important question, and no less upon
that than upon another important question, which
some persons wish to make a connecting part of
reform—l mean the question of the ballot. I have
always been ready to give my opinions in the
House of Commons upon that subject, and I will
not bind or tie my discretion in any way whatever.
I tell you I am against the ballot. (Cheers, and
cries of "No, no.") But, gentlemen, if I were an ad-
vocate for the ballot, I should not think that the
mode of tying down every member of Parliament, or
o f taking an account of his votes simply on tbat sub-
ject, was the way to procure a majority in Parlia-
ment on that subject, because honourable men, even
though in favour of the ballot, will shrink from
conditions which they think degrading to their per-
sonal honour. I think, likewise, that that question,
like all other questions, if it has right in its favour,
will best be decided by a free expression of opinion.
(Hear.) It is not by cabinets being formed on the
sole ground of the ballot—which is not very likely
to happen very soon—not by excluding men who
are against the ballot from any Government, but it
is by free admission into places in the Government,
into seats in the Legislature, of men who take dif-
ferent views on this subject. It is by such a course
that the ballot, if it is well founded in truth and
reason, if it is required for freedom of vote—it is in
that manner, I say, that the ballot is most likely to
be carried, if it is ever to be carried at all. I say, let
the question be fairly and freely discussed. Do not
proscribe men because they are against the ballot
—do not adopt men who have no other merit
bemuse they are in favour of it. (Hear.) Now, gen-
tlemen, having spoken to you, perhaps at too great
length, on domestic luestions—(A Voice—" How
about filo future ? We want to know what you are
going to do.") Now, I tell that gentleman fairly,
that if he expects me to expound to this meeting
a new Reform Bill, to go through all the clauses
and provisions of that bill, to say exactly what is
to be done, I am unable to make that proposition.
I have stated in my place in the House of Commons
what some think an indiscreet avowal of my opi-
nions. To go further into detail I decline. But
what I was going to speak about does not refer to
domestic questions. It refers to a question, at this
moment, of very great importance—namely, the
question with regard to our foreign relations.
And upon this question, gentlemen, let me say at,
first that, while I repent that Parliament should
be dissolved at a moment when, as Lord Palmer-

stun observes, your Foreign Minister cannot say
that he is supported by the confidence of the House
of Commons, I must say, on the other hand, that,
for my part, I have no reason for distrust of the
present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If
his position is difficult, it is rendered more so by
the difficulties of the Ministry, which has never had
a majority in the House of Commons, than by his
own want either of inclination or ability. (Hear,
hear.) But it appears to me that the Foreign
Minister will have two questions to consider, when
he is either called to attend congress or to speak on
the part of England to foreign powers. The one
question is that of peace, and upon this question
there can be no doubt that he should advise every-
thing which is most conducive to the peace of
Europe. (Cheers.) But there is another position
he must hold, and that is a position not unbecom-
ing the Minister of a free country. (Hear, hear.)
My belief is that the present complications in Italy
have arisen, not, as alleged, from the conduct of
Sardinia. (Hear, hear.) They have arisen from
an abuse of military power by one of the great
powers of Europe from 1815 to the present time.
Hence the uneasiness in Italy. Hence the tempta-
tion perhaps to the ambition of those powers who
seek their pacification in this moment of difficulty
and crisis. (Cheers.) For my part, I entirely ap-
prove that we should ask that these powers should
be at peace among themselves, and that we should
likewise ask that the territorial arrangements of
1815 should not be disturbed. But this I must say
for the States of Italy, that I think these States—
independent States as they were engaged to be by
the treaty of Vienna—ought to have free power to
amend and reform their own institutions. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot think it would be right to say—
As Naples has adopted a free constitution let the
Austrian army be marched to Naples ; that be-
cause Tuscany has her institutions, and the Sove-
reign wishes to depart from them, let an

Austrian army march in to settle the quarrel ;
that because the people of the States of the
Pope have desired changes, let an Austrian army
be marched in to prevent these reforms and amend-
ments being carried out. I cannot conceive that
any suitable arrangement can be entered into which
does not allow all those states to provide for their
own internal affairs according to the wishes of each
State, comprising the Sovereign and the people.
(Hear.) While, therefore, I trust there will be no
war of ambition, that there will be no war to de-
prive Austria of the strong fort of her possessions
in Lombardy, and that there will be no bargain for
exchange of territories, I hope everything beyond
the line of Austria in Italy will be left for the
people•of Italy to decide, that the people may no
longer see the best, the wisest, the most patriotic
of her sons confined in dungeons for the expression
of their opinions, and condemned to years of
wretched imprisonment for aspiring to free their
country from despotism. (Cheers.) These are, gen-
tlemen, in a few words, my foreign politics.
(Cheers.) And now, looking back for a moment to
the time that is past, and looking forward to the
time that is to come, I cannot but see that under
different administrations the cause of freedom—
civil, commercial, and religious—has been making
a constant progress. I trust that progress may
continue. (Cheers.) I trust that whoever may be
the Ministers of the Queen, that that progress will
be possible, and that, at the same time, it will be
uninterrupted. (Cheers.) Mr. Fox said, that of all
the innovations that could be introduced into the
constitution of England, the greatest innovation
weuld be to say that there should be no further
change. We require changes adapted to the
enlightenment of the people—adapted to the im-
mense energies which commerce and manufactures
have produced in certain parts of the island. I
trust that these changes will be effected. I trust
that they will be peaceably effected, and if you send
me to Parliament to give my advice on these ques-
tions, you may depend upon it that as I have ever
been faithful to the cause of freedom, I shall never
desert that cause, but I trust serve you to the end.
(The noble lord resumed his seat amidst loud
applause.)
Mr. CRAWFORD said his conduct in Parliamen

had been in accordance with the principles he had
always advocated. He had voted for the entire
abolition of church rates, for the ballot—(cheers)—
for Mr. L. King's motion for the abolition of the
property qualification of members, and for the re-
solution of his noble colleague on the subject of
reform. (Cheers.) The present Ministry had by
the dissolution called upon the country to decide
two issues—first, the character of any future Re:.

form Bill ; and, secondly, whether they reposed
confidence in Lord Derby's Government. The main
question was that of Reform, and he believed that
'by its verdict the country would declare in favour
of a reform of the representation in accordance
with the progress and requirements of the age.
Mr. DILLON denounced the ballot, which he con-
sidered a dishonest system of secret voting.
Mr. S. MORLEY advocated the ballot, which he
said was fast gaining ground, and must ultimately
become the law of the land.

A resolution was then unanimously agreed to,
expressive of confidence in the four City members,
and pledging the meeting to use every means to
effect their return.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, seconded by
Sir J. DUKE,
.a vote of thanks was passed to Mr.
Prescott for his courtesy in the chair.
The meeting then separated.

CONSERVATIVE MEETING IN THE CITY
OF LONDON.

Yesterday afternoon a very crowded and influen-
tial meeting of Conservatives was held at the
London Tavern, Bishopsgate-street, for the purpose
of considering the progress of the measures being
taken in order to secure the return of Lord Stanley
and Mr. T. Baring for the City at the ensuing
election.

Mr. Coleridge Kennard was voted to the chair,
and amongst those present were Sir Peter Laurie,
Sir J. Maxwell, Sir R. W. Carden, M.P., Mr. R.
N. Fowler (the banker), Mr. G. F. Young, Mr.
Parker (late under sheriff of London), Mr. W.
Gladstone, Mr. Neave (late governor a the Bank
of England), and a -large number of influential
merchants whose names did not transpire.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, re-
marked that before they went to the business of the
day he should like to make a few observations re-
specting the position he occupied upon the present
momentous occasion. The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to remark that circumstances over which
the committee had no control, but which they would
have no occasion to regret, would necessitate the
meeting being only a preliminary one; but he did
not for a moment doubt that they would succeed
in the good cause in which they had embarked.
(Cheers.) Lists were continually pouring in, and
one had that moment been placed in his hands
containing over 150 additional names. (Hear.)
But he was glad the names did not represent their
entire strength, for the promises of votes for Lord
Stanley and Mr. Baring from those who had not
signed the requisition were equal to the number of
signatures already obtained. (Loud cheers). He
felt convinced when those two distinguished men
knew the power of their friends they would not
hesitate on coming forward. He felt they would
come forward, and would most certainly be re-
turned. He then called upon
Mr. BENNETT (the secretary), who regretted he
was unable to give the exact number of gentlemen
who had signed the requisition. The fact was that
the lists had poured in upon him so fast that he
was unable, with his other duties, to keep up with
them ; but he might say that upwards of 500 addi-
tional names had been obtained since the previous
meeting. (Hear, hear.) He might say also that
the names published did not represent all that had
been obtained ; for, by an inadvertence, several
most important lists had. been omitted, including
a very heavy one from Mincing-lane, of gentlemen
who frequented the Commercial Sale Rooms. He
regretted the circumstance, but the omission had
been entirely by accident, and the names would be
published to-morrow morning. He had received
letters from Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, Lord John
Manners, Sir S. Bigneld, Mr. Arbuthnot, Mr.
Sergeant Cross, Mr.. Under Sheriff Jones, and
several others who had promised their entire sup-
port and interest on behalf of Lord Stanley and Mr.
Baring. (Hear, hear.) One writer said—." I shall '
vote for Lord Stanley, although I have always be-
fore voted for Lord John Russell, and served on
his committee. " (Laughter.) Another said—
" Lord John Russell's conduct has turned me from
a Liberal to a Tory." He thought the number of
signatures obtained since they last met must be
deemed highly satisfactory, and a great many had
declined to sign the requisition, but had pledged
themselves to vote for Lord Stanley an d Mr. Baring,
the number of promises being about equal to the
signatures. (Great cheering.)

The CHAIRMAN then, in reply to a question, said
the total number of signatures amounted to between
2,500 and 2,700, and the promises amounted to about
the same number. He might say the total in round
numbers was 6,000.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said the question they had to
consider was the return of Lord Stanley, and in his
opinionßussell
theyi f they
wouldeyset dhaimmagup e
tthoeturn w
no uetacause—(cries
Lorde _
(e
rJohnies
of " No, no.") Well, those who thought differently
to him might carry out their own views by giving
a plumper, but he thought they would damage
their cause by doing so. Let them have plumpers
for Lord Stanley and Mr. Baring, if they could ;
but let them not dictate to the electors as to whe-
ther they should vote for anybody else. There was
one thing which he hoped they would take advan-
tage of, and that was the obvious and illiberal
policy of Lord John Russell, who wanted to force
down the throats of the electors of London four
Liberal candidates. (Hear, hear.) He stood up for
the liberty of electors to vote for what representa-
tives they liked, and they claimed that liberty for
themselves. The committee placed two names
before them that were unexceptionable, and believed
they were the best men they could have to repre-
sent them in Parliament. Now, what had the
Liberal committee done, that charged them with
inconsistency, and almost with audacity, in placing
a man in opposition to the Liberal leader of the
House of Commons ? (Hear, hear.) Why, had
they forgotten that at the last election they had
themselves brought " the young man from North-
ampton," for the express purpose of turning out
Lord John Russell because they were disgusted
with his conduct ? (Hear, hear.) The lesson taught
them they had forgotten, and they now said that
because the electors may approve of one man they
must also vote for three others that they do not
approve. (Hear, hear.) These were his opinions,
which he regretted differed somewhat from some of
the gentlemen present. (No, no.)
Mr. C. G. WADE said they had only to read the
speech of Lord Stanley, reported in that morning's
papers, to find abundant reason why they should
elect him as their representative in preference to
Lord John Russell, for the brilliant eloquence
contained in it stood out in bold contrast against

Mc-and-water platitudes acid MM.
truisms AA John Russell. (Hear, hear.)'
Sir PETER LAURIE said he had very little, to say;' •
and in saying it he should not criticise the ,peed
which had been delivered. :What he wishetao
~sa-'was,
was, that he had nevervoted for Lcird John Ru&cgi, .1
and never would. (Hear, hear.) H e told Sir James
Duke the other day that he would never vote for
any one who supported Lord John itussell7s resolu-
tion, thus preventing the bill from going into com-
mittee. Every such person was an enemy to his
country. (Hear, hear.) He was very glad the
Ministers had determined on dissolving, and they
must say to the country, " You have got a good
crew to command the ship, and if you do not stand
by the institutions of your country all will be lost."
(Hear, hear.) Lord John Russell was the most
contemptible creature he ever saw. (Cheers and
laughter.) Duke, too—he had voted for him some-
times, but as he voted for Lord John Russell's
resolution, he (Sir Peter) would never vote for him
again—(hear, hear)—and he repeated that he would
not support any man who voted in favour of the
resolution. Now they had two good men in the
persons of Lord Stanley and Mr. Baring, and the
citizens could not do better than elect them. He
entertained the highest opinion of the late Sir
Robert Peel, and the nearest approach to that
eminent statesman was Lord Derby. (Applause.)
Mr. Young had said that there was no occasion to
ask Lord Stanley and Mr. Baring to come forward,
but that they might elect them in spite of them-
selves. He contended that they must not adopt
that course, for the noble lord and the hon. gentle-
man must be amongst the electors ; they must stand
with them, and act with them, or they would lose
the very point for which they were fighting. (Hear,
hear.) His opinion was that such a step would be
most unwise, and that, on the other hand, Lord
Stanley and Mr. Baring acting with the electors,
would be a sure card of success. (Applause.)
Mr. THOMAS WINKWORTH said that although he
had been a supporter of Lord John Russell, he could
not help condemning his recent conduct, by which
he had seriously compromised a most important
question, and placed many Liberal members in a
-position which was very unfair to .then,E.6,,,,, and
their constituents. (Hear, hear.) He warmly
supported the movement, believing that the in-
terests of the City of London would be most
jealously watched by Lord Stanley and Mr.
Baring. (Applause.)
The CHAIRMAN said the committee would not
lose an hour more than was necessary in presenting
the requisition. He knew that it would not be
convenient to Lord Stanley and the public service
for the noble lord to receive the deputation to-mor-
row (Saturday).
The resolution was then put and carried with
enthusiasm. •

Mr. PARKER next moved the appointment of a
committee to present the requisition, and to learn
the pleasure of Lord Stanley and Mr. Baring
thereon.
This having been agreed to, the following gen-
tlemen were nominated, with power to add to their
number :—The Chairman, Mr. Geo. Frederick
Young, Sir Peter Laurie, Knt., Mr. Ambrose
Moore, Mr. H. H. Gibbs, Mr. W. Gladstone, Mr.
R. Nicholas Fowler, Mr. D. Ward Chapman, Mr.
Thos. Winkworth, Mr. Barker, Mr. John Master-
man, Mr. Parker, Mr. Russell Ellice, Mr. Wood-
thorpe, Mr. Duncan Dunbar, Sir John Maxwell,
Mr. Sheffield Neave, and Sir R. W. Carden, Bart.,
M.P.

Sir JOHN MAXWELL then proposed a vote of
thanks to Coleridge Kennard, Esq., for his able
conduct in the chair.
The motion having been carried by acclamation,
The CHAIRMAN briefly acknowledged the compli-
ment, and the meeting, which was most enthusias-
tic throughout, then separated.

ROYAL rRINCESS'S THEATRE.
Under the Management of Mr. Charles Kean.
THIS EVENING. will be produced Shakspeare's historical
play of KING HE'SIi.Y V.
King Henry V, , Mr. C. Bean; Chorus, Mrs. C. Kean.

THEATRE-ROYAL, HAYMARKET.
Li2ssee, Mr. J. B. Buckstone.
THIS EVENOIG, will be produced a new Comedy, en
4itled EVERYBODY'S FRIEND. Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Mathews.
With NOTHING TO WEAR. Mr. and Mrs. C. Mathews.
Eollowed by PATTER V. CLATTER.
To conclude with JACK'S RETURN FROM CANTON.
Commence at 7.

NEW THEATRE - ROYAL, ADELPHI.
Sole Proprietor and Manager, Mr. Benj. Webster.
MASKS AND FACES ; Triplet, Mr. B. Webster ; Quin,
Mr P. Bedford ; Sir Charles, Mr. C Selby ; Ernest, Mr.
; Peg Woffiington, Miss Woolgar; Mabel, Miss H.
Simms. r
After which, THE PRETTY GIRLS OF STILBERG.
Mr. B. Webster, 13illington, Eburne, Misses Woolgar, Keeley,
and Arden.
To be followed by THE MILLINER'S HOLIDAY. Mr
J. L. Toole, C. Selby, Billington, Misses Woolgar, Keeley
and K. Kelly.