The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 23, 1859.
_ `4

Sharo Railways. /Paid Closing Business
•1 Price. I Dons.

_ 100 (Atlantic &St Lawrence'
Leased at 6 per cent all 85 88 851 6 5
18 'Bom.,Baroda&Centlnd 134 d
gu. 5 percent
18 Do all 171.1
18 Do. Addit. Capital A 6 1 1 d
_
18 Do. Do. B 44 1 d
201 Buffalo and Lake Huron 61
201 Do. New lBl d
/00 Bulfalo,Brant&Godrich 1 100 85 90
bds. 1 1
July, Aug., 1872 )
100 Do. do. 1873 100 82 86
190 Do. do. 1 June, 1874 100 80 84
20 Clcutta.&S.Eastrn.Lim. 1. 3.0. par 4 p
20 Cape,Eastn.Prov.(Lim.) 2s. I
20 Cape Town & Dock Scrip 2s. 1
20 Central Oude (Limited) 28. 6d. --
20 Ceylon Guaranteed 6p.c 2
171 Demerara
20 Eastern Bengal.gu.sp.c 5 f f d
Stock East Indian, gu. sp. c lOO 103 1031 1024 31
20 Do. C Shares all -
20 Do. E Shares Ext l5
Geelongg &Corporation c, all
per cent. Bonds
Stock Grand Trunk of Canada 100 35 37 3551 1 6
100 Do. 6 p.c. Deben.,pay.'7B all 75 77 7 6
100 I Do. 6 per cent. Pref lOO 93 94 91 31
20 IGtindiaPenin.gua.sp.c all 101 102 ,
20 Do. New, gua.s per cent 4 f 41)4
20 ,Do. do -
20 j 'Gt.S.of Ind.Lim.—Scrip 2a.
guaranteed 5 per cent.) --
201 Gt. W. of Canada Shares all 151 151 151 1
204 Do. New
100 j Do. Bonds pay. '76,with } all 103 105
( ept. till '6O
100 Do. do. '73 till '6O
100 Do. do. 73 without opt all 103 105
100 Do. 51 p. c. do. '77 do
20 Madras, guar., 41 p. c all 17, 18
20 Do. do. 5 per cent all 19/ 20
20 Do. 41 p. c. Extension l5 18-, 181 181
t
20 Do. Third Ex. gua.s.p.c. 10 d
20 Do. Fourth do. - d 41
Stock Melb. Corp. 6 p.c. Bonds 100
Newßrunswick&Canda.'
20 Ry.&Land(Lim.)g.f.pc' 10 d
Class ACapitl.Share
▪ Do. do. Land do._ ..
20 Do. do. B. Capital do. 10 d
▪ Do. do. Land do •
20 Northof India Tratnroadi 28.
Limited, Scrip
20 Oude (Limited)
20 Scinde -4 15 1 1 p
20 Do.
20 Do. New E 10 d plO
20 Do. Punjaub 5 id' 4
20 Do. Indus. St. Flo. brg. 10 ft d par'
20 St. Andrews & Quebec A 18
10 :Trinidad(Limiad) Scrip 1 fd par
FOREIGN RAILWAYS.
10 Antwerp & Rotterdami all 5 51
20 Ardennes all p
20 Bah.&S.Fran.,Lim.7p.c 3 4 d
5 Belgian East. Junction all 1
20 Beziers to Graissessas. . all
5 Carmeaux Mine & Rail all 11 24
20 Dutch Rhenish
6 Eastern of France all 261 27}
20 Euphrates Valley 2s. p
20 Great Central of France all
20 Gt. Luxem., Con. shs all 64
10 Italian Junction
20 Lake Constance & Dale all
20 Lierre and Turnhout all
20 Lombardo Venetian 8 ft 1 p 1
20 Lucca & Pistoja, 5 p.c.pf all
20 Lyons and Geneva
331 Maria Antonia all
20 Do. do. New
20 Namur and Liege all 81 81 80
20 Do. do. 6p. c. Pref all 101 201 201
16 Northern of France
20 Do. New Shares
10 Norwegian Trunk Pref all 81 91
20 Ottom an, gua. 6 per cent 7 -
20 Paris,Lyons, and Medit. all 321 33
20 Paris and Orleans, all 51 53
20 Recife& S. Fran. (Peru.) ) n 1 dB4
gua. 71D. et. (Lim.) ...
20 Rilla and Dunaburg.... 4
10 Rome and Frascati .... all
20 Royal Danish all
5 Royal Swedish
4 Do. 7 per cent. Pref.
20 Sambre and Meuse all 6 7
10 Do. 54 per cent. Pref.
20 Southern of France
84 West Flanders
10 Do. 51_p. C. Preference
20 W. & N.W. of France all 23 24
20 Western of Austria 6
20 Western of Switzerland all
6
Wiesbaden -
6 8 per cent. Pref all
20 Zealand all

MPERI A. 14 PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCEILOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from Sheffield
in favour of legalizing the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, ; and also a petition from Westminster in favour of
Parliamentary Reform.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented several petitions
from Barnsley, Leeds, Liverpo?l, and other places, praying
that Protestant dissenters might be allowed to administer
trusts of grammar schools.
Earl GRANVILLE presented a petition in favour of
legalising the marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
Lord COLVILLE, of Culross, presented a petition from
Taunton against such a proposition.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented similar petitions
from Ipswich, signed by the mayor, the ex-mayor, alder-
men, town councillors, bankers, and other influential per-
sons.
Lord _REDESDALE presented petitions from Leeds and
other places against the Marriage Law Amendment Bill.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition against the bill.

THIRD READING.
The Great Northern and Western of Ireland Railway
bill was read a third time and passed.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord WODEHOUSE, after presenting a great number
of petitions in favour of legalising the marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister, proposed, the second reading of this
bill. He said their lordships were, no doubt, aware that
the object of the bill was to legalise marriage with
a deceased wife's sister. The subject had been
so frequently brought before the house that he
did not intend to make any lengthened observations
in doing so. The noble lord having alluded to the different
efforts that had been made to pass a bill with the above
object for the last twenty years, went on to say that last
year a bill passed the other house by a large ma-
jority, but was thrown out by their lordships. The
objections to the bill might be divided into two classes,
religious and social, and when the movement was first com-
menced, opposition was justified on theological grounds;
but that had in a great measure been abandoned. The
well-known chapter in Leviticus, which was origi-
nally-considered to be a conclusive argument against
the bill, was now looked upon as conveying an
approval of the principles of the bill. The chief Rabbi of
the Jews, Dr. Adler, had construed the chapter in Leviticus
favourable to this bill, but notwithstanding this circum-
stance it might be said they ought to be governed more by
the opinion of the heads of our own Church than by that of
the Jewish. The Bishop of London, who, he regretted, he did
not see in his place,was in favourof the bill. The Archbishop
of Dublin had expressed himself that the marriage in ques-
tion was not in opposition to the Word of God, and the
Bishop of Manchester had distinctly and explicitly
expressed a similar opinion. It was quite true that
- many members of the episcopal bench had expressed a con-
trary opinion, but he could not believe they could now look
upon the marriage with a deceased wife's sister as incestuous
if they had formerly thought it was not inconsistent with
the Word of God. Last year only seven of the right rev.
prelates had voted against the bill, so he thought the objec-
tion from the episcopal bench could not now be very strong.
The noble lord then quoted the opinions of several eminent
clergymen of the English Church, all of which were strongly
in favour of the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In
nearly all other countries these marriages, as their
lordships knew, were permitted. In Roman Catholic
countries they were permitted by dispensations. He had
no doubt in the course of the discussion many points would
arise to which he should have an opportunity of reply, but
he thought the divided opinion that prevailed amongst
parties ought to induce their lordships to think whether
the time had now arrived when they could
safely read this bill a second time. (Hear.) It
was an admitted fact that an immense number
of those marriages now took place, and that in many cases,
though the law prevented a marriage, it forced parties to
live together illegally. He would not detain their lordships
with hearing arguments that had so frequently been urged ;
but he trusted that the bill would on this occasion share
a better fate than its predecessors. He concluded by moving
that the bill be now read a second time.
Viscount DUNGANN ON moved that the bill be
read a second time this day six months. It was his
deliberate opinion that marriages with a deceased wife's
sister were decidedly opposed to Scripture. The noble lord
denied that there was a feeling prevalent amongst the
middle and lower classes in favour of those marriages; in-
deed, he was of opinion that precisely the opposite was
the fact. The effect of this measure, if
agreed to, would be to render desolate many
of the homes of England. He believed that in the
higher and educated classes not one woman in fifty was in
favour of the provisions of the bill. He did not think that
because the House of Commons had frequently approved
the proposals of the bill that that was any reason for agree-
ing to this measure.
The Bishop of EXETER said his words must be few,
for he was conscious of the infirmities of age. It had been
observed that six or seven bishops had held these marriages
to be lawful. He thought it would be difficult to double
the number amongst all the thousands of bishops of the
church of Christ since its foundation. He (the Bishop of
Exeter) opposed it on religious grounds.
Lord ST. LEONARDS wished to draw attention to the
state of the matter as it stood before the house. The ques-
tion was not whether it was against the law of God for a
man to marry his wife's sister, but whether, as the law of
the land forbade it, the house was prepared to revoke the
existing law, and allow a man to marry his wife's sister,
whatever might be the law of God on the subject. In 1835
everybody admitted the force of the canon law forbidding
these marriages, but according to the law these marriages
were voidable, and not null and void, and persons took ad-
vantage of that circumstance to contract such marriages.
But the act of 1835 laid it down that parties had been in-
duced to contract these marriages knowing that they were
only voidable—and it made all past marriages good, estab-
lished the legitimacy of children, and the right to peerages
and estates; but it contained a provision that every future
marriage of this kind should be null and void. The noble
and learned lord concluded by painting out the great social
alteration this bill would cause in families, and the incon-
veniences and jealouses which would flow from their being
acknowledged.
Tho Bishop of ST. ASAPH opposed this ohange in the
law on the ground that it would be contrary to the law of
God, which no human power could alter ; and if the law of
this country on this subject were altered to-morrow, the law
of God would be against these marriages still.
Viscount LIFFORD was understood to say that when
he last voted against this change in the law, he did so on
the ground that these marriages were forbidden by the
Church, and by that he meant the Church of Rome, of
which the Church of England was a branch. On a more
attentive consideration and examination of the 'matter, he
had come to the conclusion that the objection to these mar-
riages was invented in the dark ages of the Church, in order
that dispensations for the purposes of gain might be
granted.
Lord CRANItORTH remarked that his opinion upon
the question remained unchanged. That opinion was
founded upon the social not upon the religious ground, for
upon the religiose ground there was so much difference
of opinion amongst those who were authorities on the sub-
ject, that he thought it unadvisable to proceed upon that.
It was for the sake of the women of England that he op-
posed the bill, believing that it would be impossible for a
wife to receive her sister under her roof on the same terms
of intimacy with her husband as she could now, were the
existing law repealed.
The Bishop of CORK supported the bill on the ground
that such marriages as it referred to were not contrary to
God's law.
The Bishop of OXFORD, who rose amid cries of " di-
vide," said since this matter was before their lordships last
he had gone through it carefully, and the result of that
examination was that he was strengthened in the convic-
tion that these marriages were prohibited by the law of God.
The Bishop of CARLISLE thought no sufficient case
had been made out to show that marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was contrary to the law of God, and having
seen much of the evil of the present state of the law, he
had come to the conclusion that it was his duty to vote for
the second reading of the bill.
Lord WODEHOUSE replied, urging that it was not
justifiable to put restrictions on the libei4,ies of those whose
motives were not less conscientious thanlhose of the oppo-
nents of the bill.
The house then divided, and the numbers were :
Contents
Non-contents .
The bill was therefore lost.
The Court of Chancery Accommodation Bill was read a
second time

The Consolidated Fund Bills were read a second time ; the
County Courts Bill went through committee ; the report on
the Convicts Prisons Abroad Bill was received ; the Eccle-
siastical Courts (Ireland) Bill was read a second time—
all without discussion.

Their lordships then adjourned at 20 minutes before
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
MUNICIPAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS.

Colonel FORESTER brought up the reply of the Crown
to the address on the subject of the municipal laws and cus-
toms, to the effect that her Majesty had ordered an in-
quiry to be instituted in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the commissioners.

to be held to deliberate on the affairs of Italy with refer.
ence to the preservation of the peace of Europe, and whether
he was able to state to the house what Powers would be the
parties to the Congress ; and especially whether Sardinia
would join in it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Government had come to no decision on the subject.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.
Mr. J. LOCKE moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the act of the fifth and sixth years of King William
the Fourth, relating to weights and measures.—Agreed to.
CHURCH-RATE ABOLITION BILL.
At the request of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
Sir J. TRELAWNY consented to postpone the second read-
ing of this bill.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. WILSON resumed the debate. He considered the
measure of the Government so objectionable in principle,
that he could not possibly vote for the second
reading, and it was a measure which, in his opinion,
was so radically bad, that it could not be so altered
in committee as to meet the views of the people. The
clauses relating to disfranchisement were so entirely op-
posed to the feelings of the people, that it could not be ex-
pected to receive the sanction of that house. The require-
ment of the commuity was that the franchise should be
expanded, but the tendency of the measure was to
contract. (Hear, hear.) The bill retained not
only what was objectionable in the present system, but in-
troduced much that in itself was most reprehensible. He
denied that the form in which the £lO franchise
was presented was a concession, and its real effect
would be to increase the territorial influence, and
to diminish the borough influence. The bill proposed
to disfranchise no less than 100,000 freeholders
in boroughs from the county franchise. If they went care-
fully through the bill they would find that its provisions
disfranchised as many as it enfranchised. Besides it pro-
posed to disfranchise in the counties exactly that descrip-
tion of voters who were the most independent, and sub-
stituted for them a class the very reverse. (Hear, hear.)
T e provisions of the bill would also have the effect
o manufacturing fictitious votes in small towns. The
sys m proposed would be attended also with difficulty at
ti,e
elections. He contended that property would always exer-
cise an influence in a country like this greater than what
the more numerical majority would possess. The effect of the
Government scheme would be to abolish the present
system, by which different classes were represented, and
make the representation of the country worse than even
that of one class. He was not opposed to the existence of
small boroughs, which he believed had a function to per-
form, but it would not be satisfactory to the people
of this country to have any system introduced that would
in any degree diminish class legislation and extend that of
individuals. He was opposed to the disfranchisement of
small boroughs, but ho was equally opposed to the
adoption of such a system as would convert
them into mere nomination boroughs. He con-
sidered that the whole tendency of tie bill was to
give influence to the landed interest and to take it
away from the trading and commercial interests of the
country. He thought that the Government should have '
adopted the resolution of the noble lord the member for the
City of London, and modified their bill in committee, instead
of which the noble lord (Lord Stanley) said they must
accept the bill as it was at present constituted. (Hear,
and cries of "No, no.") He thought, therefore, that that
course effectually closed the door against those who agreed
with him (Mr. Wilson) consenting to the second reaing
of the bill. There was no guarantee that, if they went
into committee, they could alter the bill so as to make it
acceptable to the country or the house. He regarded the
question before the house as one of the most important that
could be brought under their consideration, and that the
present crisis was one of the gravest that could be selected
for bringing such a question forward ; and he would be
most happy, therefore, if the Government could settle the
matter. He was therefore actuated by no further motive
in offering the present bill his strenuous opposition, and
supporting the resolution of the noble lord the member for
the City of London. He thought that, under the present
circumstances, the Government were bound, at the earliest
period possible, to bring this question to a satisfactory con-
clusion. (Cheers.)
Sir E. B. LYTTON—The hon. gentleman has vainly
endeavoured, by a great variety of detail, to obscure the
question so clearly put before the house by the right hon.
member for Stroud (Mr. Horaman). That question is, will
you take into consideration a moderate measure of Reform,
which is offered by a powerful Conservative party with a
large concession on their part ; or will you rather wait for
that other measure which the hon. member who has just sat
down says should be proposed as a satisfactory solution of
this question, but which, nevertheless, is not before you, of
which there was not a glimpse in the mere party amend-
ment of the noble lord, and with regard to which you must
calculate the odds whether its provisions will be such as to
satisfy those hon. gentlemen who profess what they call
Radical principles, and to satisfy also those other gentle-
men who have spent the last six-and-twenty years in de-
coying Radical votes and in abjuring Radical principles ?
(Cheers and laughter.) Of course, if you cannot take the
mere principle of a moderate measure from us—if, as you
say, the country will not accept it—then the measure passes
out of the hands of Lord Derby's Government. But into
whose hands will it pass ? Noble lords and hon. gentlemen
who are at this moment so carefully bridging the gangway
with a rope of sand (Sir W. Hayter, who was seatedin "the
gangway," rose up hastily at this allusion and leftthe house
amid great laughter) may by their experience patch up the
quarrels of years for the division of a night. But grant that
they triumph. Grant that the solemn lecture which has just
been delivered to Lord Derby by the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Wilson) has its effect, and that no appeal is made to the
country. Grant, also, that you are in Downing-street to-
morrow, will not the quarrels of years show themselves in
Downing-street also ? (Hear, hear.) But where will be any
Reform Bill ? As my noble friend the Secretary for India
justly said last night, this resolution will answer the noble
lord's purpose much as the Irish Appropriation clause un-
der the same unrivalled destroyer of Governments did be-
fore; and it may then leave the English suffrage much as
that famous clause left the Irish Church. (Hear.) I think it
must have struck all who have listened to this debate that,
however hon. gentlemen may agree in disapproval of our
bill, they have shown no agreement as to any other, and
some have even taken pains to imply that there ought to be
no Reform Bill at all. The hon. member for Sandwich
(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) said last night that rather
than take our measure he would wait—he did not say how
long. (Cheers and laughter.) The hon. member for Bir-
mingham has been a little more explicit, and said that in
order to have a good bill he would consent to wait five
years. (Hear.) Well, then, why not move an amendment
which would get us all out of the dilemma, and which, I
am sure, is at the bottom of the hearts of half the Reformers
opposite ? Why not propose as an amendment to this bill
that a good bill should be read a second time this day five
years ? (Much laughter.) For my part, speaking frankly,
I have no superstitious dread ofany of those questions which
are raised by the more ardent Reformers opposite. Some
of these questions I espoused myself many years ago. One
or two of them I still favour, and if on others I have since
modified the opinions I then held, I have done so with no
uncharitable prejudice against those who believe now what
I myself once believed. (Hear.) In arguing the case with
the more advanced Liberals in this house I argue it with
men whom it becomes me to respect. I argue it not with
the mob leaders of 50 years ago. I argue it with gentle-
men of refined education, and some of whom have proved
the independence of their character by the loss of their
seats, rather than yield to what they held to be the mis-
taken judgment of their constituents. (Hear, hear.) Now,
when a Government undertakes a Reform Bill it is impos-
sible to discard the question—what party does that Govern-
ment represent ? Conservatives are free as other men to
undertake financial or administrative reforms ; and there
may be points, both in the management of business and
even of policy, in which there is more sympathy between
Conservatives and advanced Liberals than there is between
advanced Liberals and Whigs. But when it comes to
great organic changes your own good sense and your in-
stinct of party honour must tell you that a Conservative
' Government could not give the same kind of reform as a
Government which represents your views and is supported
by your constituents. We could only deal with this ques-
tion as men offering a compromise, in which we tender con-
cessions on our side and ask concessions upon yours. What
you lose in amount of reform you gain in the expedition anti
ease with which some reform at least may be effected. This
is not all; a violent party battle upon Parliamentary Re-
form, to be fought throughout the length and breadth of the
kingdom, is in itself a great calamity. I remember what it
was before. Long-life friendships are dissolved, families
are divided. In each town or county, in each section of the
community society is embittered for years; trade and credit
are seriously injured. The metropolis was said to have
suffered in its trade to the amount of £2,000,000 by the
agitation of the great Reform Bill. All those evils in your
views may bo counterbalanced by some party triumph for
popular Government such as you would propose. Ali those
evils are not counterbalanced by the Jesuitical amendment
of the noble lord—all those evils are prevented, and some
advantage even to your views is obtained, if, by passing the
second reading of this bill, you will meet the spirit in which.
a Conservative party offers to you the grounds for a com-
promise. (Cheers.) Now, I say when we undertook this
measure we had two questions to determine-Ist, what
could we say was the temper of public opinion ; what did it
require ? 2d, the amount of acknowledged evil ; what is
there to remedy ? Sir, I think few will deny that when we
undertook the question of Parliamentary Reform public
opinion was extremely apathetic. Tnie, nine out of 10 said
loudly, "We must have a Reform Bill ;" but eight out of
every nine whispered to each other, "Does anybody want
one ?" (Cheers and laughter.) Now, is there any reason
why public opinion should have changed on this subject
since last year? Look to the state of Europe. During the
latter part of our consideration of reform war seemed inevit-
able. True, it is peace to-day ; can any man say there will
not be war to .morrow ? (Hear, hear.) Is it the precise mo-
ment suddenly to transfer political power from the middle
class, with which, on the whole, it now rests, and, by which,
on the whole, it has been liberally and usefully exercised, to
the wider area of a class, however honest and respectable,
still not yet educated up to the mark which England should
require in a constituency that is to enable her to confront
foreign Powers, not withthe force of numbers, but with the
majesty of disciplined intellect ? (Hear, hear.) I remember
that Mr. Fox once said, " What gives England her power
in Europe ? It can never be numbers ; it must be always in-
tollect. Can England represent intellect in Europe if num-
bers are to make the law of representation in the House of
Commons ?" And now, Sir, when I hear the Government
accused of a want of earnestness and sincerity in dealing
with this question, I must venture to ask if no insincerity,
no want of earnestness has been shown by many eminent
persons opposite ? When it was supposed out of doors that
we intended to propose a sweeping and comprehensive mea-
sure many of those eminent persons actually became anti-
Reformers. Articles appeareu in Whig journals that might
have been written by Mr. Crokor. Speeches were made to
,w , i,tlll
hcoonpe-
their constituents by Whig. members that might have been
siregsiedde
made by Lord Liverpool. I appeal to our own social expe-
rience. Wwheriespenoret gbeyntlgeentntelenmoenn on this
tshideeobthe
e
your Reform Bill will be a very moderate measure; in fact,
it cannot be too small for public opinion." (Cheers and
laughter.) And now, Sir, because this measure is brought
forward by a Government he opposes, the hon. member for
Dovouport declares that it falls short of his expectations.
Sir, that is very naturally the voice of party. I do not think
it is the voice of public opinion, and if public opinion had a
glass window to its bosom we should there see among all
the better educated elasf,es, on the whole a preference to our
bill, with all its shortcomings, rather than to any bill
founded upon the principles which have been set forth
in those public meetings in which our bill has been de-
nounced. (Hear, hear.) Principles as to which I say

nothing. If you want to know what is to be said against
triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot I refer you to the
speeches of the noble lords the members for Tiverton and
London. (Cheers and laughter.) Well then, I say, in an-
swer to the first question, what was the temper of public
opinion? And when we undertook this bill what did it
require ? I say the temper of public opinion was listless.
I say that it either required a measure quite as moderate as
we propose, or, if you tell us that public opinion has been
lately represented m local public meetings, then I say it
requires something which is not to be found in the amend-
ment of the noble lord. (Cheers.) It requires something
which no Whig Government could propose, and no con-
ceivable Government at this time could hope to carry.
(Renewed cheers.) I turn to the second question, put by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud—what
was the amount of acknowledged evil ? What was there
that asked a remedy ? Why, sir, it cannot be very large,
for the right hon. baronet the member for Radnorshire,
with all his scholastic acuteness, did not in addressing his
constituents appear to discover any evil at all. (Hear, hear.)
The evil could not be one very popularly felt, for the hon.
gentlemen the member for Birmingham, with all his mas-
culine eloquence, failed to get up an agitation commensurate
to his talents and proportionate to his zeal. (Cheers.) Still,
there were these acknowled defects. First, some large con-
stituencies were unrepresented. Seeondly,:some large classes
did not possess the franchise. We addressed ourselves at
once to these. As to the first, we found that the really large
towns unrepresented were extremely few. To all those
with populations approaching 20,000 I believe we have given
members ; if we have omitted some that should be repre-
sented, prove the; case, and it is a fair question of commit-
tee. But reject the bill on account of that amendment and
you leave the towns we disfranchise still unrepresented.
Secondly, there were large classes that did not possess the
franchise. Now, should we really best obtain the remedy
by the principle of the noble lord's amendment, the lower-
ing of the borough franchise ? No ; for we should then
equally exclude some of the most intelligent and indepen-
dent persons who live in lodgings—(hear, hear)—and have
no house at all. We believe we have adopted a fair
rental of Bs. a-week, but that also is a question of com-
mittee. Reject the bill on account of that amendment and
you leave those persons unrepresented. We desired to ex-
tend the principle of representation by admitting personal
property of all kinds. We wished to bring that qualification
down to a scale that may include the artisan if he has given
proofs of thrift and foresight by investment in a savings
bank. Have we made the amount of that investment too
high ? That too is a question of committee--(cheers and
laughter)—butreject the bill on account of that amendment
and you reject the principle that was honestly meant to in-
clude the superior artisan. (Hear, hear.) It is also com-
plained, especially by hon. gentlemen opposite, that in
counties there were many respectable persons living in
towns and villages not represented, and excluded from a
vote as residents in the county, these we resolved to enfran-
chise. We took the £lO occupier and we gave him a vote
for the county. Do you object to the mode in which this is
done ? do prove your case and the question becomes a fair
one for settlement in coniMttee. (Cheers and laughter.)
But if you reject this bill I ask you whether this £lO occu-
pier is to be enfranchised by the resolution of the noble
lord, or whether he is to wait for that other bill which the
hon. member for Devonport seems to think may speedily be
passed, but which the nght hon. gentleman the memberfor
Coventry has told you a Liberal Government has at present
no chance of passing without the consent of the Conserva-
tives, and which the right hon. gentleman the member for
Stroud informs you can never be carried at all. (Hear.)
I will now take the most startling inaccuracy stated by the
hon. member for Devonport. He is accustomed to deal
with figures and practised in numerical details, yet
he says one great defect of the bill is that it will create a
fluctuating constituency between town and country for the
next 60 years. But only allow the bill to go into com-
mittee, and I think we shall be able to show that there will
be no such floating constituency, as a voter must select
between the two. (Hear, hear.) I say these are ques-
tions which you cannot, and ought not, to go into now.
Sir, I am willing to leave that part of the noble lord's
amendment to the able defence of my noble friend who re-
plied to him ; but I go further, and say that, granting all
the force you like to the noble lord's objections, those objec-
tions apply to clauses you can consider in committee, and
unless you say it is nothing to enfranchise the large towns
now unrepresented, nothing to improve the registration,
nothing to enfranchise new classes, nothing to admit the
£lO occupier to a vote in counties, you ought not to reject
the second reading of the bill on account of two clauses you
have a later and a fuller opportunity to discuss. I pass on
to the latter part of the noble lord's amendment, which in-
volves a more important question—l mean the lowering of
the borough franchise. The difference between us is, that
he would suddenly lower the borough franchise, and we
would extend the general franchise of the nation, in admit-
ting the principle of lodger franchise, of investments in a
savings-bank, of education as it advances becoming a quali-
fication in itself—(hear, hear)—we do not only extend the
suffrage, but we open vistas for gradual reduction, accord-
ing to the very views to which the most thoughtful Re-
formers have always inclined more than they have done to
the coarse substitute of a £6 or a £5 or a :810 house qualifi-
cation. Surely, education and independence ought to be
characteristic of a liberal suffrage ; surely, you gain
much more through the educated persons who hire lodg-
ings than you do through the persons who are struggling
with poverty in a £5 house. (Hear.) Take no very uncom-
mon example--a retired servant, or a broken tradesman,
hires a house and lets lodgings; in those lodgings may live
an artist, a banker's clerk, a man of letters, a superior arti-
san. The one retired servant or the broken tradesman
alone has a vote • the four educated men who live with him
have none. Will you tell me that their four votes would
not be of more value to the constituency in the right choice
of a member than the votes of £4 and f.:5 householders if
you added them to the constituency instead ? (Cheers.)
Now, sir, so far as regards the mere interest of the Conser-
vative party in this house, I have always said, and I still
think, that the lowering of the borough franchise would be
no disadvantage to us, and would indirectly be of advan-
tage. No disadvantage, because I take it for granted that
the disposition of all the larger towns will return candidates
of the opposite party. Whther those candidates are re-
turned by a £lO or a £5 constituency could therefore in no
way affect the balance of party in this house. Indirectly it
would be an advantage to us that gentlomenopposite should
be chosen by a£s constituency rather than a £lO. And
why ? Because a party does not depend; on its numbers
alone; it depends on the dignity, the independence, the
education, and on the whole the moderate good sense of its
representatives. I believe you gain all those qualities better
under a £lO constituency than under a £5. I believe the
worst enemy anupright Reformer can have is not a Con-
servative gentleman ; it is a demagogic adventurer. Once
adopt a very low suffrage in your towns, and my belief is
that in the present state of popular education the upright
Reformer would be too often displaced by the demagogic
adventurer. (Cheers.) That would be your loss ; indirectly
it would be our gain. Our gain, because you would no
longer be the same formidable candidate for power. Vio-
lent politicians may make a troublesome and unscrupulous
Opposition, but they could never unite to form the Queen's
Government. (Cheers.) If we wanted to destroy the
moral power of your party, we would give you the lowest
suffrage you liked to ask ; because, lower the franchise be-
neath £lO in counties, lower it to £5, and you would in-
stantly place 'numbers under the influence of property.
That would be our gain. Lower the franchise in towns,
and the lower you go the more you place numbers under
the control of ignorance and passion. That would be your
loss. Now, far from wishing to destroy your party, I con-
sider it essential to freedom that the Liberal party in this
house should be always strong, and if I ask you to pause
before you lower too much the borough franchise, it is be-
cause I am convinced you cannot be always strong if you
create a constituency that does not secure to liberal mem-
bers the same high standard of integrity and culture. But
do not let gentlemen who represent the smaller boroughs
credulously believe that you can by any political logic
lower the franchise in boroughs without also destroy-
ing the smaller boroughs—the two principles must go to-
gether. For why lower the franchise in boroughs except
to take !population more into account, and except to enfran-
chise a larger number of the superior part of the working
class ? You cannot, therefore, by your principle preserve
the smaller towns to the exclusion of the larger; you can-
not pass the artisans'of larger towns, where intelligence is
most diffused, to enfranchise the artisans of smaller boroughs
with a less rate of wages, and probably a less degree of
education. Therefore you cannot separate the two, as the
noble lord's amendment does, in order to entice your votes.
To lower the borough franchise is to annihilate the smaller
boroughs. Are there any such members, any such boroughs
so guileless and tomblike as to be caught by the noble lord's
ensnaring amendment and seductive tongue ? Yes, Sir,
there is one, the member for Sandwich—
" Pleased to the last he crops his flowery food,
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood."
But when those smaller boroughs are de3troyed, what then?
To what constituencies will they be transferred ? Do not
think we do not carefully examine that subject. We might
have given what is called a more comprehensive, and might
have been a more popular measure. We might have swept
away 80, 90, 100, or 120 boroughs. But, had we done so, it
appeared clear to us, as it does to my noble friend who
spoke so well last light, that the majority of the seats
taken from the boroughs ought to be given to the counties.
The noble lord in his last Reform Bill arrived at the
same conclusion. If we had done this you would have said,
" We undertook a Reform Bill in order to serve our party."
(Cheers.) We did not do this. We would not, in the present
state of Europe, provoke that town and county quarrel
which renders always so difficult, and at this time so dan-
gerous, the question of any large redistribution of seats.
Having resolved that our measure should be moderate, we
resolved that, as been between party and party, it should be
just.. (Cheers.) But whenever you open that question of a
large redistribution, then on every ground of justice the
counties will ask a larger proportion of seats than they now
possess. (Cheers.) But grant that you put aside our pre-
tensions ; grant you got the kind of Reform Bill you re-
quire, and that this house is swayed and this country go-
verned by a large preponderance of urban populations with
a very low franchise. Sir, let us face that question fairly.
It is one far more important than the party battle we are now
fighting, and it is one of the deepest interest to us all, as well
educated men equally anxious for the dignity of our councils
and the power of the House of Commons. Sir, first let us
see what the House of Commons really is. It is not merely
a popular assembly, it is a deliberative assembly. It arrogates
inquiry and decision upon all the most
t complicated ques-
tions of policy both at home and abrond. It is this in which
it strikingly differs from our free colonies, to which we may
accord the most popular suffrage. A colonial legislature is
little more than a vestry on a great scale. It does not
provide even for its own military defence. It does not
touch upon foreign affairs, all those matters belong to the
Imperial Government. It is this, too, in which the Houso of
Commons differs from the popular Assembly of America.
In that Assembly foreign affairs are seldom discussed, ex-
cept when they relate to tariffs or the disposition of public
money. Foreign affairs belong by right to the Senate,
which in discussing the ratification of treaties and public
appointments become an executive body, excludes reporters
and sits with closed doors. Even in domestic matters the
debates in the American popular Assembly never excite the
same interest nor carry with them the same weight as the
debates in the Senate do. The guiding intellect of America
is in her oligarchical Senate, not in her popular Chamber.
(Cheers.) And why ? Because the American Chamber is
what you would make this House of Commons—so popular
in its eonstitutents elements—so brought down to the level
of the masses, that even the masses have small respect for
its wisdom, and it is to the Senate that the Republic looks
for deliberate judgment upon the graver matters which in-
volve its honour and affect its national interests. It is not
so as yet in England. The brain and the heart of England
are still in the House of Commons. The wisest of our own
people have still an interest in our debates; the greatest
potenates of Europe have still some respect for our deci-
sions. (Cheers.) Once Americanise the House of Com-
mons and you would lose more in the intellectual attribute
that create your real power than you could obtain by all
the popular. vigour you could get through manhood
suffrage and electoral districts. (Cheers.) I say that
one reason for the moderation and dignity which per-
vade our councils is to be found iu the fact that we have
not as yet on the whole lowered our suffrage beyond the fair
standard of education which ought to be required from an
English voter., I grant that in all the very large towns,
even under the present franchise, the suffrage is practically
so low that democracy may be said to prevail. But it is the

retention of those small boroughs where the franchise,
though apparently the same, is really higher, which gives
us that calm wisdom and fair intelligence which interposes,
as the hon. gentleman has well said, between rival interests
—between the agricultural classes, on the one hand, and
the great urban populations, on the other. (Cheers.) Ido
not say that this or any other argument would avail to save
those smaller boroughs in proportion as the larger towns
grew up in wealth and importance. I feel that I must
leave the small boroughs at present to the able defence of
the hon. gentleman opposite. What I say is, that in the
meanwhile you need not be in a hurry to get rid of a ma-
chinery which adds to the power of this house by insuring
the varied accomplishments of its members and increasing
the number of competitors for the government of the
country. (Cheers.) This advantage I do not think is
to be counterbalanced merely by transferring the seats
taken from smaller boroughs either to counties or to towns
already represented, and thus diminishing the number
of members who have nothing but the business of the
State to think of. (Cheers.) And Ido fear that when-
ever that transfer is effected, whenever the smaller
boroughs wholly vanish out of our system, you will realise
the same evil of which America complains, of which
our free colonies, such as Canada and Australia, com-
plain already—viz, that when only very popular con-
stituencies exist members become rather delegates than
representatives; men of large property, of refined education
of independent character, decline to enter into political life,
and the popular Assembly ceases to represent, what this
house now does, the highest and noblest elements of the
general community. (Cheers.) Sir, in the curious corre-
spondence between Mirabeau and the Count de la Marck, in
which the Count was engaged in obtaining Mirabeates aid
to save the monarchy, I forget his exact words, but they are
to this effect; Mirabeau said,—" I am afraid it is too late.
In destroying an aristocracy of land you have made an aris-
tocracy of money, which of all aristocracies is the most
timid ; you have made a democracy of large towns which,
of all democracies, is the most fickle. I fear it is too late,
and the monarchy is gone." (Cheers.) The monarchy went.
What went with it ? Did not liberty go ? Monarchy
in one shape or other was soon restored ; monarchy
reigns still. Has liberty been restored as well ? What
killed liberty ? The democracy of large towns, and the
terror which democracy itself had of its own excess.
For democracy in France still exists—a democracy of
universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Pardon me if I prefer
the freedom of which this house, with its tempered suffrage,
is still the guardian—a freedom safe, because education
controls and property does not fear it. Hon. gentlemen
ask, " Are you afraid of the working man ?" Certainly
not; I am proud of the English workman, whether he be
the simple village peasant, with his homely virtues, or that
more agitated but, with all his faults, that noble human
being, the skilled mechanic of our manufacturing towns,
with his thirst for knowledge and his dreams of some poli-
tical Utopia, quite as rational as Plato himself had dreamed.
But it is one thing to admire the individual, and respect
the class he belongs to, it is another thing to say that to
that class you will intrust all the destinies of England. I
would intrust the destinies of England to no single class
whatever ; but if you admit the working men, as a body,
their numbers alone give them a large majority in every
constituency, and thus all the education and property of
the other classes must be borne down by that class in which
education is of necessity the least diffused, and by which
the laws that affect property must be the most imperfectly
understcod. (Cheers.) And here, sir, Ido complain of the
dangerous want of candour with which hon. gentlemen
opposite have made their appeal to the working class—the
noble lord the member for London and the right hon. bart.
the member for Halifax both say that the fault of the bill
is that it does not admit the working class; they dwell on
this objection; they inflame the working men with the be-
lief that they shall come into the franchise not by threes
and fours, but by hundreds and thousands, and then in the
same breath they declare that they have no idea of admit-
ting the numbers whose expectations they so cruelly excite.
(Cheers.) No, you do not admit the :numbers, but you lay
down the principle by which they must be either admitted
or deceived. You would lower the suffrage on the express
principle that it ought to include the working class. Does
it do so by the mysterious franchise which the noble lord
would give but declines to divulge, then the evil is accom-
plished. Does it not do so, then you have equally conceded
the principle that must accomplish the evil ; for the work-
men excluded by the suffrage will never rest till they are
admitted by the principle you allow. And I venture to pre-
dict, when you talk of releasing the elements of democracy--
and upon this subject I have heard some of the most deplo-
rable rubbish that ever was talked by educated men—that
whenever the noble lord and the member for Halifax bring
forward their measure, and the workmen as a class find that
they do not pour in their formidable multitudes through the
door those gentlemen will keep ajar with a chain across it,
there will be among them one cry of angry disappointment.
(Cheers.) But I may be asked,Would you never lower the
borough franchise at all, or do you mean to say that the
working class are to be everlastingly excluded ? To both
these questions I answer, No. With regard to the borough
franchise, I can but place before you in no hostile spirit the
reasons why. I think you should pause before you insist on
any great reduction; but I do say it is your duty to tell us
to what extent you would go. Show us the numbers below
the present £lO constituency which your franchise would
give, and then clearly ascertain whether your constituen-
cies desire you to swamp them. As to the future admission
of the working class, I believe in my own heart that I go
further than the noble lord ; I go further than most of the
great republican writers, ancient :.nd modern ; I go in theory
as far as Mr. John Mill, and I would not object to the widest
possible suffrage, if you can effect a contrivance by which
intelligence shall still prevail over numbers. (Cheers.) If
that be impossible, then I say, at least, the first step towards
anything that approaches to universal suffrage should be
something that approaches to universal education. But
this I will say, that when you invite the agitation of the
working class against this measure, youshould not only tell
us what you refuse from us, yo'd Fhould make it clear to
the country what you•wenhigif.a;id then let the country
decide between the two. (Clieera—: ir, Lord Plunkett, in
one of his great forensic eppecies, said, " Time is repre-
sented with the hour-glass as well as the scythe." True,
with the scythe he mows down—by the aid of the hour-
glass he reconstructs. You would borrow from Time the
scythe ; have you consulted his hour-glass ? You would
mow down this Government and this Reform Bill. Be it
so ; have you consulted the hour-glass ? What Govern-
ment and what Reform Bill will you reconstruct ? So far
as this Government is concerned I will not defend at
this moment its alleged faults—l will not at this moment
ask if it has no merits ; nor will I, even now,
when gentlemen opposite are arrayed against it, ungrate-
fully forget the patriotic countenance it has received
amidst the earlier but not the greater difficulties it has had
to encounter. All I would say is, our intentions in this
bill, amidst the general state of England and of Europe, are
not such as to merit the censure of any upright and high-
minded Libe:al. (Hear, hear.) I grant the bill is not one
which gentlemen below the gangway would give if it were
their task to make one; but, sp far as the Government is
concerned, I ask you, as men of honour, if Lord Derby's
Government had have
a bill according to your models,
though you wonld have accepted the bill, would you not
have despised its authors ? (Hear, hear.) Should we not
have been traitors to the loyal gentlemen -we represent ?
We should have come into your camp, not as now, with a
fair flag of truce and overtures of mutual compromise, but
with standards trailed in the dust, and offering up the keys
of every fortress which the loyalty of our followers had con-
fided to our charge. No ! If a Reform Bill such as you
desire must be carried, it is for you to propose it ; it is not
for us. But, before you raise the scythe to mow us down,
look again at the hour-glass ! What is the next Govern-
ment ? Can it last if the member for Birmingham and the
noble Viscount, if the member for Sheffield and the member
for London, do not sit on the same Treasury bench ? Can it
last if they do ? Ineither ease the sand in the hourglass
will be violently shaken. Now, one moment more, as to this
bill. It is said not to be final. Ro Reform Bill can be.
The fault you allege is its merit. It is its merit if it meets
some of the requirements of the day present, and does not
give to-clay what you may regret to-morrow, that you can-
not restore. Democracy is like the grave ; it perpetually
cries " Give, give," and like the grave it never returns
what it has once taken. But you live under a constitutional
monarchy, which has all the vigour of health and all the
energy of movement. Do not surrender to democracy that
which is not yet ripe for the grave. Gentlemen employ
much sarcastic cavil in the dispute as to what is the main
principle of this bill. I say, as Lord Macaulay said in the
debate on the old Reform Bill, I care little for technical de-
finitions on that score. I should not like to base the de-
fence of this or of any Reform Bill upon an abstract doc-
trine on which special pleaders may differ. I would take
that which was our main object for the back bone and life-
spring of the bill. That main object, so admirably stated
by my noble friend the Secretary for India, was, irrespec-
tively of party interests, to confirm and extend to the middle
class the political power which during the last twenty years
they have exercised, so as to render liberty progressive and
institutions safe, but, at the same time, to widen the fran-
chise the middle class now enjoys so that it may include all
belonging to the class who are now without a vote, and,
ins::ead of bringing the middle-class franchise down to the
level of the workman, lift into that franchise the artisan
who may have risen above the daily necessities of the
manual labourer by the exercise of economy and fore-
thought. The bill, therefore, I own it, is emphatically a
bill for the middle-class. The bill is theirs; it is not the
cause of the aristocrat ; it is not the cause of the Con-
servative county gentleman who, of all parties concerned,
has made the largest concession. The cause is that of the
middle class down to the verge at which the influence of
that class would melt away amidst the necessities of
manual labour and the turbulence of concentered numbers.
If they of the middle class like to abandon that cause they
abdicate their own power, and with it all which has hitherto
made the resources of England unshaken amidst the vicis-
situdes of commerce and the calamities of war. If they
honestly think the time has come when it is safe to accept
the counter principle which you advance—viz., that poli-
tical power should begin to descend to the working class—
not knowing where that principle, once adopted, can atop
till it reaches manhood suffrage, then I say with the mid-
dle class the responsibility must rest. Meanwhile, you in
this house will determine whether it is your duty thus
abruptly to sign away the influence of that class of which
you are still the representatives and trustees—whether you
really secure the title deeds of their commerce, and take
solid guarantees for the safety of their old English free-
dom, by accepting an amendment which commits you to a
pledge to the woring class—a pledge which you can never
redeem to their satisfaction until you have placed capital
and knowledge at the command of impatient poverty and
uninstructed numbers. (Great cheering.)
Mr. BYNG was opposed to the bill both in principle and
in detail. He regretted the Government had let pass the
golden opportunity of introducing a bill which might have
settled the question on some regular principle which might
have commanded the all but universal support of the house.
The bill proposed to introduce uniformity of suffrage: from
that principle he must express his dissent. The bill was
not founded on general justice, nor would it give universal
satisfaction : it was easy for the Government to disclaini
any party motive, but it so happened that in South Lulea-
shire, West Yorkshire, and Middlesex, where the liberal
interest was most powerful, the effect would be rather to
reduce the constituency. In regard to what were called the
fancy franchises, he was highly in favour of the extension
of the franchise to depositors in savings banks and lodgers
too. With regard to the other, which gave votes to
graduates, ministers, and schoolmasters, the effect would he
unimportant, as the greater number of these possessed the
right of voting in respect of other qualifications. The right
hon. gentleman drew a vivid and fearful picture of a period
when, ruin having spread all around, the working classes
would be battering at the doors of that house for the boon
which was now denied. He hoped and trusted that that
picture would never be realised ; but the best way of pre-
venting that was to affirm a resolution which would Trove
to the working classes that there was a party in that house
who were not neglectful of their interests. (Hear, hear.)
There was, in his opinion, a wide distinction between
Americanising their institutionsi and giving the working
classes that share in the representation to which they were
entitled ; and he believed that by affirming the latter part
of the resolution of the noble lord they would do mere
to promote the interests of the country, aye, and to harmo-
nise not merely the middle and the working classes, but
also the upper, the middle, and the lower classes, than by
supporting a ball which he believed could never be carried
in its present shape, and which, if carried, would be only a