The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON. TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5. 1866.

who sit upon the benches opposite; argue -patiently and
point—and with some nearness—to the facts of the case,
the provisions of the bill, and it is perfectly refreshing to
hear them, for though wo think they caricature our propo-
sitions, yet we can discover so much likeness to them that
we know what they are meant for. But when we hear my
right hon. friend in terms so inflamed on this subject as
those which it is his habit and pleasure to employ, describe
every proposition of the Government and all the steps taken
by them, it becomes hopeless to deal with arguments pre-
sented in such a form; and it becomes refreshing and stimu-
lates the spirit of charity, and gives a kindly and philan-
thropic view of hon. gentlemen opposite when we come to
deal with the mitigated and temperate spirit in which they
put forward their opposition. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I must
say a few words with respect to the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire, or, at least, the plan ho
proposed, because I think it is generally admitted that
schemes for the redistribution of seats involve an almost
infinity of details and a vast number of questions on which
there may be most naturally and most legitimately differ-
ences of opinion, which can only be considered as a whole
by being compared with other schemes. The right hon.
gentleman repudiated my defence of small boroughs as an
antiquated affair, and presented one of his own to the house.
I believe that my defence differed in this—what I said of
the time of the old parliamentary system was strictly true.
The nomination boroughs answered a useful purpose in
introducing into public life young men of promise, who
afterwards became distinguished, and during the six hours
in which I listened to my right hon. friend the member of
Calne there was one sentiment in which I had the satis-
faction to agree, and this was when he stated that the in-
gress to this house was in some degree narrowed by the
Reform Act. The enormous benefit of this act threw into
the shade the disadvantages incidentally arising from it.
(Cheers.) But the right hon. gentleman contends that
smaller boroughs are necessary to preserve the diversity of
tone and character which is to be found in this house. Is
this true ? Do small boroughs contribute to this result
more than the members of large cities? The point at issue
is not to show that small boroughs are at present repre-
sented by good men, but that the boroughs under 10,000
inhabitants send to Parliament men who in the entire class
cannot come to us in any other way. The right hon.-gen-
tleman quoted the case of Frome, but that is a borough
enfranchised under the Reform Act.
1/IbIZA FT,T—T+ _ _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is not a
small borough in the way inwhich this bill proposes to deal
with small boroughs. The right bon. gentleman went on
to speak of Bridport, Buckingham, and Peterborough. By
whom are these boroughs represented ? By the most dis-
tinguished men of the mercantile profession. But the
right hon. gentleman said large constituencies would only
return landlords, manufacturers, and merchants; then he
i admitted that merchants can find an entrance through the
large constituencies. In the next place the right hon. gen-
tleman said it was important that gentlemen connected
with the colonies should find seats in the house. But so
they do. There is my hon. friend the member for Salis-
bury—an ornament to the house, a gentleman of colonial
experience (Mr. Marsh), but he sits for Salisbury, a town
not included in the category of small boroughs, or of a
class which any one proposes to touch. Then there is his
colleague (Mr. Hamilton), a gentleman wbo distinguished
himself at the university, and who is well qualified to take
his part in debates in this house. He is of colonial expe-
rience, but he has not been returned for a small borough.
My right hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury sits
for the borough of Pontefract, a constituency of moderate
size, not a small borough in the sense of this bill or anybill
ever introduced on this subject for restricting representa-
tion. Lastly, my right hon. friend the member for Caine
truly sits for a small borough at this moment, but he did
not find his way into this house as the representative of a
small borough, but addressed himself to a constituency of
considerable size, and succeeded in gaining the confidence
of that constituency. But then the right hon. gentleman
likewise mentioned persons connected with India, and
was it not extraordinary that in order to buttress his
argument, and to find an instance of gentleman con-
nected with India sitting in the house, he went back
several sessions to the case of Sir James Hogg, who
sat for Honiton some years ago. Who are the men
connected with India now sitting in this house, and what
are the small boroughs that return them ? We are deal-
ing wiih a moat important allegation—namely, that whilst
the right hon. gentleman repudiates the superannuated
defence set up for small boroughs, he sets up a bran new
defence of his own. Who are the representatives of In-
dian affairs and Indian matters in this house ? My noble
and gallant friend who sits for Taunton (Lord J. Hay), the
hon. gentleman who sits for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smol-
lett), and lastly, my hon. and gallant friend who sits for
the large city of Aberdeen (Col. Sykes). I take the in-
stances in the order in which they present themselves to
me, but I ought not to leave off without mentioning my
hon. friend who sits for the city of London, who completes
the list of those who may be quoted as representing Indian
interests. h will not do for my right hon. friend to say that
Pontefract, Salisbury, and Kidderminster are towns of
moderate size. No one attacks towns of moderate size.
He upholds small boroughs, and I must say that his de-
' fence, as depending on particular instances, has entirely
failed. As I understand the right hon. gentleman, he has
a plan himself for disfranchisements. He says the group-
ing of represented boroughs is a scheme totally unknown
to England, and he said that the grouping of unrepre-
sented boroughs was certainly unknown to Scotland. As
regards the first of these propositions it is nearly true,
although there aro two or three boroughs grouped in Eng-
land where it is not—such as the Cinque Ports, the Mon-
mouth boroughs, and Penryn, and Falmouth. As co Scot-
land, the Scotch boroughs were grouped as representative
boroughs at the period of the union, and all the argument
derivable from the precedent may be drawn from those
those Scotch boroughs. The right hon. gentleman objects
to the grouping of boroughs, and he gave us a rough outline
of his own plan. He would proceed, as I understood, as
follows. He would take the smallest possible number of
members from the smallest boroughs—probably in the mode
of the bill of 1859—say some 15 or 20 members. Having so
got them, he would give them to the new towns ; and he
would form these new towns in such a way as, to judge by
the instances he gave us, would pay off the population of
this country at the rate of seventy, eighty, ninety thousand
population for each member he gets from the small boroughs.
\
As he told us what sort of groups ought to have been taken,
he takes five or six large towns—Dewsbury, Botley, Mir-
field, Cleckheaton, and two other places, six in all, with a
population of 91,000, and the othergroups he gave us would
have populations of 65,000 and 72,000. If that is the idea
of the right hon. gentleman, I well understand that byget-7
ting 12 or 15 members from the smaller boroughs, he would
in that way dispose of a million or a million and a half of
the rising towns that aro scattered throughout the country.
Next to that he wonld have an extension of boundaries,
which, he says, we ought to take out of the counties. All
those who do not follow the leading pursuit of the counties
—that is agriculture—of course Ido not mean pursuits
merely subsidiary to agricultural puSuits, but I mean
where a manufacturing hamlet is formed—of all these the
counties ought to be weeded andpurged. Besides that the
boundaries of towns ought to be extended so as to embrace
all inhabitants dwelling in their neighbourhood who pursue
their ordinary occupation in those towns. That is the view
of the right hon. gentleman so far as I understand. He
would, by taking 15 or 20 members, withdraw from the
counties something like twu millions of people, and obtain
the double object of leaving the small boroughs in posses-
sion of nearly the whole of their present forces subject to a
very small deduction, and reduce the counties to an accu-
mulation of landlords, tenants, and those dependent upon
them. If that be the plan of my right hon. friend, or if it is
any plan approaching that, I can perfectly well understand
his feeling of suspicion of our schemes for redistribution,
because our plan is based on this principle, that their object
ought to be, whilst restraining the representation of the
small boroughs, and enfranchising large communities, _the
test of its excellence, leaving the extension of the franchise
as nearly as possible to its full and legitimate operation.
But if the redistribution of seats is to be mixed up with a
complicated scheme for drawing broad lines of separation
betweenr counties and boroughs, they are entirely unknown
to eehitise sntoory, h
of
hatud totally alien to the spirit of our constitu-
tion.lTe
scheme
usehmoeoef redistribution will p
opposite
te sayreceivevoersi
tthheat sanction
votes of the freeh Heolders. em
within the limits of the
boroughs for their counties is
an anomaly. They say that
, the vote for the county of the freeholders whose property
lies within the limits of the boroughre anomaly.sainnourcotat aitilitick
fitolis
an.
most
ancientlthe Reform Bill ? A man
(al
H eaanro.)mDiy it is
aitone of the
before not
prevail
re y
all
had his vote for the borough for the very same property
that qualified him for the county. Could
,there beraPerty
more
distinct recognition of the principle of the double represen-
tation for the county and the borough ? It was not a mat-
ter of agriculture on the one hand andmanufactures on the
other ; but it was the representation of occupation in the
towns and of property in the counties. I do not now go
into the question of the representation of leaseholds. When
the hon. member for Northamptonshire has produced his
statistics they will be matters which we can consider. What
we ask of the house at present is, that we go into commit-
tee on the bill.
charges, (Hear.) I now come to the consideration of
the charges, the particular made by various hon.
and right hon. members
thaegaaimnsetndomurenbtilol.f
tlhheahrdonly.
mkneomw
whether I am to regard -
ber for Wells as one with which we are in actual conflict ;
but I contend that the grounds of opposition to the bill are
not good grounds, and if they were good they are totally
insufficient to justify the refusal to go into committee. There
has been no objection taken to the root of the bill ; there
hasbeen no objection taken which, if admitted to be serious,
the reprelste
would be a
committee. It has
hasgroundutatb ihof
objected
r not going into
wetmakecommitteen o
provision onthebfiollr.
th a t
than give three
matter for committe
counties into part been objected that we ought to divide
minorities. Well, this is a matter for
s,and give a representation to each rather
representativesl to a county. That is a
representation
been objected that members
to Scotland. That is mattern
aftion of England, and given
are taken from the re
r committee. But then an
objection has been taken by theehon.a and learned member
itbnthilantdathria7is "onienofatnhennmsoatsitsdrainffitncurYlt
sfotartaß.elfasl
ftrtehelayt
admit
parts of the subject, and one for the attainment of which
-

the most detailed discussion in the committee would be re-
quisite. There are other matters for consideration in com-
mittee, all important, all open to discussion ; and those, in
number seven or eight, might be multiplied, and it is the
character of the bill that we should discuss them in a con-
ciliatory spirit—(hear, and laughter) - and endeavour to
settle them, not upon the basis.of any foregone conclusion
of our own, but with a view to general equity and general
satisfaction. (Hear.) Ido not mean satisfaction to the
gentlemen who cheer in that peculiar manner; but in order
to show how inconsiderate has been the objection taken to
our groups in general, I would state that objection has
been admitted not to be applicable to Scotland. Then it is
said there is no such identity of interest in regard to Wales
and England. But what identity of interest is there in
counties and boroughs ? What identity of interest between
the Isle of Wight and the West-end ? What interest be-
tween the towns on the Thames and those in the hop dis-
trict ? Well, I regard identity of interest with regard to
representation as important. What is the case in Wales ?
There are grouped boroughs 30 and 35 miles distant from
each other. In Scotland there are four groups of boroughs
—the Ayr boroughs: the average distance from each other
is 47i miles, the maximum distance being 74 miles ; the
Dumfries average 25-} miles, the maximum distance 38 ;
the Elgin boroughs, the average distance of which is 21
miles, and the maximum 28; the Wick boroughs, with an
average of 49 miles, and a maximum of 108. It is some-
what fastidious to produce particular instances of places
28 or 30 miles apart, and treat them not as matters for
consideration, with a view to a more precise arrangement
in detail, but to treat them with sweeping denunciations.
There is one plan which has been proposed by the hon mem-
ber for Wells, to which, as a general rule, I must say I have
the strongest objection, and that is the plan, considered as
a system, of taking in, to make up and supplement small
boroughs, still smaller places in their neighbourhood.
(Hear.) It is said you have in the neighbourhood of these
places towns of 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 inhabitants, and if
you add these you will have constituencies of 17,000 or
20,000, and it is stated that the principle of dealing with
small boroughs ought to be taken in other small boroughs
in their immediate neighbourhood. Now, from that pro-
position I for one entirely dissent. It seems to me a most
extravagant proposition. There is in this country an
enormous regard for vested interests. Vested interests in
the long run are found to carry the day against everything
.1-4._ xi-4.--a, Ickarmems livrelbo ire tke,4l. roseasci. Low
vested interests. You may say when we are dealing with
boroughs which have been long in possession of the parlia-
mentary representation, deal tenderly with them, do not
extinguish them ; give them a modified share of the privi-
leges which they have so long possessed, where they have
not been grossly abused. But it is going too far to contend
that these privileges, if they are a monopoly adverse to the
community, should be held to contain in them such an
essence of diffusive virtues that they should spread around
them on all sides, and consecrate the hamlets, villages, and
country towns in their neighbourhood. There was a time,
when after the civil wars of Augustus, the Emperor settled
his soldiers on land in the territory of Cremona, but find-
ing the territory insufficient for the purpose, it became
necessary to take some of the territory of Mantua, and the
peet said—
" Mantua, vm miserte nimium vicina Cremonm."
But it is an inversion of that sentiment if we are to pick out
some insignificant place, in the neighbourhood of Honiton or
Wells, and congratulate them, not on having been the means
of preserving,but of giving parliamentary representation,and
withholding it from the towns scattered over the land.
Whether there may be instances in which, by deviating from
the general rule on particular grounds such a thing may be
done or not I express no opinion. That is one of the points
of detail to be settled in committee. But as a general rule
I consider that it would be unwise to endeavour to induce
Parliament to accede to a system which should bring in
these small insignificant places for the purpose of fasten-
ing a Parliamentary representation to these particular spots
(Cheers.) No declaration has been made that grouping is
an evil. We have recommended it on grounds which we
thought sufficient. We thought it not likely to cause an
increase of expense ; and I believe that if hon. gentlemen
will investigate the actual cause of the expenditure in
grouped boroughs at contested elections there will be some
ground for that anticipation. We considered it a mild pro-
ceeding, and that it would linewiso possess great possible
advantages, and that Parliament might sit for a time
greater or less, after the Redistribution of Seats Bill should
have passed. There would undoubtedly have been great
inconsistency in the retaining in the house the representa-
tives of constituencies which had been absolutely disfran-
chised. But, however that may be, no word has everbeen
spoken to show that we regard grouping as one of the vital
or essential principles of the bill. (Cheers.) I would just
remind the house what has been stated to be the leading
principles of the bill. lam bound to say there are many
kinds of grouping to which we could notaccede. We could
not accede to the kind of grouping proposed by the right
hon. member for Buckinghamshire. We could not accede to
the grouping of small villages and towns around small vil-
lages or towns already in possession of the franchise—
" Strawberries grow underneath the nettle,
And wholesome barrios thrive and ripen best,
Neighbour'd by fruit of baser qyality.'

We don't believe there is that electric communication be-
tween places of this description and the general system of
grouping. But the leading principles of the bill in its two
parts have been before stated to the house, and it will not
take one minute to repeat them. The leading principles of
the franchise bill are to complete in the first place the pro-
visions of the law which enfranchise voters of £lO annual
value and upwards—to extend the borough franchise
downwards, and also to extend the county franchise down-
wards. These are the principles of the bill so far as regards
that part which relates to simple enfranchisement. The
Redistribution Bill curtails the borough representation ; it
does not extinguish it, but it leaves it'its fair proportion-
It curtails the small borough representation by the removal'
in whatever manner it might be thoughtbest, some 50 seats
more or less—it is not necessary that we should adhere to
that particular figure - (hear, hear, and laughter)—and dis-
tribute those seats among great and growing and new con-
stituencies. And lastly, to secure for Scotland from what-
ever source we can—(cheers and laughter)—that increase
to her representation to which we contend that her num-
bers and wealth entitled her. (Cheers.) This I believe to
be the principle of the bill, and I believe the claim of Scot-
land is so strong and clear, that on investigation of her
case I think it will be almost impossible to resist it. But
from whence these seats are to be had is another matter.
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) I am not going to
propose that they shall be taken from Ireland. (Laughter.)
But in regard to the claim itself I confess I can see no rea-
son why Scotland, with one-sixth of the population in
round numbers of the United Kingdom, shOuld be content
or can be expected to be content, with a little more than'
one-tenth part of the representation of the country. ,
(Cheers.) I think some honourable gentlemen opposite
said there was something questionable or inconsistent on the
part of the Government in thus throwing open the discussion
of a great number of points with regard to the redistribution
of seats. I cannot escape from whatever imputation might
be cast upon me or the Government on that score. That
was one of the difficulties, and I confess in my own mind
-one of the greatest of all the difficulties and one of the
greatest objections to the combination of the two subjects,
for deal with re-distribution as you will it opens so many
'different views—it touches such a multitude of local and
class interests—all requiring that their own particular
-cases shall be stated and heard, and patiently worked out,
that it is the mere matter of business, and not any difficulty
of principle with which it clothes a measure of reform that
has always appeared to me to be a strong practical argu-
ment for the separation of the two subjects. (Cheers.) I
am not urging it again as raising the question. We have
placed ourselves in the hands of the house, and by the
union of the bills it is for the house to determine what
shall bo done on the subject, as we abide by the resolution
that has been adopted. (Hear, hear.) I, therefore, have
explained that there need be no surprise from the opposite
side that we are retreating from that which had been con-
templated. On the contrary I had hoped there would have
been a disposition on the part of all to express satisfaction—
a greater approximation of mind and opinion might have
been supposed—when I stated on the part of her Majesty's
Government that apart of the subject necessarily consists of
matters which must be left open for settlement, as it could
not be settled by any forgone conclusion or on any fixed
and rigid political principles. I confess it has always ap-
peared to me that after all the great subject is the enfran-
chisement of our fellow-countrymen—(cheers)—and on
another occasion I might be open to the charge of incon-
sistency, for I was a party to that large measure of Lord
Aberdeen's and the smaller one of Lord Palmerston's Go-
vernment, but I look upon the whole subject of redistribution
as controlled by certain leadingprinciples; and, as to its de-
tails, I look upon it as a part of the subject which we ought
to approach in a spirit of conciliation, with a view of settling
the question in a manner which will give the greatest gene-
ral satisfaction. It 10 to enfranchise our fellow-creatures
that we have a most serious and solemn duty to perform.
(Hear, hear.) These are the principles of the bill which we
submit; and what we ask of the house is its fair consideration
of them. I am boundto say that I donot think this amend-
mento
r
e
fa:raealinysr
di
regardsiwsms sceeuonmen t pcgo aol
titrnthi
abdei le:emod
object_wn
admit—we
;iibttuh_i
tuoawwft feehamrii rdlyl
ocshio
tponnenr
asor.i
fdaeecurtdal
yt
gallanti oe nx po Ifi thec ifriend,t
tbhi
el .s
yf Shs
tesm of grouping proposed by the Government, and that is
e
that, and still fairly say, t,isebsutthwe
eissmuieghpetrafedcmtliyt
"We will go into committee on
this bill, and you are free to deal with the question there."
(Hear, hear.) But as to the words, " the scheme is not suf-
ficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory mea-
sure," I say there is, even grammatically, the utmost diffi-
culty in understanding what is meant by them. (Hear.)
The amendment appears to have been framed with a view
to condemn the bill and yet to save those who support the
amendment from the charge of having rejected the bill on
account of any particular provisions it contains, and pre-
vent their being called up in consequence to account for
Iw
shhaot
utlhde why
eha
veryv e done bify ta hs
teoirrmc
of
s tt
hi touseen t“sn. o
n( Hr,naes,awhich
hear so frequently from the other side would meet me
intTenhtaiohnuno.f
and
pnwartoewy, wophpeonsiltesajo
sluapmp
highortaf afraid
ds
aimt wenadsmtehnet.
admira-
tion of the amendment, and I am afraid it was the
of
inten-
tion of his party to support it, but I protest in the name
learned member for Belfast spoke in terms of

the Government, and I protest in the name of the character
and conduct of Parliament, and I protest on behalf of my
countrymen, against this dealing with great measures in
this house, and especially with measures of such grave
and solemn importance as this. (Hear, hear.) I protest,
I say, against dealing with such measures, not in the good
old English manner of plain " ayes" and " noes"—(cheers)
—but with vague declarations whichnobody can meet, and
which nobody can understand—(loud cheers)—declarations
such as this, " that the scheme of her Majesty's Govern-
ment is not sufficiently matured—(Opposition cheers)—to
form the basis of a satisfactory settlement of the question."
(Renewed cheers fromthe Opposition benches.) Any one
who wanted to escape from a controversy would use
just such language. (Ministerial cheers.) It is to thislan-
guage that ambition resorts for the prosecution of its wicked
purpose. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, and
cries of "Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Do not let any
gentleman suppose that I am speaking of the movementsof
political parties—l am speaking rather of the movements,
those frightful and bloody collisions produced between great
powers by the lust of ambition, which I was describing,
and which to make good its cause, resorts to vague gene-
ralities of that kind. What is the effect of those gene-
ralities ? Why, to efface all the distinct linesbetween jus-
tice and injustice—between truth and falsehood: to pre-
vent the merits of any question being carried to a fair issue,
and to provide a place of refuge to which any man afraid
to combat any argument may resort for shelter. (Cheers.)
- That was a fair claim, and I had hoped I should have had
some sympathy from hon. gentlemen opposite when I put
it forward. (Hear.) But at at any rate I will say that we
had a right to expect that. It was promised to us ; it was
gratuitously promised to us; it was ostentatiously promised
to us. On the 6th of February, 1866, Lord Derbyused these
words—" I promise the noble earl another thing, that his
bill shall have fair play—(cheers and counter cheers) —that
it will not be thrust aside by any underhand method— (re-
newed cheers)—that there should be no factious movement
--(hear)—or combination against it—(cheers from the Mi-
nisterial benches)—on the part of those who can combine
for nothing else, but that it will be dealt with on its merits."
(Cheers from the Opposition side of the house.) Is it
dealing with a measure on its merits to say that it is not
sufficiently mature ? (Hear, hear.) When, in the long
course of Parliamentary warfare, was that course adopted ?
What motive—what precedent is there for a great party
resort-ins to that mode of warfare ? (Opposition eries of
"1859.") Eighteen hundred and fifty-nine ! In 1859 a
bill was cordemnad because it did not reduce the borough
franchise. (Cheers.) Act as my noble friend acted in
1859, and my complaint falls to the ground. Condemn the
bill because it does reduce the borough franchise. (Loud
cheers from the Ministerial side of the house.) You stated
your objections to that proposal in your speeches. My
right hon. friend the member for Caine objected to it in his
speech ; my hon. friend the member for North Devon ob-
jected to it in his speech ; the right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire objected to it in his speech.
Let the right hon. gentleman embody his opinion in a
motion. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Or
if he does not chose to embody his opinion in a motion—
for I admit that he is not bound to do that if he pleases—
let him take the usual, the known, the established course
of opposing the bill, and the country will know what he
means—(cheers);—but it is useless to fall back on those
large, vague, unmeaning words. (Hoar.) You may use
big, unmeaning, and vague words, but you cannot build on
the use of words the fame of a party. You may embarrass
a Government ; you may impede the course of a measure ;
you may injure those who for the moment are politically
opposed to you, but you can lay no solid foundation by
such a course as this for the fortunes of yourselves and
your friends. (Cheers.) Do not let us be drawn into these
vague, these broad, these almost wild denunciations about
the constitution. Every time my right honourable friend
addresses the house he makes a speech in the form of a
prophecy about the constitution. In the first speech,
drawing from the words of Mr. Canning, though I am quite
sure it was not from the poverty of his own imagination,
he prophesied the destruction of the constitution. And
every speech that has come from him since, though he
has no longer foraged amongst the speeches of Mr.
Canning—every speech presented a new form, but with
darker and darker features, predicting the ruin and downfall
of the constitution. (Hear, hear.) "Don't," said the right
hon. gentleman the member for Caine, " let us discard the
rules and maxims that have never failed for dogmas and
theories that have never succeeded." What are the rules and
maxims which have never failed ? It is the £lO franchise.
What are the doctrines and theories whichlhave never suc-
ceeded ? It is the £7 borough franchise. (Laughter.) Well,
but that has not succeeded because it has never been tried.
(Hear, hear.) And the £lO franchise, before it was tried, was
open to the same objection, and was met with the same re-
proach and loaded with the same denunciations, delivered
with not less earnestness and ability than those of the right
hon. member for Caine. My noble friend the member for
Leicestershire, in his speech to-night, tempted me to go on
ground which if I had not heard the words of Tennyson
put in his mouth, I should not have ventured to tread, be-
cause it seems to claim something of us to which we may
not yet be entitled—to which I admit we are hardly yet in
a condition to prove ourselves entitled. My noble friend
described England truly—the United Kingdom is a
"Land of old and just renown,
Where freedom broadens slowly down
From precedent to precedent"—
lines taken from that noble dedication addressed by the
Poet Laureate to the Queen. But my noble friend stopped
with these lines:—

" Where freedom broadens slowly down
From precedent to precedent."
But Tennyson goes on to add these lines—

"Statesmen-at her council meet
Who know the seasons when to take occasion by the
hand,
And make the bounds of freedom wider yet,
By sharing some august decree •
Which kept her throne unshaken still,
Broad based upon the people's will,
Aud compassed by the inviolate sea."
(Ministerial cheers.) Sir, we claim to love the constitution,
we claim to value the constitution, we claim to revere the
constitution—(ironical cheers)—as sincerely and earnestly
as any of those who site opposite. My right hon. friend the
member for Calne looks back with something like contempt
on those who opposed the Reform Bill of 1831. We have
heard him denounce in terms of the extremest severity the
parliamentary system which prevailed before the date of
that great measure. (Hear, hear.) It has been contended
that the course pursued by the Duke of Wellington and by
Sir R. Peel in 1831 is to be again pursued in the opposition
that is now offered to a similar proposal now made. I must
say that the very converse of that view appears to me to
be far more just. Those who opposed the Reform Bill of
1 1831, though I now see that they were wrong, had much
to say for the course which they pursued. They had to deal
with a system which was the most complicated in the world,
Its bearings were so manifold that they were hardly trace-
able by the common, or even by the philosophic eye, it was
like some wonderful creation thathad descended from above
of the utmost delicacy of conformation, so that you might
well fear to touch it lest by deranging its springs you should
mar its effects. And so long had this state of things pre-
vailed that the wise man and the brave man shrunk from
the responsibility of attempting such a task as that. How
different is our case. We have seen the risk of improvement
run. We have seen the dangers, if such there were, of en-
croachment; we have heard prophecies uttered in all solem-
nity, and collapsing almost as soon as they were delivered ;
we have witnessed the happy and blessed fruits of that con-
stitutional change. We have found ourselves launched on a
career where everything before us is comparatively plain and
open ; we have to deal not with alterations so much as
with the growth of circumstances, the growth of numbers,
the growth of wealth, the growth of intelligence, the
growth of loyalty to the throne, the growth of confidence
in Parliament and of attachment and of love that has
operated amongst all classes of the community—(cheers)
—and our view is this—that in these circumstances we say
now again has the time arrived to apply with circumspec-
tion, yet with firmness and decision, those principles from
the operation of which we have reaped such blessed fruits.
And it is in the posecution of that wekrk that we are con-
fronted with the hostility that has met us in the various
stages of this bill; hostility that may be formidable indeed,
which I will not even now predict whether it may not
achieve a momentary success; but with regard to which
any triumph achieved will recoil with tenfold force on the
heads of those who may bring it about. (Laughter, and
cheers.) And if we suffer in such a cause as that we have
in hand, it is indeed to be preferred to success achieved in
any ordinary cause ; for we are well convinced that in the
discharge of our duty and in redeeming our pledges we are
consulting alike at once the honour and the dignity of the
house, the stability. of the throne on which her Majesty
sits, the contentment and happiness of the people, and the
strength, stability, and endurance of our institutions.
(Loud cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI, who was greeted with loud cheers, said
—I am sure, sir, I quite agree in one sentence of the right
hon. gentleman's speech—that it is the duty of the two
parties in this house to approach this subject in a spirit of
conciliation and conscientiousness—(hear)—and I was
rather-surprised, considering
the general tone of the speech
of the right hon. gentleman and the voluntary expressions of
opinion on his part that we should be prepared to meet him
in that spirit upon the merits of the case before us, that he
should, according to his habit, assume that the peroration
of a parliamentary speech must necessarily consist in scold-
ing your opponents. (Laughter and cheers.) Why, the
facts of the case are all against the right hon. gentleman.
(Hear.) Of what does he complain ? He read an extract
from a speech delivered by Lord Derby It was uttered at
the commencement of Parliament, and certainly, as I fol-
lowed it, it appeared to me that we had exactly and
severely, and rigidly fulfilled that promise. (Loud cheers.)
Why, did not Lord Derby say that he would give the mea
sure of the Government fair play ? and have we not con-
sented to the second reading of the bills ? (Cheers and
counter-cheers.) Have we interposed any cunning resolu-
tion for the purpose of defeating the measure by a side
wind ? (Renewed cheers.) I admit that in the course of
these proceedings there have been two motions which have
arrested the progress of the Government measures. One
was offered by the noble lord the member for Chester, and
he received from the right hon. gentlemen opposite, in due
course, the same invective to which we have just been ex-
posed. (Hear.) But the house and the country soon dis-

covered the wisdom and acknowledged the propriety of the
course recommended by the noble lord, and the right hon.
gentleman in 24 hours adopted it. (Cheers and laughter.)
What is there then to complain of that we should have
voted for the measure suggested by the noble lord, and
which the Government subsequently recognised ? (Hear.)
Well, then, again with regard to the other amendment which
is now before us. This also has been proposed by an habi-
tual supporter of the Government, and it might perhaps
have given rise to great controversy had not the right hon.
gentleman opposite risen and expressed the sentiments that
we have heard from him. The motion might have been
described as an insiduous, a sinister, a vexatious amend-
ment ; as one that ought not by any means to have been
proposed, and as damaging unfairly the propositions of the
Ministry. (Hear.) But what has the right hon. gentle-
man done in the main portion of the speech which he has
addressed to the house ? Why, he has acknowledged the
justice of the amendment, has thrown over the whole sys-
tem of grouping (the Chancellor of the Exchequer signi-
fied dissent) as a scheme the difficulty of which all acknow-
ledged to be one that it was impossible to deal with
in committee, and has frankly informed the house that ho
had no doubt that the Government, on reflection, did not
deem their system of grouping either indispensable to the
measure, or perhaps on the whole the most convenient so-
lution of the difficulty. (Cheers, and laughter.) Now
these are the two factious amendments that have been
brought forward and been denounced by the right hon.
gentleman opposite, and with one exception they are the
only amendments that have been offered for the conside-
ration of the house. There is one member to whom refe-
rence was specially made—the hon. member for North-
amptonshire (Sir R. Knightley). The right hon. gentleman
availed himself of his considerable command of epithets to
attempt to describe the character of the motion made by
that hon. gentleman ; but not satisfied with that the right
hon. gentleman resorted to the language of Lord Derby—
it seems he has his pocket always full of such extracts
(hear, hear) - and the indignation of Liberal members
seemed to show that he had made a palpable hit, which
was acceptable among a portion of the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Northamptonshire (Sir R. Knight-
ley) proposed a resolution against bribery. The right
hon. gentleman said that it was unwarrantable. But it so
happened that the same proposition was made by the
honourable gentleman who was then member for Norfolk,
and was accepted by Lord John Rneeell, then the leader
of the house, and the instruction was inserted
in the bill. (Cheers.) So much for the events that
have happened in the House of Commons within the last
three months. The Government have not only followed
the plan which they previously denounced, but respect-
ing the course upon which we so recently determined, and
which was followed by Lord John Russell in the last bill
of the same character which came before us,!the right hon.
gentleman will probably, upon reflection, feel that he
pitched.his note a little too high for the subject, and that
he was rather thinking of the days of 1832—0 f which he
may have read, though, perhaps, he did not witness them
—when he referred to the menacing results of which he
spoke, though they are not yet ascertained. (Laughter.)
Far from there being any ground for such a charge, the
house has acted in so temperate and sagacious a manner
that I think it would have been well if other persons had
imitated the House of Commons in the good sense and
temper they have shown in the course of this discussion.
And now, as the right hon. gentleman adverted to some
observations of mine, I will refer to them, not because they
merely affect myself, but because if the false impression be
not removed, it may lead to injurious consequences. The
right hon. gentleman has referred to the small boroughs,
but after 12 o'clock I shall not go into a vindication of them
but I must say that it is impossible to discuss thisquestion
without reference to individual instances. This contro-
versy might last for ever if we were to refer to the many
eminent men who have been returned by these boroughs.
With regard to persons connected with India, I beg to re-
mind the house that Mr. Wilson sat for Westbury, and Mr.
Massey for Newport, and I believe at this moment an In-
dian judge sits for Liskeard. It is my opinion, if you put
an end to these small boroughs, you will find landowners
merchants, and manufacturers coming in greater numbers
into this house. There is a popular element in these small
boroughs which admits not only persons other than those
I have just alluded to, but even demagogues, although de-
magogues do not stay here. (A laugh). It is the men
who have carved out their own fortunes that find their
way into the house chiefly through these smaller boroughs.
The small borough which I mentioned has a population
of 8000 ; but what security have we that it will not be in
the next bill ? (Hear, hear.) There is a most important
point connected with our borough system. I am not now
speaking of the smaller boroughs, which ought not to be
disturbed or changed before the house has given it
theirkfullest consideration. We know that eleven millions
and a half of the population are represented by 162 ;nem-
bers—county members—and nine and a half millions by
334 members—borough members. On the first blush one
would say that such a system was a monstrous anomaly—
an injustice. But that is the great problem which we have
to solve. We have always had a general understanding in
this House that it was some indirect mode. by which this
arrangement was brought about, and that there was some
counteracting influence by which the system of a majority
of the people was represented by a minority of members
was adjusted. It is of vast importance when the House is
called upon to disturb and to destroy a great portion of
popular rights, to consider what the effect will be on the
eleven and a half millions of the population I have referred
to. I admit it is not easy to ascertain what the number is
of the supplementary votes they contributed in a system
which has been represented as working favourably. You
cannot take a pen and piece of paper and tick off those
which are landed and those which aro urban interests. The
considerations are complicated. It does n;.-4 follow that a
small rural borough is under the landed influence, or that i t
would at all represent the landed interest. There are small
boroughs in rural districts of a very independent character.
There are some in which the Dissenting interest predo-
minates ; and, next to the landowners, the result of my
researches is that Dissenters and religious interests are
predominant in small boroughs. Again, there are boroughs
with large constituencies and of a superficially urban
character, yet which, on a fair analysis, returns one of its
members by territorial influence. Again, you will find a
country gentleman, a large acred man,sitting for a borough,
but who does not represent the sentiments in his votes of
interest of what is called the land. It requires considerable
analysis to arrive at a precise result. I have endeavoured
to perform this analysis, not as a partisan or even as a
politician, but as if I were preparing a paper for the Social
Congress. (A laugh.) I have go'ne through the supple-
mentary rights that the landed interest acquire—that is to
say, these eleven millions and a half not represented, ex-
cept by the 162 members and the 84 supplementary votes.
If you deduct 84 from 334, the amount of the borough
members, you get 250, and if you add these 84 to 162, the
result is 246-246 to 250. The machinery by which our
political system has gone on has worked as well as could
be expected in an old constitutional country, and we have
attained a fair approximation to electoral justice. But what
are the conditions of this bill ? Of these 84 borough mem-
bers, supplementary to the fair representation of the
county and their populations, 42 are disfranchised for the
purposes of her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) That is a
serious considEtration. (Hear.) You have of course a very
imperfect county representation. It is true you have 16
new county members, but you institute 14 new boroughs.
Where the adjustment was imperfect before, it is more so
since the diminution of 30 members. This is a very serious
circumstance, as you must be convinced that unless you
establish something like an approximation to justice in the
representation of this house, according to the claims of the
property and population of the country, the system cannot
work. It has worked before with these supplementary
means, but if you impair-and almost destroy these supple-
mentary means it is impossible you can go on very long
with representation so imperfect. But, then, the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, when I talked of the landed interest,
and suggested to the house the means by which a lower
representation of that interest might take place—neces-
sary before, but doubly necessary since the introduction
of this bill—(cheers)—denounced my plan as one by
which the counties would be weeded and purged, and that
I wished to reduce the counties to mere assemblages of
landlords and tenants. This has been said by her
Majesty's Government throughout the debate. The Secre-
tary of State said the other day that the right hon. mem-
ber forßucks, by enfranchising the unenfranchised towns,
would eliminate the urban element from counties. The
Solicitor-General said the right hon. member for Bucks
wants county members for farm labourers and farmers, and
wishes to eliminate from the counties the independent and
intelligent class. The Attorney-General and Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster said the right hon. member for
Bucks—it is unfortunate to be the member for Bucks—
(laughter)—wished to reduce the county franchise to one
class, which is against the spirit of the constitution. An-
other right hon. gentleman said the right hon. member for
Bucks wishes to eliminate the intelligence and indepen-
dence of the counties. It is very important that we should
have a distinct idea of the views of the Government, and
the right hon. ;gentleman entered into such details that
there can be no doubt upon the subject. He says, I want
to enfranchise all boroughs with over 5,000 inhabitants,
and to eliminate thereby from the counties their intelli-
gence and independence. In the first place, but I will not
dwell on that, there never was a man yet so silly, not even
one of us celebrated gentlemen who, according to the hon.
member for Westminster, have a peculiar intellectual for-
mation, who propose to give representation to all the Small
towns, from Burnley with its 30,000 to little Ware with its
5,000. No one can for a moment believe I proposed it.
(Cheers.) But I will assume, for argument sake, that that
was my policy, and that I an going to solve the difficulty
and become the representative of the landed interest by
enfranchising all the unrepresented towns above 5,000.
We have a return on the table of the number and popula-
tion of the unrepresented towns in England; there are
1,117,000 ; if you deduct that from 10,500,000, you still
leave for the county population half of the English
people. But I want to know what is to become of the
surplus of the farmers and farm labourers. We have also
a return on the table of the number of farmers and farm
labourers and their families, and of all the persons other-
wise connected with the cultivation of the soil, whether
pasture or woodland, and those connected with horticulture,
and they amounted to 2,000,000. Deduct that from the

10,500,000, and you have still 8,500,000 unaccounted for.
What I complain of is this, that those gentlemen who charge
me with eliminating the people of England from the counties
appear to have based their calculations so that they do not
account for eight and a half millions, and eliminate eight
and a half millions from the counties. Besides the towns
ranging between Burnley and Ware, there are 500 towns
with a population under 5,000. The village population of the
counties amount to upwards of 9,000,000, as numerous as
the whole population of the unrepresented counties. There
are, too, as many manufactures in the counties as in the
towns. These may be very special, industrious, and great
aggregates of wealth on the scale you will find at Manches-
ter and Leeds, but you will find in the rural district similar
establishments neither less nor fewer than in the great
cities ; and as there is an equal amount of active in-
dustry in the counties, so there are a greater number of the
professional classes of the country in counties than in the
towns—there are more lawyers, more dissenting ministers,
more of the clergy of the country who, apart from their
high calling, are the most powerful class in the country.
It. is in the counties that they mainly prevail, and it is only
by the county members that they.are represented, and yet
we have a party that comes forward and says that my plan
is to represent the unrepresented towns, by which the
county population will be eliminated from the counties; yet
those who suppose that the county population simply con-
sists of farmers and farm labourers eliminate 8,000,000 out
of 10,000,000 of the county population. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer says, "It is all very well ; you are going on
very well with your representation of towns with new
members." But you forget the boundaries. All that I have
heard of the boundaries shows that the boundaries will tell
against the landed interest. It is perfectly monstrous that
half the town of Halifax would be county voters. The
difficulty of the subject I admit ; but the injurious effect to
the landed interest is exactly in proportion to the difficulty.
If you were to give representatives to large towns in
your redistribution of seats you might reduce the population
of the counties by about 1,500,000. But eves then you
would have a population of 10,000,000, county population,
represented by only 162 members. The landed interest—
which hon. gentlemen opposite call the agricultural interest
but call it so improperly—is bound up with others, and they
would be represented by 162 members, plus the number
about to be added by the bill before the house. That ad-
dition would give them more power, but there are other
things besides. There are other Considerations -- a wish to
avoid too much change—to avoid dallying with hallowed
associations ; but if you wish to tamper with the institutions
of your country you must offer a substitute by which the
landed interest would be better represented. You cannot
get off by that view which night after night and week after
week has been expressed by the Government describing
the population of counties after justice has been done by
arranging boundaries and enfranchising some unrepresented
towns—by describing one half the English nation as a mere
collection of farmers and farm labourers. (Cheers.) Your
own statistics—your own authentic records on the table,
confute the superficiality and error of such views and such
statements. (Cheers.) And it must be met. And when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down and rises in his
place and informs us that unless we adopt the measures of
the Government we must take the consequences and may
rue the consequences of our conduct, it is our duty to come
forward and moderate his anger, and put our case before
him, and ask him to deal with those statements—those facts
the accuracy of which no one can impugn, and instead of
hurrying on a piece of legislation, which everyone must
feel, after such a statement as I have just made, is en-
tirely immature, is wanting in every respect in prescience
and preparation—(cheers)—l think, instead of doing that
he ought to have availed himself of the friendly counsel
of the nal° lord the member for Chester, and have
taken the earliest opportunity of reconsidering and re-
constructing his measure. .(Cheers.) I see myself no ob-
jection whatever to the amendment which has been moved
by the hon. and gallant member for Wells. But so far as I
could follow the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
the amendment is conceded. I understand that the Chan _
cellor of the Exchequer does not for a moment insist on the
system of grouping—(hear, hear)—which the universal
opinion of the house and the general sentiment of the country
have criticised and condemned. The noble lord the member
for Chester has thought proper to express an opinion upon
the bill of the Government. lam far from differing from him
in opinion. I perhaps should not have ventured to express
it in so uncompromising a manner. An expression of that
kind coming from me might be misinterpreted, but coming
from the noble lord it will break with the force of truth
upon the conviction of the house and the conscience of the
country. (Cheers.) But what surprised me most was the
reason which the noble lord the member for Chester urged
for not at once terminating‘the course of a measure so per-
nicious as the one which the Government, according to his
account, have brought in for improving the representation
of the people. The noble lord says it is the critical state
of foreign affairs that influences him, and that he cannot
take upon himself the responsibility of dislodging Lord
Clarendon from the Foreign Office. (Hear, and laughter.)
Now, I much regret that the name of Lord Clarendon was
introduced into this debate. Certainly, I should not have
introduced it, and should have been willing to havelimited
my observations to the subject of the borough representa-
tion and its influence upon the county representation,
which is much more congenial to my mind at this moment.
But I cannot allow an observation on a man like Lord Cla-
rendon to pass unacknowledged. When that is brought for-
ward the noble lord the member for Chester has a reason
why he should not oppose on every occasion—it was only
on a subsequent occasion—a bill which he deems improper,
nay, so pernicious, as the measure introduced by her Ma-
jesty's Government. Any man who occupies the position of
Lord Clarendon—that of Secretary of State, and entrusted
with the management of our Foreign Affairs—often finds
himself no doubt in very difficult positions, and these diffi-
culties may be described under two heads --viz., experience
in his own Cabinet and experience in conferences and con-
gresses. A Minister for Foreign Affairs may often find him-
self in the painful and difficult position of being unable to
prevent war. That is a great occasion which must summon
up all the resources and energies of the man ; and if he is
the Minister of a country not prepared to go to war I do
not think he can be blamed if he fails in preventing war
taking place—(hear) —but if he be the Minister of a first-rate
country like England, and he wishes to prevent war and
fails in it, then I think he has shown a great want of re-
source and those qualities which a man in his position
ought to possess—(cries of " No, no," and cheers)—and that
certainly was the position of Lord Clarendon during the
Crimean war. (Hear, hear.) He had the power of England
at his back, and he failed to prevent war, though; I think,
he might have succeeded in preventing it. His whole course
before war broke out was a scene of great disaster. Let us
look to the time when Lord Clarendon was in conference
and in congress —(hear, hear, and question)—because we
are told by one of the principal members of the house by
one who has taken a leading part in this discussion and on
whose speech the night much depends—that his course is
entirely influenced by the conviction that it is his duty to
maintain Lord Clarendon in power. (Cheers.) I say again,
as I would say of a Minister in Lord Clarendon's position
trying to prevent war as the Minister of a country not pre-
pared to go to war, we cannot impugn his conduct on
details. So in a congress. If a Minister of a country not
prepared to enforce its decrees, a generous country cannot
blame him even if he fails in the object of his negociations—
(hear, hear) - but Lord Clarendon has been the Minister of a
triumphant and victorious country at a congress, and what
did he do there ? Why, he consented to an arrangement with
regard to the boundaries of the Turkish empire after our
triumph and struggles so ignorninous thatit required all the
energies and exertions of Lord Palmerston to prevent its
being carried into execution. (Cheers.) Lord Clarendon, as
the Minister of a triumphant country, at a congress forfeited
all the maritime rights of England, and he consented at a
congress to enter into a conspiracy to put down the free
press of Europe. (Cheers.) At the congress ho deserted
Circassia, who had every claim upon us, and whose case
was afterwards brought before this house by my noble
friend near me. Circassia has ceased to exist as a nation
in consequence of the conduct of Lord Clarendon. And
therefore when Lord Clarendon's name is brought forward
as the reason why the noble lord the member for Chester
is prepared "to vote in favour of a measure which he de-
nounces as pernicious, I must doubt the discretion of the
noble lord in that respect. (Hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man opposite ended his speech by a solemn protest to us
against our conduct. It seemed to me that as he went on
he could not stand when he enforced with the fire of his
eloquence charges against us which had no foundation.
The right hon. gentleman knows that the reason why this
measure has not advanced as he expected, and as ho fondly
hoped it would, originates in the essential character of the
measure which ho has introduced. It was ill-advised, it
was ill-prepared—(cheers)—and when first introduced
no one was more of that opinion, I believe, than the right
hon. gentleman himself. He spoke with bated breath—he
looked with a downcast glance. (Cheers and laughter).
But he took up the case and did justice to it. Gerard
Hamilton, once a member of this house—" Single-speech
Hamilton "—said of Burke, who was his private secretary,
that there was this peculiarity in Mr. Burke, that when
ever he took up an opinion, whatever it might be, he had
so ductile an imagination that before he had talked long
about it he firmly believed it. (Laughter.) The right hon.
gentleman will not be offended with me if I compare him,
at least, in that respect, to Mr. Burke. (Laughter.) There
is this advantage with such minds, however, t hat there is
also a facility of forgetfulness about them. I hope the
good sense of the House of Commons will allow this
question to be adjourned. (Ministerial cries of " No,
no," and Opposition cheers)—and that her Majesty's Go-
vernment will make themselves masters of the question
before it comes forward again—(cries of " Oh, oh," from
the Ministerial benches), and that they will not believe
that the landed interests, when the unrepresented towns
are enfranchised, do consist only of farmers and farm
labourers. They must recollect that they will have to
deal even then with half the people of England, and they
should be prepared to come forward on a subsequent oc-
casion with a measure which would be more adequate to
the occasion, and more calculated-to give content and
satisfaction to the people of this country. (Loud and con-
tinued cheering.)
Captain HAYTER—I rise to ask a question of her Ma-
jesty's Government after the direct appeal made to me by
the noble earl the member for Chester—an appeal deserv-
ing of the more attention from me, inasmuch as it was con-

tamed in a speech which, as far as I understand it, was
much more condemnatory of the Government scheme than
my amendment. As matters now stand the amendment I
had the honour to move has been entirely robbed of its in-
tention by the concession of the whole point at issue•
(Cries of "No, no.") Now, whether there have been any
grounds for it or not there is a rumour abroad, beyond the
walls of this house, and I believe that it has also got within
walls of this house, that we would alter the result of this
division. Ido not say that her Majesty's Government
have given the slightest reason for it. I appeal most to the
speech of the noble lord the member for Chester ill con-
firmation of that fact, and I appeal to the speech of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the real intentions of
the Government. I feel it so certain that this measure will
not be pressed in its present form during the present ses-
sion that I venture to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
I have moved. (Loud cries of "No, no," "Divide, divide.")
The SPEAKER then put the question, " That the
amendment be withdrawn," amid immense cries of "N°l
uo."

Lord ELCHO then rose and said—Sir, I shall not tres-
pass long upon your patience ; but as one of the aboriginal
Adullamites, I claim the indulgence of the house for a felt',
moments. (Loud cries of "Divide, divide," and ether in'
terruptions from the Ministerial side of the house.) I ell;
I claim the indulgence of the house. (Cheers and cries al
'Bar, bar," "Adjourn," and "Divide.")
The SPEAKER having interposed in favour of order,
Lord ELCHO resumed—Sir, I claim this indulgence, and
I hope that the honourable members sitting below the
gangway—for the interruption comes exclusively from
them—from their sense of fairness, will allow me to say 6
few words. (Renewed cries of "Divide divide.") I asig
the indulgence of the house, because my position as all,
aboriginal Adullamite is somewhat peculiar. (Cheers)
Our David has left our cave and has made friends With
Saul. (Cheers and cries of "Divide" repeated.) Any one
who listened, as I did, with great pleasure to the speech
my noble friend—a most able speech and effectively de-
livered—must have perceived this, that though, if we go
to a division the body of my noble friend will be in the
lobby with the Government his heart still remains With
the opponents of the measure ; for he denounced both the
bill and the Government in every possible way. (Cheerei
My noble friend objected to the provisions of the bill and
even went the length of prophesying not only the ultimate
fate of the bill, but the Government also. (Cheers and •
expressions of impatience.) My noble friend said this, that
the bill is so ill constructed and so ill-matured that it will
not and it cannot pass. And with respect to his own .
duct in reference to this bill, he said that he would °Wee
it tooth and nail in committee. That was my noble friend!
expression. (Cheers.) The only reason my noble fries':
gave for voting with the Government was, that he did not
to bring about a change of Government at this parti-
cular time. My noble friend, however, said that he had no
confidence whatever in the Government upon this question
of reform. (Cheers.) My noble friend said that as regards
this measure he had no confidence in the Government, hill,
that he rested his support of them on his confidence in
Lord Clarendon. Now I feel that a division taken under
these circumstances would practically be a division
on a false issue—(hear, hear)—and that it would be 11°
test of the real feeling of the house-o.nd cries
Hear,hear,' and calls for a division)—as far as regards
question whether the bills of the Government a'"
well-considered, or whether their proceedings upon Oil
subject, as a whole, are such as to merit the confidence
this house. I rejoice, therefore, that my hon. and P.'
lant friend the member for Wells proposes to withdraw hi'?
amendment. (Hear, and no, no.) I have no wish to al:
barrass her Majesty's Government—(oh, oh, and hear,hear)
—and it is not from any hostility to them that I ain op
posed to their policy in this instance ; but it is because
disapprove of hasty legislation upon this vital question.
(Hear.) I hope, therefore, that the Government will 87
cept the recommendation of my noble friend, and that the/
will withdraw their measure for the present session. (gear'
hear, and no, no.)

The SPEAKER put the question—" Is it your pleasur°
that the amendment be withdrawn ;" and this having been
replied to by a loud shout of "No!" front the Ministerig'
benches, he proceeded to put the amendment ; but be wag
for some time interrupted in doing so by most of the OW
servative members, together with Mr. Lowe, Lord Kieh,();
and a number of other gentlemen, leaving the house aulius
vociferous cheering from those Liberal members who re-
mained.

When at length the question was put almost all those
present shouted " Aye," but one or two Liberal members'
cried "No." The house was consequently cleared for
division ; but the amendment was negatived without sel
division taking place, and in a similar way the
that the Speaker should leave the chair was carried. ,
The house then went to a division upon the question 0'
reporting progress, and there were— question

For reporting progress 403
Against it
Majority _4ol
The announcement of the numbers was of course re-
ceived with a burst of laughter.
Mr. LOWE said he wished to call the attention of the 110111°
to the manner in which its proceedings had been conclude':
He had left the house alongwith others, beingunwilling L.°
force a division on the amendment. On endeavouring t°
return he found it impossible to force his way inapt
the house. What had passed he was unable to say,
when ho did get into the house there was no oppertull7,
of discussing the question. The preamble had been post
poned. He wished to know whether it was to be tolerated
that hon. members should be debarred by physical violenc!
(cries of " oh, eh,")— from discharging their duties e*
members of that house. Ile thought it a great herds")
that a person without any fault of his own should be de-
barred from entering the house. (Hear, hear.) •
Mr. B. HOPE corroborated the statement of the rightr
hon. gentleman. When he tried 'along with many oth:3
members to return they were met by a rush like that at 0
minor theatre—a rush that would have been disgraceut
even at such a place. (Laughter and cheers).
Mr. HADFIELD said that if hon. members had left the
house it was their own fault. There was a chance 0f 16
division, and they ran away.
Mr. ONSLOW protested against the manner in which
members were running out, for they actually carried
backwards with them.

After a few rbmaris from Mr. Difomr,
Sir J. FERGUSSON said that a large portion of bonamembers had left the house to avoid being forced into
false issue. The unseemly scene had been described "01
members whom he could not name. (Cries of °6 Nam
name.")

Mr. D. GRIFFITH bore testimony to the extreme ijj;
convenience which had occurred on this occasion. (gear,
He had had an important amendment on the paper from the
earliest moment, which would occupy as much time as 11/11.1
of the discussion that had already taken place. Po%
hear.) He was now deprived of that opportunity. 0.
could name, but he would refrain from doing so, those 11°,0
members who had falsely given their voices in order "0
force on a division. (No, no, and name.) He should deli°
doing so. (Oh, oh).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman who had just sat down had not lost "-Di
opportunity of bringing forward his amendment, becauSe 0
the rules of the house he would have been precluded Ir°3o
doing so after the motion for going into committee W,TO
agreed to. (Hear, hear.) He might, however,
ig
raised the question on the motion for adjournment. 1'
hon. friend the member for Caine had described in str°„
terms a discreditable scene that he said had taken Pl4°°,lo
(hear, hear)—and it would lead to the inference that0
physical difficulty which he and other hon. members 011"-'
rienced had arisen designedly. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE—No, no.
it
•The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
would appear so, but he now quite understood the 1.1%,21
hon. gentleman's meaning. No doubt, what he comPlel/I,,it
of was what they had all, more or less, to experience ii"st
particular occasions. The greatest care was taken t
o
the question, instead of being taken as a mere adjoocto
the motion, should be read with great deliberation 11 "se
Speaker, and he noticed that there remained in the h°lo
a considerable number of hon. gentleman on the other D'io
whom he thought might have been fairly trusted to to
objection to the main question of the Speaker leavingto
chair.
At
Sir M. RIDLEY also bore testimony to the obstructl'7,to
the entrance to the house. He had been unable to get aid
the house in consequence of the obstruction, and he
not know that any motion had been made. boa'
The SPEAKER explained that the motion of the
bAt'•
member for Devizes, if there had been no disturbatlee,',v-oot
ever, and everybody had remained in his place, could
have been put. The only way in which it coact 'too
been moved would have been, in the first instance, °to
proposal of the hon. member for Kilmarnock that the o,
bills should bo referred to the same committee, auci„t h 610'
if any objection had been made to the course, tho to
tribution Bill would have had to have been postP°ne„rolecl
the next day, and the hon. member would have bad a',..r"A"-fter
to him an opportunity for moving his amendment. 'OOl,
the house had agreed to refer the two bills to the saree..e, the
mittee, and the instruction of the right hon. gentleman left
member for Kilmarnock agreed to, there was no roteliefit
for more than the amendment of the hon. cod gnaf th‘'
member for Wells. In respect to the question
100
right hon. gentleman the member for Caine he (the SPe 1,00
was unable to speak to anything but what took P
within the walls of that house. It was decided'," anusparliamentary and irregular proceeding for any gently tbee
to give his voice with the ayes, and afterwards, ioo
purpose of forcing a division, to challenge the deeis_rebor
the chair by saying that the noes had it. If such 77 vote
were observed ho might be compelled to register hs'ios(f
with the "Noes." He (the Speaker) put the questionusie vreo
and repeatedly, and so far as the counting of the ho
concerned, nothing could be more orderly. trope°
The Oyster Fisheries Bill, and the Pier and
Orders Confirmation Bill were read a second time. /sit!"
The Indian Prize-money Bill and the Marriage
monton) Bill were read a third time.
The house adjourned at 25 minutes to three.
London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM
.7 kl 4/ No. lint
of No. 112, Strand, ranter, at Tim „ SuN oty v
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the "I°
Bliddleses.—Tuesday, June 5, 1866.