The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 13, 1866.

formalities, to be placed upon the register of the list of
voters. ITe think there are insuperable difficulties in at-
tempting to create any franchise based on the rent paid for
furnished Apartments. In the first place, the clear annual
value o apartments is a thing which is continually esti-
mated from day to day in every town in the country. It is
capable .of being brought to some definite standard of valae ;
but the value for furniture, even if that were all the rent
to be paid, that is to say, of movable commodities— would
be a novel and, I must say, inconvenient basis for the
franchise. But much more is it defective when we come
to consider what is the meaning of £2O or what any other
sum paid for furnished lodgings really is ; for not only
with the rooms does it include the use of furniture, but

various other things, and almost always more or less o,
personal service. It sometimes includes fire, sometimes
cooking, very commonly the use of the kitchen fire. In
point of fact, it gives a basis so slippery that it would be
quite impossible to use it for the franchise. I hope the
right hon. gentleman will not think that I have criticised
his bill in a censorious spirit, because I have not criticised
it more severely than our own bill. 1 wish the house,
therefore, to understand, because I know well the interest
which has been excited on the subject of the lodger fran-
chise, that we propose to deal with it in a manner which wo
think will include every case, and more than every bona fide
case, that could have been included by the provisions of the
bill of 1859 ; for if a man pay £2O a year for his furnished
lodgings, then they ought, and really would be—unless
many other things besides the furniture were included—
worth more £lO of clear annual value. We propose, then,
that £lO of clear annual value, subject to the usual condi-
tions as to time of occupation and residence, will be en-
titled to claim to be put upon the list of voters. Perhaps you
wish to know, but I can give no information—and I believe
the right hon. gentleman gave no information in 1859—as
to the number of persons who will be enfranchised under
the title of lodgers ; but I may say that my firm belief
is that it will be a small number ; secondly, my firm belief
is that it will be a middle rather than a lower class en-
franchisement. The operation of lodgers claiming from
year to year is one which must he very burdensome to the
working man. But to educated men, like clerks and men
of business, versed in and familiar with the use of pen and
ink, they, if desirous of obtaining the franchise, will take
the trouble to do so, and I am in hopes that there will be
a certain amount of middle-class enfranchisements of that
kind ; but it would be misleading the house if I said that
any large number of the working classes would be put upon
the register by virtue of the lodger franchise. The great
number of persons now inhabiting what are called tene-
ments, the bulk of whom are working men, out of whom
scarcely any find their way on to the register, is a proof
that no great number might be expected from this source,
and consequently I do not venture to quote any figures for
that purpose, but I take 60,000 as the additional enfran-
chisement which will be granted by the provisions of the
bill which I have the honour to ask leave to introduce.
Then I come to the last and important question, which I
venture to call the below-line enfranchisement—that is,
the enfranchisement downwards—which is the most im-
portant part of my measure relating to the franchise. _Now
in the passage which I read to the house from the speech
of my noble friend Lord Russell in 1860, the noble lord
adverted to the possibility of changing the £6 rental fran-
chise for a rated franchise of the same kind. Well, that
question of a rated franchise has always been one of the
greatest interest to those engaged in the preparation of
our too numerous reform bills. The advantage of having
an external standard, and ono not dependent simply upon
a process which each man must renew for himself, but
dependent upon the fiat of a public authority, and
guarded, of course, by an appeal, it being the business
of that public authority to fix the value of the holding
for certain parochial purposes, not political—l say the
value 'of the franchise, considered closely in that point of
view, is obvious. There was another reason, which I will
presently mention, which would lead us not only to the
adoption of a rating franchise, but which would almost
precisely lead us to that point indicated in the passage of
the speech of my noble friend. It is this—ln the Small
Tenements Act it is provided that in all boroughs where it
is adopted—and you will see that it is adopted in a large
majority of boroughs—that in all of them where it is
adopted every tenement, up to that including a rate of £6,
the rates are paid by the landlord. There would no doubt
be a great advantage in saying that we will adopt the pre-
cise limit which Parliament has indicated in showing the
capacity for direct local taxation, and of declaring where
that capacity begins the franchise shall begin, and where
the capacity does not exist the franchise shall not exist.
But when we come to look at that portion of the Small
Tenements Act, we find that the franchise under it would
not exceed more than 80,000 persons. And we did not
think that that was such a number which, as on an occa-
sion for the readjustment of the franchise, we ought, in the
face of Parliament or the country, to hold up anything like
a settlement of the question. (Hear, hear.) But then we
were met by another question, and this is the last of the
drier subjects I will have to submit to your attention. It
is, nevertheless, I think, of some importance, and one to
which I beg to invite your attention for a few minutes.
We were called upon to consider the great change, and I
will go a step further, and say, the great reform, which has
been effected by my right hon. friend the President of the
Poor Law Board (Mr. Villiers), through the medium of the
Union Assessment Act. In former times it was asked,
" Why don't we have a rated franchise - a franchise "taken
from the rate-book ?" But the inequality of that rating is
so gross, and so anomalous in various parts, that, though
we did admit it into the bill of 1851, we yet felt that it
would not prove a satisfactory basis for the franchise. The
rating is now, however, immensely improved. It is our
duty to take the best and simplest basis for the franchise
that we con find, and the simple question is, whether there
is not another basis more nearly coinciding with the pre-
sent basis, although differing in legal expression, which
is better than the basis of rating—that basis, I mean
is the clear annual value as determined by the co-
lumn in the rate-book called the gross estimated
rental. Now the rating is good if we consider it as the
adoption of a public standard—a standard supposed to be
impartially chosen for local taxation. But in everything
that the rating is good the gross estimated rental is good
also ; and it also avoids the fallacies and errors in point of
inequality which are inherent in rating, for the rateable
value after all is estimated by certain deductions from the
gross estimated value. The rateable value contains no new
and independent element of estimation which we don't get
from the gross estimated value. The rateable value is not,
per se, the proper test for us to adopt as the basis of the
franchise. It is not the test of what a man pays for a
tenement, but it is only the test of the net value of the
tenement, which no doubt is important to parish officers,
but with which we have nothing to do. You may have
two houses paying £lO each. One of those two houses may
be a solid class of house, and may only require a deduction
of £6 or £8 per cent. for repairs, but the other may be built
of slight materials, and therefore requiring more money
every year to keep it in repair. The same rent was paid
for them both, and the same franchise, according to the
view of Parliament,•under the circumstances I have re-
ferred to, might be demanded ; yet if you adopt the stan-
dard of rating as the basis of the franchise, the one would
be enfranchised while the other would bo excluded. (Hear,
hear.) There will also remain an element of inequality as
to insurance as well as repairs, the duty of insurance hav-
ing of itself undergone a material change during the last
few years, so that whereas it was formerly 4 pei cent., it
I was now reduced to less than half that amount. We pro-
pose, therefore, that the gross estimated rental shall become
the basis of the franchise. We will distinguish it by a legal
definition in the rate-book by saying that the column of
gross estimated rental shall be prima facie evidence, until it
is contested, of the clear annual value. I think, if I have
made myself intelligible, we shall by such a measure secure
a double advantage of avoiding all inequality common to
rating, and at the same time adopting a standard of great
simplicity, certainty, and facility, such as can be obtained
by the use of apublic standard like the rate-book. The gross
estimated rental is, as we find it, in what may be fairly
sailed exact correspondence with the rack rent. There
will of course be an appeal to the revising barrister; but in
all the boroughs except 30 the gross estimated rental ap-
pears to be as nearly as possible equal to the rack rent. In
these 30 boroughs, one-half exhibit a considerable inequa-
lity, but only because the operations under the act of my
right hon. friend are not quite complete. But certainly, be-
fore any practical steps can be taken under this bill, those
operations will bo completed. There are other local acts
and certain cases in the metropolis where, in point of fact,
the column of gross estimated rental is not in accordance
with the union assessment. There are many inequalities
in it, but even with these inequalities we have the means
of testing its accuracy sufficiently. We propose to provide
by enactment on the subject, not for the purposes of this
bill, but for the perfection of our system of rating, so that
we shall be able to recommend the gross estimated rental
as the general basis of the franchise. We called for the
income tax returns, and these represent a sum considerably
above the rack rent, because in all cases of cc mpound house-
holders, and where the landlord pays the rates, he inva-
riably pays income tax upon the rates as well as the rent.
The income tax returns, allowing for all excesses, give a
total value of £39,218,000, and the gross estimated rental,
tho Ugh still defective in some places, gives a total of
£37,375, the difference being at this moment only
£1,863,000, or 5 per cont. Consequently, we have no hesi-
tation in saying that we offer a secure basis for the fran-
chise, which will be the means of introducing a great prac-
tical improvement in the administration of the law. The
present town constituency consists of 488,000 persons;
dividing these above the line of the working classes, and
be.ow that line, and in the category of the working classes,
there are 126,000 persons belonging to the working classes;
so that 362,000 persons constitute the number of the voters
in the towns belonging to those classes. We propose to
add 60,000 to the preserit number of the £lO voters, and
all those I think belong to the working classes except
the lodger and savings bank classes, which arc-insigne-
cant in number. That will make 186,00.0- altogether.
If a £6 rental franchise were added to"' them, I find
this will bo the result : Tho £6 rental franchise
subiwouldee
t,give,o a l
laocwcoarndcing
es and to the
additions,
most careful
240,0 oopersons,calculations,
mak-
ingadn a total of 428,000 persons, and thus placing the work-
ing classes in a clear majority of the town constituencies.
Now, I venture to say that that has never,been the inten-

tion of any bill proposed in this house. I cannot say that
it will be attended with any great danger, and although for
my own part I do not 'think much apprehension need be
entertained, yet I fully admit that upon general grounds of
political prudence it is not well to make too sudden and
extensive changes in the depositories of power. Ido not
think we are called upon, under the circumstances in which
we stand, to give over the majority of town constituencies
into the hands of the working class. Wepropose, therefore,
to take the figure above that, viz., £7 clear annual value.
(Laughter, followed by the buzz of conversation, during
which the hon. gentleman paused for several moments.) I
will give the house the exact numerical result, so far we
can find it out distinctly, of the admission of the £7 clear
annual value. The figure of 7is not very far from that
apparently fixed by the small Tenements Rating Act, but
the result as to admission will bo considerably larger. If
gentlemen will take the pains to add together the gross
total of the male occupiers at £7 and under £lO, and if then
they will make a rule-of-three sum, having for the first
two terms the gross number of occupiers above £lO and the
present number of the £lO constituency, and for its third
term the gross number of occupiers between £7 and
£lO, the fourth term will give them the probable constitu-
ency upon reducing the franchise to £7. (Laughter.) lam
very glad, sir, that studies in arithmetic prove so amusing,
as they are generally thought to be most dry subjects. The
result is 156,000 persons net. The gross would be between
207,000 and 208,000. From that a deduction must be made
for a certain proportion of freemen having houses of the value
of between £7 and £lO, and who have already the franchise.
I take off one-third of the total freemen now enjoying the
franchise. That leaves 144,000 who would be enfranchised
by the reduction to £7. It is right 1 should puint oat the
causes by which, in the view of some persons, this calculation
would be in some degree modified. There are some per-
sons living in houses between £7 and £lO who do not
belong to the working classes, but the number of these, so
far as our inquiries have gone, are very small-3 per cent.
would be an over- statement. Taking into view the reduc-
tion on this account, there must be some reduction made
on account of the more frequent removals which.take place
among the owners of small houses ; but on the other hand,
an increase ought to be made for the effect of the abolition
of the ratepaying clauses on that class of persons. Our
rule-of-three sum is based on the operation of the ratepay-
ing clauses. An addition would have to be made for the
savings-bank franchise. Ido not myself attach very great
consequence to any of these various modifying circum-
stances. I think they may be taken on the whole as
balancing one another, and should think the addition to

the working class voters by the reduction to £7 would ba
about 144,000 persons. I wish to point out to those who
think that .this addition to the constituency ought not to
take place that I think all are disposed to admit that the
franchise ought to be attainable by the working man. All
the speeches we have heard in this house in opposition
have agreed it is desirable that the working man shouldbe
able to reach .the franchise. What is his position with re-
gard to the £lO franchise ? A £lO clear annual value,
when you make the proper addition for rates:and furniture,
must mean the-house costs the man not less than £l6.
Well, then, I think that I am safe, and I speak with mode-
ration, when I say that the working man does not spend
more than one-sixth of his income on his house. There-
fore, his income must be £96, or, in other words, without
making any allowances whatever for sickness or interrup-
tion of work, he must receive £1 170. a week. Now, it is
only a small portion of the working classes could hope to
receive £2 wages, and I do not think therefore a £lO
franchise can be said to be liberally or largely within the
reach of the working man. The £7 franchise would
work in a different manner. Adding 60 per cent. for rates
and furniture, it would come in the gross to the sum of
£ll 4s. That would represent an income of £67 45., or
instead of 37s a week, a little under 265. a week. Now
265. a week is an income which is undoubtedly unattainable
by the peasantry or mere hand labourers, except under
very favourable circumstances ; but it is generally attain-
able by the artisans and skilled labourers of our towns. I
will now endeavour to give a general view of the figures
in order that they may be placed clearly before the house.
In counties, as 1 have said, if our bill becomes law, the
working classes will be a smaller proportion of the whole
constttucncy than they are now. In the towns the voters
of the classes, apart from the working, amount to 362,000
persons. The working class has now 126,000. There will
be new electors of the working doss having houses above
the line of £lO amounting to 60,000, and below the line of

£lO, as far as we can reckon, 144,00 ; making the number
of tho working classes in tho constituency 330,000, or a
total addition of 204,000 to the 126,000 who are now in-

eluded in the constituency. The total enfranchisement
contemplated both in towns and counties is—in counties,
by the £l4 occupation, 172,000, to which is to be added
whatever may be thought fit on account of copyholders,
leaseholders, and savings bank franchise ; in towns there
would be 201,000, making a total of 376,000, so far as we
venture to offer definite figures on this subject. I think
with respect to the lodger franchise, to the county, copy-
hold, and leashold franchises, and the savings banks, we
must be pretty safe in throwing in the 24,000 necessary to
make the round number, and to state that the enfranchise-
ment by this bill would be an enfranchisement of 400,000
persons, of whom one-half would belong to the middle
classes and one-half to the working classes—persons of
some education, though not of large fortune. Now, sir, as
to the proportion which the new constituency will bear to
the householders. There is in our towns a population of
9,326,000 ; of those the adult males are 2,331,000, the adult
male occupiers 1,347,000, and of these at over £7 there are
847,000. The actual constituency of 488,000 represents
36 per cent. of the male occupiers; but the proposed con-
stituency of • 692;000 would represent 51 per cent.
of the male occupiers ; and of the working classes in towns
there would be 330,000 enfranchised against 588,000 unen-
fran-Chisecl, being less than two in five, and more than one
in three. The gross constituency of the whole country
would stand thus :-550,000 for the counties in England
and Wales, 514,000 for the towns—making a total of,
hovprYossleasrsgae deduction must be made for
plurality of votes. I cannot
those persons
p
t,
fOft :he Oel
se
constituency
et e
consists
nu
spf
se
tns
the
ofh e
mmooiset ltitbaenr a estimatep
etrhaeo
np
are. s elnnt
addition it is proposed to bring in 400,000, making a total
constituency in England and vales of
1,300,000. The
total number of adult males it 5,300,000, so that the
number enfranchised in town ind country would be, as
I nearly as possible, 1 in 4. I de not know whether the
house would like me to recapitulate the proposition shartly.
(Hear, hear.) First, as to creating an occupation franchise,
including houses beginning at £l4 rental and reaching up
to £5O, the present occupation franchise. The second is
to introduce into counties this provision, that copyholders
which county voting
would
and leaseholders within Parliamentary boroughs shall be
put upon the same footing as that on which the freehold
and third i
ne saeavainndgs tow bankn, franchise,
Parliamentary boroughs now stand for the purpose of
; operate
in the h
both counties
but would
have a more important operation in counties. In towns we
propose to place compound householders on the same foot-
ing as rate-paying householders; to abolish tax and rate-
paying clauses ; to reduce £lO to £7 clear annual value ;
to bring in the gross estimated rental from the rate-book
as the measure of the value, and thus make the rate-book
the register; and to make the lodger franchise both for
those persons who hold part of a house with separate access,
and those persons who hold part of a house as inmates with
the family of another man. We propose to follow the ex-
ample set us by the right hon. gentlem;h of the Go-
vernment of Lord Derby in 1859; and which has receiued
the support of many great authorities, and introduce a
clause disabling from voting persons employed in Govern-
ment dockyards. (Cheers.) I have detained the house very
long with these explanations respecting the plan which we
submit. It certainly makes a. large addition to the cousti-
tuexey. The number of persons who would be enfran-
chised in this bill is not vaguely estimated, but taken from
positive and absolute figures which we have been enabled
to lay before you. It would certainly be a larger number
than was enfranchised by the Reform Bill, for no estimate
of the enfranchisement effected under the Reform Act
would carry it very greatly beyond the number of 300,000
persons. As respects the county voting we do not appre-
hend that it would raise any question of principle. As
regards the borough voting we hope it is a liberal, and we
are sure that is a moderate and safe measure. It does not
give at absolute majority in town constituencies to work-
ing men. It is probable that according to the various
tempers of men's minds we shall bo told that we have done
too little or that we have lone too much. Our answer is,
that wo have done our best. (Cheers.) We have en-
deavoured to take into account the state and condition of
the people, as well as the qualification which the people
possess for the exercise (4 political rights. We are mindful
that the limbo of abortive creations is peopled with the
unfortunate skeletons of Reform Bills—(a laugh) - and we
do not wish to add to the number of those unfortunate
measures. We may have erred, but we have endeavoured
to see how much good we could effect. As to tho com-
pleteness of the measure, I have given to the house what
I think a clear and distinct statement of our honesty of
purpose for completion upon a careful examination of facts ;
not to attempt by any measure that we could lay upon the
table of the house at a given moment what we know to be
impracticable, and in which, therefore, we must fail. If
we aro told that wo ought to have done more, our answer
is, that it was our duty to take into view the sentiments
of the country—disposed to moderate change, sensible of
the value of that which it possesses, and sensitive with
regard to bringing what it possesses into hazard.
Nor can I deny the opinions expressed of the intelligence
of the working classes, and of their admirable
performance of duties, at least of their duties towards
their superiors, for it seems to me that if they sin their
sins are against themselves. (Hear, hear.) Yet it is true
of the working classes—as it is of any other class—that
it is a dangerous temptation to human nature to be sud-
denly invested with preponderating power—(hear, hear)—
and that, I think, is the reason why we have not done too
little, and, notwithstanding that wo may be told that we
have done too much, Ihope that will not be said. I do not
entirely abandon the expectation that even from those who
have almost protested on principle against any extension
of the franchise, that they may be disposed to accept the
measure, and if they do not wholly approve they will not
be averse to settle this great, important, complex, and dif-
dcult question. (Hear, hear.) But if there are, I would

beg them to consider what immense value there is in an
extension of the franchise for its own sake. (Hear, hoar.)
Liberty is a thing which is good, not merely its fruits, but
is good in itself. With regard to English legislation, when
we are told that things are done more economically, more
cleverly, and effectively in foreign countries, we answer
yes, but they are managed freely. And in freedom, in the
free discharge of political duties, there is an immense
power for the people both for discipline and for education.
(Cheers.) If the issue is to be adverse to the bill, 1 hope it
will be taken direct. I trust it will be taken on the ques-
tion whether there is or is not to be an enfranchisement
made. If it is taken at all, we have felt it to be essential
to character, essential to credit, and essential to usefulness
—by character and credit not merely of the Government,
not merely of party, but of this house, committee as Par-
liament has been with respect to the question of the repre-
sentation of the people. Wo cannot consent to look on
this addition, considered though it be of the working
classes, as if it were an addition fraught with nothing but
danger; we cannot look upon it as a Trojan horse ap-
proaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled with
armed men bent on ruin, plunder, and conflagration.
(Loud cheers.) We cannot compare it, Monstrum in 7
felix," or say

" Scandit fatalis machina muros
Fmta armis, medhoque minans illabitur urbi."
We believe that these persons whom we ask to enfranchise
ought rather to be welcomed as if they were recruits to
your army. (Hear, hear.) We ask you to give within
what we consider a just limit of prudence and circum-
spection. Consider what you can safely and justly offer
to do in admitting new subjects and citizens within the
pale of the Parliamentary constitution, and having so con-
sidered it, do not do it as if you were compoundidg with
dangerous persons, as if you were conferring a boon, but
which will be felt and reciprocated by a feeling of grateful
attachment, by a new interest in our constitution, by a
beneficent working of the law of nature and Providence,
begetting new attachment to the constitution—attachment
of the people to the throne and laws under which we live,
which is, after all, more than gold and silver, and more
than your fleets and armies, at once the strength, the glory,
and the safety of the land.
The right hon. gentleman then resumed his seat at ten
minutes past seven o'clock, amidst the cheers of the
house.

Mr. MARSH, who rose amid a rush of members leaving
the house, and was rather indistinctly heard, was under-
stood to say that he looked upon the measure which had
just been so eloquently described to them as the beginning
of the end. There had been no petitions presented in favour
of a £7 franchise, and very few in favour of a£6 franchise.
The tendency of the proposed bill was towards universal
suffrage ; and ho appealed to the right hon. gentleman
himself whether it did not lead to that result. (Hear,
hear.) It was said that the measure would settle this
question ; but he maintained that, on the contrary, it was
just such a measure as would keep it unsettled.
Mr. P. W. MARTIN expressed his hope that the Go-
vernment would not mar the simplicity of the measure by
disfranchising the dockyard labourers.
Sir F. CROSSLEY regretted that the Government had
not gone further in reducing the franchise, but believed
that the measure would give satisfaction to the great ma-
jority of reformers. He presumed there would be a measure
for the redistribution of seats next year.
Mr. R. W. CRAWFORD advocated the claims of City
merchants and traders who had their places of business
within the municipality, but who, living in the country,
were now disfranchised.

Mr. Sergeant GASELEE protested against the proposed
disfranchisement of the dockyard boroughs.
Mr. DUTTON, though not representing a dockyard
borough, like Mr. Martin or Sergeant Gaseleo, was not
disposed to disfranchise a large class of intelligent work-
ing men.

Sir H. HOARE felt disappointed that the measure did
not contain any provision for the redistribution of seats,
and intimated that, unless the Government gave a pledge
to bring in a bill directed to that object next session, ho
would vote against the second reading.
Lord R. MONTAGU demurred to the paulo post future
legislation shadowed out by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, which, he said, would keep the country in a state
of agitation for years to come, and the effect of which would
be to swamp the agricultural classes.
Mr. HANBURY approved of the bill, and bore testimony
to the good conduct and intelligence of the working classes,
as entitling them to the share in the representation which
it was now proposed to give them.
Mr. LAING spoke from the old Tory point of view,
contending that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had him-
self shown the impolicy of dealing in a hurried and preci-
pitate manner with a measure which required the most
grave and cautious copsideration. He was indisposed to
reopen a question which he thought had been satisfactorily
settled many years since, and he objected to a bill which,
while professing to amend the representation of the people,.
gave as many members to Honiton as to Liverpool, Man-
chester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Dublin. He admitted
that he was elected to support Lord Palmerston's policy,
but he contended that the present was a measure which
that statesman would not have sanctioned.

Mr. BAINES replied to Mr. Laing, and while expressing
himself in favour of a Xi; franchise gave a general approval
to the measure of the Government.

Captain GROSVENOR denied that there was no feeling
out of doors in favour of reform, and asserted that the
unbounded confidence which all classes of the public re-
posed in the late Lord Palmerston led to a general under-
standing tat .the question should not be raised until that
distinguished statesman thought fit to bring it forward.
For his own part he could not condemn the working man
to continual Lexclusion, and therefore he would give his
cordial support to the bill.

Mr. HORSMANcomplimentedMr. Laing on his speech,
which he regarded as sound and constitutional. The
address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the con-
trary, when divested of its incongruous proportions, was
nothing more nor less than another bid for power, another
promise made to be broken, another political fraud and
Parliamentary juggle ; and, as a whole, a combination of
weakness, incapacity, and failure. The bill was brought
forward to meet the exigencies of a single statesman. It
contained no great principle, it would settle nothing, but
unsettle much, for it was based upon the old State device
of government by numbers. When his right hon. friend
explained that five Cabinets had been committed to lle-
form he forgot to explain that four of the five were identi-
fied with the same Ministers. They were introduced no-
toriously less to meet the exigencies of the nation than the
exigencies of the particular Ministry. (Opposition cheers.)
Every one of those bills Was opposed to the opinion of
Parliament and the sense of the country. That made a
very great difference. There was a great difference be-
tween one individual (Lord Russell) four times insisting
for a particular change, and four distinct and separate Mi-
nisters approaching the question from opposite points of
view, and concurring in the same necessity. His right
hon. friend had said it was not the Ministry but Parliament
which precipitated the action of the Government, and now
he proved it. He said that in 1851 there was a discussion
and a division on the bill of his hon. friend the memberfor
Surrey. In that Lord Russell was defeated, and it was in
consequence of that the House of Commons forced on the
Government legislation on the measure ; therefore the
House of Commons, and not the Government were respon-
sible for all that had occurred since. He said that all
this legislation originated on the vote on the motion
of the member for Surrey, and in which the Government
were defeated, Lord Russell being the only member of
the Government who opposed it. If he (the hon.
member) could show that the foundation of his right hon.
friend was rotten, then all the superstructure came tum-
bling to the ground. In that debate on the motion by the
Imember for Surrey, Lord Russell spoke and pledged him-
self voluntarily that if the member for East Surrey would
withdraw his bill the Government would introduce a
Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) There was a thin house, and
the division was against the Government —the ayes being
100, and the noes 52 ; there being 156 present altogether.
The member for East Surrey thus carried the motion
against the Government, but upon the second reading the
numbers in favour of it were only 83, while the noes were
299. (Hear, hem.)
Mr. LOCKE KING rose, but was met with cries of
c' Order," and sat down.
Mr. HORSMAN continued to say that the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the
House of Commons showed then that they would have a
Reform Bill, but it was not so. The house would recol-
lect that Lord Grey told them with respect to the Reform
Bill of 1852, that there was only one Reformer in the
Cabinet ; and ho went on to say that Lord Russell in
debate had pledged himself to Reform without the
smallest consideration for his colleagues, and without
their knowledge and assent. They were very angry ;
but although they disapproved of it they showed a con-
sideration for him which he had not shown for them.
Consequently the -Reform Bill was introduced to the
house with a great flourish of Reform truumpets as a fresh
proof of the conscientious liberalism of a united Reform
Cabinet. (Laughter.) But Lord Grey led them to believe
that the bill was introduced when they were in extremis,
and there could be no harm as it could not pass. Then they
had the subsequent bills, and amongst them that of Lord
Derby's Government in 1859, which rather took the Liberal
party by surprise, and which bill was nearer to legislation
than they had been since. It was only fair to say with re-
gard to it that it was universally admitted to be better
than any Lord John Russell had brought in. (Cries of
" Oh !" and laughter.) Then: there was the bill of 1860.
Well, upon this question Lord Palmerston, Lord Derby,
Lord John Russell, and the hon. member for Birmingham,
were deeply committed. The bill passed the second read-
ing almost without a debate, and the nation was in despair
(A laugh.) But that bill was fairly laughed out of the house
This history would be incomplete if he did not refer to
what the hon. member for Birmingham had said in a let-
t3r in September, in which he declined au invitation to a
Reform banquet at Glasgow. He gave this opinion of Lord
Palmerston's colleagues. He said that " they preferred
their places to their honour as public men— (ironical cheers
from the Opposition)—and they consented to a great politi-
cal fraud rather than leave the Treasury benches even for a
season." (Cheers.) That was rather strong language.
(Laughter.) It was a specimen of what was termed the
hon. member for Birmingham's pure Saxon. (Loud

laughter.) On the day when Lord John Russell withdrew
his bill, it was understood that the member for Bii-ming-
ham concurred ; and for five years afterwards he gave the
Government his undiminished support, and even honoured
them with his vote of confidence.

Mr. BRIGHT made an observation which was not
heard in the gallery.

Mr. HORSMAN knew that on the question of the vote
of confidence the hon. member for Birmingham voted in
the majority. Now if the Ministry had committed a great
political fraud, was not the hon. member for Birmingham
an accomplice to it ? (Opposition cheers.) If they sacri-
ficed their honour to keep their places, did he not sacrifice
his honour in helping to keep them in their places ?
(Laughter.) He (the hon. member) asked whether it was
seemly to brand in such terms Ministers for whose acts he
had made himself responsible. But there was comfort for
the members in store. The hon. member for Birmingham
could not inflict a wound, but he knew how to give a
soothing remedy. In November, speaking of the Admi-
nistration, of which he knew almost every member, ho
said these dishonourable men who sacrificed their
honour for their places—" it is composed of men most
entitled to public confidence"—(Opposition cheers)
—and " than any other Administration of their time."
(Cheers, and counter-cheers.) But the wind changed
again, and showed how his hon. friend was in the secrets
of the Cabinet, because in one short month be again
changed, and he actually proposed to inter them with all
symbols of national respect in Westminster Abbey. (Laugh-
ter and cheers.) There was no other instance in which a
question which had been five times so recommended had
not passed into an enactment. But the reason was obvious
There was no instance of a Minister persisting in pressing
five times upon the Sovereign and Parliament an impor-
tant change that was opposed to the well-entertained feel-
ings and interests of the nation. One would suppose, with
facts before them, that the Government would have been
deterred from again taking up the question of reform ; but
nevertheless Earl Russell and his colleagues determined to
come before Parliament with another Reform Bill without
any allegation whatever of new circumstances. (Cries of
Oh, oh, with counter cries of Hear, hear from the Opposi-
tion.) They were told of a chivalrous determination on
the part of the Government to stand or fall by the intended
bill. He could see no chivalry in the determination. The
country was heartily sick of the insincerities and hypo-
crisies—(cheers)—and had made the very name of reform
a scandal and reproach to the nation, and he was mistaken
in the temper of the new House of Commons if they
suffered another Ministry to trade on a reform cry,
introduce and abandon a bill, and yet remain glued
to the seats of office. There were three great es-
sentials to the success of any Government attempting at
this time to deal with the question of reform. The first
was that it should be a strong Government, and that the
bill should be introduced for the purpose of being carried.
It should be an instrument for legislation, :and not agita-
tion. The second essential was that the bill should be for
a generation at least a settlement of the question—(hear,
hear)—and the third was that the Government introducing
the bill in the face of formidable opposition should have
the power of appealing to the country by a dissolution.
How many of these essentials were to be found on the Trea-
sury bench? Was the Government strong? Let them apply
a fair test, and compare it in point of strength with the last
Government that attempted and failed to carry reform. In
that Government there were no less than ten members of
the Cabinet with seats in the House of Commons, and of
these six only remained. But if the task in such hands
was too mighty for the strength of giants, what miracu-
lous virtue did they expect to find in what were now a
notoriously discordant remainder ? (Opposition cheers.)
How was it with the second essential ? There was only
ono mode for a satisfactory settlement of the great ques-
tion, and that was by founding such settlement on a re-
cognised and intelligent principle. But there was nothing
in the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the bill that they could dignify
with the title of a principle. It was nothing but the re-
production of the old, stale, and discredited device of the
first downward movement in the direction of a Govern-
ment by numbers. (Opposition cheers.) The Chancellor
of the Exchequer was the last man from which we should
expect an apology for routine and mediocrity. Let them
observe how differently he dealt with a question that he
knew and understood. See how he dealt with finance.
See how he was straining his faculties to reduce the na-
tional debt, not certainly for the benefit of this particular
Parliament or generation, but for the benefit and with a
regard to the advantage of „posterity. But Reform was
only a mere hustings' recreation to him. He only began
to think seriously of it two years ago. It was a sudden
freak, almost like the visit of the celebrated casual to the
workhouse. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman saw
a muddy pool before him ; he plunged in, and has been
soiled andshivering in bad company ever since. (Laughter.)
A dissolution had been talked of, but the opinion of the
country had been taken on the subject at the last two
dissolutions, and it was decidedly unfavourable to the
agitation of the question. No member had lost his seat
in consequence of voting against the £6 Franchise Bill in-
troduced by Mr. Baines at the close of the last session ; but
many members who had voted for it, including the favou-
rite aide-de-camp of Mr. Bright, had been rejected. What,
then, could the Government want a dissolution for? An-
other dissolution would be not only unconstitutional but
suicidal. (No, no, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
There was one thing more essential than any other to the
success of a Reform Bill, and that was a strong public
opinion out of doors. Lord Russell had himself said that
a Minister must have a popular breeze in his favour, not
only to carry the bill through the House of Commons, but
to carry it over the bar of the House of Lords. It was idle
to pretend that there was anything of the kind at present.
When Lord Palmerston died last autumn he left the coun-
try in a dead calm, contented at home and at peace abroad.
If any man had gone to Lord Palmerstonand told him that
the country was bursting for reform, he would have been
laughed out of the room. He would have got the same
answer as Mr. Rowcliffe received from the noble lordwhen
he asked him why he and his colleagues had not introduced
a reform bill, "Because we were not geese"—(laughter)—
was the characteristic reply of the noble lord, and it went
straight to the understanding of every Englishman. Lord
Palmerston would never have been weak enough tO think
that England could be governed from Manchester; but
the man who would have been a pigmy in the hands of
Lord Palmerston was a giant to his successor. Lord Rus-
sell fell at once into the toils of the member for Birmingham,
and was easily persuaded that he was the idol of an adorn-
ing nation, and that he had a heavenly mission to fulfil.
He girded himself to its fulfilment. The die was cast. The
tranquil policy of Lord Palmerston was reversed. The
reign of the moderate Liberals behind the Treasury bench
was at an end. The true and trusty Liberals from below
the gangway, belonging to the minute section which fol-
lows the leadership of the hon. member for Birmingham,
were acknowledged as the future Ministers of England.
They had been reminded by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer of the advantages of legislating in a calm, but he could
not congratulate his right hon. friend upon this having been
achieved. His great auxiliary and ally, the member for
Birmingham, had gone to the provinces to lash the people
into a fury with a recital of imaginary wrongs and fabri-
cated grievances—(laughter and cheers) and if they had
not now to deplore disturbances at Birmingham, burnings
at Nottingham, and riots at Bristol, they had not to thank
his forbearance. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Horsman)had treated
the bill as a Government measure, but they all knew it
was only so by courtesy. Its design was not of
Downing-street, but of Birmingham. (Oh, oh, and
Opposition cheers.) It was the member for Birming-
ham who had inspired it. By the spell which he had
thrown over Lord Russell, he had succeeded in becoming
the ruling spirit of the present movement. It was now,
therefore, Lord Russell and the member for Birmingham
against the Cabinet and the majority of the country. (Oh,
oh, and cheers from the Opposition.) Everybody knew
what had been the ascendancy of the member for Birming-
ham, and the alarming sensation he had created in the
country. If a professed reformer, he was a passionate ad-
mirer of republican institutions. (Oh, oh, and Opposition
cheers.) If he openly avowed that their English institu-
tions were faulty on those points in which they differed from
republican institutions, and that the changes he would
make were to be after the mode and direction of gradu-
ally, but inevitably making them republican—if he depre-
ciated and decried not the defects in their English forms of
Government, but the form of Government itself he could
not be a sympathiser in the views of those who wished to
cherish and preserve what was good in the constitution.
(Hear, hear.). He was rather an enemy to the ancient
institutions which he set himself to change. (Opposition
cheers.) The house would judge of this from words out of
his own mouth. I'Vhen the Derby Government was in
office the advanced Reformers determined to have a Re-
form Bill of their own. This was proposed at a public
meeting, and the member for Birmingham promised to
take charge of the bill, and prepare its provisions. In ex-
plaining these at one of his meetings he made statements
which he (Mr. Horsman) would for a few minutes bring

under the notice of the house. Tho Tight hon. gentleman
quoted from speeches of the hon. member for Birmingham,
to show that that hon. member only supported the vener-
able English monarchy so long as it came up to its present
almost ideal standard of personal excellence; that in his opi-
nion a hereditary Legislature like the House of Peers could
not be a permanent institution in a free country; and that

universal suffrage was the birthright of Englishmen. Tho

political principles of the hon. member for Birmingham
were the principles not of an Englishman but of au alien.
He was not a believer in the British Constitution, but ho
must be as thorough-going a Republican as :President
Johnson himself. He, however, was the confidential ad-
viser of the head of the Cabinet, the director of his policy,

and the dictator and director of that Liberal party which
only six months ago followed Lord Palmerston. The na-
tion had had a great escape. Those principles of freedom
which had been successfully defended against the encroach-
ments of monarchs and the passions of the multitudes were
not now to be surrendered at the feet of a more ignoble
tyranny. (Opposition cheers.) That policy of peaceful,
constitutional progress which had hitherto reflected the
growing intelligence of the nation, and which could only
be arrested or fatally driven back by the successful machi-
nations of those who would trade on the weakness of
Ministers they despise, and on the presumed ignorance of
the masses, whose contempt for the abortive agitation of

the last four months had proved how deeply sensible they
were of the blessings of the institutions under which they
lived, and that they had become too enlightened to be
deluded, and too distrustful of demagogues to be be-
trayed.

On the motion of Mr. LOWE, the debate was, at a guar
ter to 12 o'clock, adjourned until this day ; Sir John Gray,...
whose motion on the state of the Irish Church had prece-
dence, having consented to give way.
The report of supply was brought up.
The Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Exchequer Bills and Bonds Bill was read a second
time.

The other business on the paper was disposed of, and
the house adjourned at 10 minutes to one o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

COLCHESTER—MARcH 10.
Our markets continue to bo supplied very moderately
with wheat. To-day the small quantity offering found
ready buyers at the full prices of last week. The little
barley sold at high prices ; thin qualities, if sound, in-
quired for. Beans and peas the turn dearer ; supplies
moderate.

Wheat. white 488 58s Beans, Mazagan......34s 41s
rcd 40s 50s Middle and small__363 43s
Barley 3's 42s Peas, white. 384 424
Oats ...20s 25s *grey ...38s 42s

NORTHAMPTON—MAncII 10.
The demand for fine qualities of wheat was good, 513.11
last week's prices were fully supported. Barley was 111
improved demand, and fully maintained its value. Oats
were not plentiful, and with a fair inquiry top prices were
readily obtained. Beans wore unchanged in value.
Now white wheat, 43s to 475 ; new red, 40s to 46s ; old
white, 48s to 53s ; old red, 43s to 48s per 36 stone. Barley
for malting, 39s to 41s per qr. ; grinding, 28s to 40s per 30
stone. Oats, old, 30s to 345 ; new, 20s to 28s per 24 stone.
Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 39s to 44s per 38 stone. Pos.,
34s to 39s per 36 stone.

CHELMSFORD—Mane 9.
With a good supply of wheat the market ruled firm at
the prices of last -week, although the business transacted in
inferior sorts was but limited. Spring corn of all descrip-
tions was firm at recent quotations.
Wheat, old white....4ss 52s Peas, Partridge 36s 39'
new 43s 518 White , „9s 343
old red 394 45s B,iling 37s 40
new. 3Os 455 Dun ...'3s 356
8ar1ey...... 255• 33s
-28 s 41s Beans, Idlielt,t 0'0n1de.w......-.-3581 --4°:
Chevalier
Orind ng ss 305 new.... 353 39"
Malt 58s tOd Harrow 1 icks.ais 42'
Chevalier 6'.s C2s
Oats SO 2os 26s Maz igannew. • •••33648 4s
s .8(°

GRAN TIIAM—MARcit 10.
Wheat was disposed of at previous currencies. Malting
barley met with an active inquiry at advancing
rates'
grinding sorts were firm, at late quotations.
Old white wheat, 52s to 545; old red, 48s to 50s laelr
white, 50s to 52s ; new red, 44s to 47s per 36 stone. Mu-
ley for malting, 34s to 40s per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 33s por,
30 stone. Oats, old, 28s to 325; new, 25s to 30s per 21
stone. Beans, old, 47s to 495; new, 43s to 45s per 38 steno.
Peas, 388 to 40s per 36 stone.

ABERDEEN—It/mat 9.
There was a good attendance at our market to-day, and
a good many transactions took place for seeds. Otherwise
there was not much doing. Oats may be quoted 6d UP,
and bere and barley ls.
White wheat
44005 s
Od to
ttoo 44855 s 0 bushel.
oddl
621 b
Red wheat
Potato oats 24s )d to 25s Od t_ 40111 ? bushel.
Common oats • Od to 22s 6dj
'`)
Bere 30s Od to 31s Od t ,
11) 311 bushel
Barley 31s Od to 32s Od)
Oatmeal 17s Od to 18s 6d 11 boll of 14a).
Flour, fine 37s Od to 38s Od V sack of 2801).
Vi

KIRICCALDY-31Ancit 10.
Good supplies of all kinds of grain. Wheat and barlei
brought the prices of this day week. Oats 6d per qr
dearer.

Wheat. Barley. Oats.
First 43s 6d ' 33s 6d 25s Od
t,econd 45s Od 1 35s 6d 26s Od
Third l6s 0d Ws 6d 27s 6(1