The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THUBRDAY. THE REFORM BILL. The adjourned debate on the bill was resumed by Mr. M. Gibson, who said that the declarations of the Ministers who had spoken in defence of the measure were deficient in one great particular. They did not point out what the effect would be the result of parlia- mentary elections. The Government had pleaded that, as Conservatives, they could not propose a more violent measure. He admitted the force of the reason, but it was his business to consider the measure simply as to the consequences it would entail upon the country. He warned the house not to take the tranquillity of the country on the subject for apathy. He did not call this bill a Reform Bill—it was a bill for operating in a novel and peculiar manner on the constituencies of the country. He wished to know what good the country would derive from the operation ? The bill adopted the jElO franchise, but only on two conditions—that there should be no reduction in the borough franchise, and that a portion of the county constituency should be transferred to the boroughs. Before they adopted the £) 0 franchise as proposed, let them see if they were satisfied with the conditions. If not it would be useless to go on with the project. Without approving in all cases the mode of proceeding by resalniian, he considered that in the pre- sent instance the resolution of Lord John Russell exactly met the case. Mr. M. Gibson then proceeded to combat at length the transfer of the borough voters from the counties, demanding that not a single independent voter should be so withdrawn. He considered that the main- tenance of the distinctive character of the borough con- stituency was an important element in the Constitution, approving it as superior to the system of electoral dis- tricts. He further thought that the establishment of a large class of non-resident voters would be injurious to the boroughs. The power thus placed in the hands of political clubs of creating fictitious votes might be put to the worst uses. He reprobated the cry got up in favour of the middle class he would be the advocate of no class; he would oppose any measure which should exclude the working classes. A bill for Reform must be considered as a whole, and he protested against the pro- posal for dealing with it in committee as a course most puerile and unparliamentary. He denied that it ought to be demanded from him to state his own plans, It was their business at that time to confine themselves to the subject before the house-the bill and the resolution. Mr. Adderley remarked that there were two principles in question, one of which, was the extension of the fran- chise by numbers, and the other by property. Which of these was, be asked, adopted by Lord John Russell ? If the noble lord adopted the principle of numbers, he should not attempt to deceive tbe house or himself; he would have to go the whole length of his new franchise. He would have to go for universal suffrage and its accom- panying supplement, the ballot. If the noble lord was not prepared to adopt the principle of numbers, then he was raising a false issue, for he stood on the same basis as the Government; and, in the second place, he was deceiving those gentlemen around him, whom he would be sure to disappoint. The noble lord said, I defended Reform when I was young, and I will defend Reform now that I am old.' He did not know whether the noble lord meant to emphasise the word I,' and say, 'I de- fended Reform when I was young, and I also shall defend it now I am old,' but he thought the noble lord might very justly have said, I defended Reform when I was voung, and I shall defeat it now I am old," Let those who advocated the claims of the mass of the people beware. The noble lord had deceived them before, and might deceive them again. He defended the provisions of the bill contending that they would add fifty per cent. to the existing constituencies of the kingdom. He was ready to affirm that the bill as proposed would positively amount to universal suffrage under the mild check of industry and intelligence. He would make one appeal to the great Whig party. If they were going to sup- port the resolution of the noble lord, let them remember that this was one of the last opportunities they would would have of standing upon tbe present electoral sys- tem. There was, at least, an opportunity of supporting one principle of that sytem. But if the great Whig party, standing upon the principle of this bill, chose to divide upon it on points of detail, they would literally be taking the lead in a system of needless and most dan- gerous agitation; for there was no doubt that if this bill were to be thrown out an agitation would be got up on this subject; and why? Not because there was any demand for this bill. The agitation on the former occa- sion was a got up scheme—not on the part of those who wished for the suffrage, but under the influence of political agitators, who took advantage of the sufierings and discontent of the people. Mr. Buchanan, whose opinion the hon. member for member for Birmingham himself would feel to be of some weight, had observed that it is impossible for England to imitate the working of American institutions. The introduction of universal suffrage, by bringing every class to the level of the lowest, would not enable them to arrive at liberty but, by opening a path to vulgar wealth or strong ambition, would break down the power of the middle classes, and destroy what he would call the beneficent power oi that popular assembly. Mr. Heaulam regretted the introduction of this bill, which had placed the great country party in a false position. Mr. Bentinck could not vote for the resolution on account of the confusion into which it would throw bjth the house and the country, and protested against such a question being made the battle-field of party in the face of the present alarming state of the Continent, at the very moment when, as he saw in this day's papers, Austria had already crossed the Ticmo After some observations from Mr. W. H. F. Denison, Mr. Locke King said that after the concession made by the Government to the principle of the £10 occupiers in the country, for which he had so long contended, he might have been expccted to have supported the bill. But that principle had been altogether spoilt, marred, and mutilated by the mode in which it was dealt with. The four great points—the enfranchisement of great towns, the disfranchisement of small boroughs, and the extension of the suffrage in town and country were all neglected by the bill, which he declared to be unworthy of further consideration. Mr. Dutbn should vote against the resolution, be- lieving that the suffrage ought to be further extended, but that the ''ill might be so recast in committee as to attain that ob]Vc t. Mr. \V. J. fox sairl it was objected to the working classes ihat tb y would swamp the rest, and that the p .wer not to be llnowu into the hands of any par- ticular ."ia'-ss. iii. ■ pr?se.v the middle classes were moie n".°.vriHts than th'-su ab^ve them, and the argu- ment wouUi equauy apply ti.t::ID. The emancipation of the working classes was a condition of the compact made with them by the middle classes in return for their support, and now the bill was held out as a bribe to the middle classes to violate that compact. He passed a warm eulogium on the working classes for their patience and industry. Mr. B. Hope combated the objections to the bill, founded on the so-called disfranchisement of borough freeholders and the nominal assimilation of the town and county franchise. The only question to be considered was whether both counties and boroughs were fully and fairly represented through the medium of their con- stituencies. If this object were attained, minor consider- ations might be disregarded. With regard to the working classes, he admitted their improvement in knowledge, intelligence, and conduct, but denied that they were enslaved merely becaused they had no votes and possessed an indefeasible right to the franchise. Once concede the right, and it was impossible to stop short of universal suffrage. He did not wish to disfran- chise the working men. On the contrary, be would give them a large share of electoral privileges, but always a sort of reward to be won by perseverance and good con- duct. This object was effected, he thought, with fair success by the bill before the house, in which, however, he found some details which he could not approve, and among those mentioned the proposal for establishing a system of voting-papers. Mr. B. Osborne said that the only reason why a new Reform Bill was wanted must be to remedy the defects of the old one. The Act of 1832 was deficent chiefly in this, that it did pot admit the great body of the working classes to the franchise. This defect met no remedy in the Government measure. Its author claimed for it the title of a middle class' bill, and the Colonial Secretary had gone so far as to proclaim 'no surrender' to the claims of the working man. In the bill the working classes were never mentioned except, as in the case of the dockyard labourers, when they were to be disfran- chised. Arguing against the proposed assimilation of the town and county franchise, he recommended the Ministers to efface that objectionable feature from their measure. The family franchises,' as they were called, were mere delusions, the flimsy millinery of Downing-street, and not one of them, as he argued at length, afforded the means of getting a vote to a working man. After criti- cizing the speeches made by opponents to the resolution on different sides of the house, the hon. member declared his intention to oppose the second reading of a bill which involved change without progress, and innovation with- out improvement. 0 Mr. Walpole referred to the complications which, as the debate progressed, had grown round the question, and which impeded the accomplishment of any practical measure. In the Government measure there were many admirable provisions which ought to be retained, but there were also some objectionable clauses which he did not think the country could be made to approve. He approved of the voting-papers with some slight modifica- tion in the working details, and denied that this mode of giving votes would either facilitate personation or bribery. He also approved highly of the determination not to disfranchise any boroughs, even of the smallest class, maintaining that no community who bad once enjoyed representation should be deprived of the privi- lege except on account of proved and flagrant corruption. Defending the much abused nomination boroughs, Mr. Walpole observed if they would examine the map of England they would find that there were few places unrepresented and he believed that if the proposition of Government was carried out it would be all that was practically required. If there were mere nomination boroughs, let them prove them, or if they could prove corruption, then let them disfranchise those places but if they could not prove that, let them adopt the argu- ment of the noble lord (Stanley), and of the honourable member for North Wiltshire, that the only way to carry on the Legislature was to have a variety of members representing a variety of inhabitants. The right hou. member then addressed himself to a more difficult part of the question, that relating to the suffrage. On this point he expressed his approbation of the proposal to establish a savings-bank franchise and a lodger franchise. On another proposal, however, he differed so materially from the Government that he could not vote for the second reading of the bill unless upon the assurance that the utmost possible latitude should be allowed for amend- ments in committee. This was the proposed assimilation of the county and borough franchise, respecting which Mr. Walpole explained with great minuteness the cause and character of his dissent from the Ministerial propo- sition. His disapproval extended also to the proposed reduction of the occupancy franchise in counties, be- lieving that it would destroy the character of responsi- bility and perseverance which now attached to the county constituencies. In concluding his speech the right hon. gentleman reiterated hid intention with regard to the general question. Mr Bright observed that, with the exception of Minis- ters themselves, who must be regarded as professional witnesses, not a single member had spoken who did not object to some material provision in the bill. The country demanded a real Reform-one which should concede their just rights to the classes who had now no share in the representation, and call into existence larger, freer, and more independent constituencies throughout the country. The Government measure fell far short of fulfilling this requirement. On the contrary, it disfran- chised fifty thousand of the most independent county electors. Other provisions in the measure, whose ope- ration the hon. member traced to its results, were He declared, insidiously designed to extend the territorial influences both in counties and boroughs. He could not believe that a bill so full of deplorable mistakes had really been framed according to the convictions of Mr. Disraeli. It was, he believed, drawn up to suit the pre- judices or the fears of the 150 Gentlemen who sat behind him. Adverting to the question of small boroughs, the hon. member remarked that these places had been eulo- gised as being so many gems of the Constitution, and the best that could be said of them was that the persons whom they assisted into Parliament were sometimes deserving objects. He then discussed the proposed al- teration in the suffrage, insisting upon the rights of the working classes, to whom in the bill the only boon offered was the insignificant savings bank clause, which was calculated to enfranchise only about 1,200 persons in the whole of Scotland. The bill could not claim the character of a Reform Bill at all. It was a mere case of personation. He did not participate in the anxiety ex- pressed by some hon. members to settle the question out of hand, not being like them afraid of agitation, which he regarded as a refreshing and necessary stimulus to wholesome legislation. On the motion of Sir S. Northcote, the debate was then once more adjourned.

FRIDAY. Sir Stafford Northcote resumed the debate oa the se- cond reading of the Reform Bill. The Government, he observed, in bringing forward their measure, were sub- jected to extraordinary and unfair embarrassments-first, because they were confessedly supported only by a mi- nority in that house; secondly, because they had under- taken the question under a sort of compulsion; and, thirdly, because they were encountered, not by a direct negative to their bill, but by a vague resulution, with which it was exceedingly difficult to deal, though, if carried, it would seriously hamper the Legislature in their future discussion on this question. He advocated the policy of discussing the bill in committee. Mr Cardwell maintained that the question of Reform involved important principles, and should be settled upon considerations of constitutional right and justice, and not by the issue of a struggle for supremacy over differ- ent classes of the community. The object of any Re- form Bill was to diminish extraneous influence at elections, and increase the power of public opinion. As means to this end two changes in the existing system of representation had been proposed. First, was the trans- fer of seats from the small boroughs to large and popu- lous constituencies: this proposal, however, they were assured, the Government altogether declined to entertain. Secondly, there was a modification of the county and borough franchise; on which point he urged many ob- jections to the proposed assimilation of the two fran- chises, contending that the preservation of the old diversity between the two classes of the constituency was a valuable and essential element in the representa- tive system. This conclusion he regarded as so im- portant that he could not consent to leave it for decision in committee. Uniformity' was a principle which the bill contained and the resolution condemned, and he was therefore compelled by a sense of duty to support the resolution. Mr H. Drnmmond contended that all the questions raised by the opponents to the measure were simply questions of degree. No principle was at stake requi- ring the rejection of the Reform Bill now presented to the house. Mr Dent supported the resolution, which was opposed by Mr Packe. Lord H. Yane, who remarked that the Government propositions as embodied in their bill had encountered universal opposition, declared his intention to vote for the resolution. Mr Stuart Wortley, who had put on the paper an amendment to the bill, or if carried to the resolution, deprecated the attempt to stifle the measure by an in- direct amendment, and frustrate the effort to settle the question ef Reform. By declining to move a direct ne- gative to the bill, Lord J. Russell himself confessed that there was some good in it. Why net, then, preserve what is good, and improve the less acceptable provisions in committee, instead of throwing over the whole mea- sure. The house in their ad iress to the Crown had promised to give the question a calm and impartial consideration,' and this pledge would hardlv be redeemed if it were suffered to become the stalking horse of a great party movement. The hon. member proceeded to advocate procedure with the bill, after passing the second reading, by way of resolution, to whietl result his own amendment was designed to lead, observing that from what had transpired during the de- bate, and still more from familiar conversation in the lobby, he was induced to believe that that the general bias of opinion in the house was gradually inclining towards that conclusion. Examining in much detail the various provisions of the bill, he maintained that they offered a wide extension of franchise privileges. There was, however, he confessed, something more to be done, both in disfranuising small boroughs and extending the suffrage, especially in such wise as to to include the class of skilled artizans. Still who had any chance of passing it if the present Government were defeated in the at- tempt ? Lord Palmerston announced his attention of giving a cordial support to the resolution of Lord J. Russell.— That resolution, however, did not, in his opinion, imply a censure on the Government. It simply brought into discussion some of the leading principles of the bill. Long as the debate lasted, the time of the house was not thrown away. Much progress had already been made. At the outset it was supposed that the disfranchisement of the borough freeholders, were fundamental elements in the measure, and absolutely essential to its existence. ) But it now appeared that the Government were open to discussion and conviction on these points, and if the debate went on long enough, he hoped that they would gradually concede all other controverted provisions in their measure. Denying on his own part the imputation of party motives, he acquitted the Ministers also of having acted inconsistently with their party principles by bringing in a Reform Bill. They took the Govern- ment with its engagements. A Reform Bill bad been promised to the country, and the new Administration were bound to redeem the pledge. As Conservatives, they were, moreover, compelled to include certain Con- servative elements in their measure. The noble lord then proceeded to examine the varicus provisions of the measure, and expressed a qualified approval of the pro- posal to lower the county franchise, and of the limited range given to the proposed disfranchisement of small boroughs. But the Government had introduced uncon- stitutional and almost revolutionary ingredients in the mea,ure in the assimilation of the franchise and transfer of votes between the counties and boroughs, a step which he regarded as equivalent to the actual establishment of equal electoral districts. This feature in the bill was so important and so objectionable that it could only be ade- quately discussed and properly treated as a question of principle on the motion for second reading. If the re- solution was carried, as he believed it would be, he did not anticipate that the Ministry would resign. He did not wish them to resign. He thought, indeed, that it was their duty to remain in office and carry out the mea- sure they had undertaken, and which no other Admini- stration would deal with under similar advantages. He did not believe that the Ministers would dissolve. In the present state of public business Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent, and he did not think that consent would be given. Nor, as the last alternative that had been suggested, did he believe they would abandon the bill. They had voluntarily under- taken the measure, they had pledged themselves to accept the decision of the house on every provision it contained, and they could not shrink from this self-imposed duty. Mr Whiteside suspected that three authors had as- sisted in the concoction of the resolution, and had made it only a muddy resolution after all. He contended that the amendment, although plausibly framed, did not apply to the bill, and cited opinions expressed in former speeches to prove that the present supporters of the resolution had themselves at different times approved of every principle embodied in the measure. The bill which the Opposition now refused even to have discussed in committee was far more liberal than any they bad themselves introdu- ced. Adverting to the surmises of Lord Palmerston touching the future conduct of the Government, he declared most emphatically that Ministers would never touch the bill again if this offensive resolution were at- tached to it. On the motion of Mr E. James, the debate was again adjourned. The house rose at one o'clock.

MONDAY. The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock. VOTE OF CENSURE ON THE GOVERNMENT. Mr W. O. Stanley said that in consequence of the very explicit statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland, to the effect that an adverse vote on the Government bill would be considered by her Majesty's Ministers as a Vote of Censure, he would withdraw his motion on the subject. BONDING WAREHOUSES. In reply to Mr Hadfield, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the subject of giving bonded warehouses to large manufacturing towns was under consideration, but they had not come to any resolution on the subject.

THE REFORM BILL. Mr Griffith asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the plan of uniformity of franchise between counties and boroughs was considered by Government to form an essential principle of the proposed Representa- tion of the People Bill, on which the fate of the bill was to depend; or whether, on the contrary, it was only one of those details which, though forming part of the original suggestions of Government, was to be considered to be open to any alteration or omission in committee which that house, in its wisdom, might deter r ine upon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the course pu- sued by hon. members in reference to the Government bill was most irregular, for it was dealt with wholesale and retail. If hon. members were opposed to the second reading of the bill, they could vote against it, but if the bill went into committee the Government would consider any recommendation, and he would state the result.- (Hear, hear.) Mr E. James, in resuming the debate, said that be would vote against the bill and support the amendment of the noble lord, the member for the city of London. It had been said that there was an attempt on the part of certain members of the house and a party to Americanize the institutions of the country, because they wished to go further in the direction of Reform than the Govern- ment. (Hear, hear.) That he denied, but be thought they could not make a more direct movement towards that result than by adopting the style of personalities which had been introduced into the debate by hon. mem- bers on the other side who had addressed the house. He alluded particularly to the attack made by the right hon. gentleman, the Solicitor-General on the noble lord the member for London, and when the right hon. gentle- man rose to make certain explanations, he expected he would have apologised for that attack. Having stigma- tived the letter addressed by Earl Grey to Lord Elcho, and which was published in the daily newspapers, as a most unconstitutional attempt at dictation, he said he objected altogether to the proposition of the Government with reference to the franchise (Hear, hpar.) He agreed with the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that mere numbers should not be the basis of the franch.se; but the fact was that where there was an aggregate of numbers there they had a collection of those interests which were necessarily entitled to repre- sentation. He contended that the effect of the bill would be to create a machinery for the manufacture of voters. With regard to voting papers, the adoption of that part of the Government scheme would establish the most efficient means for bribery and intimidation. By that provision, all that was necessary to be done by an agent for a can- didate would be to bribe the voter and put his voting paper in his pocket, that being a greater security than he could possibly have otherwise. The right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland stated on Friday even- ing, as a prcof that the working classes did not require any extension of the suffrage, that in the borough of Marylebone, which he represented, out of 20,000 electors only 10,000 polled at the late election for the borough. But what was the fact-and he pledged himself to the correctness of what he had stated—that the 10,000 who voted were composed of the small tradesmen and artisans in the district, and those who abstained from polling were what might be called the moneyocracy of the borough. (Hear, hear.) Any illustration of the views from that part, on which he relied so strongly, was of no value. It had been said by one hon. member who addressed the house that the masses were not sufficiently instructed to exercise the franchise with safety to the community at large. But for years the energies of poets, philosophers, and thinkers had been directed to educate the people at large, and even the works of the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary for the colonies were operating in the same direction, for his 'EnglandandtheEng)ish,'his 'Eugene Aram,' and other celebrated works which emanated from his pen, were already familiar in every dwelling in the country, instructing the people with political knowledge. (Hear.) In reference to the noble lord the member for the City of London, whom he had never heard spoken of in political circles without the greatest veneration and respect—(hear, hear, and oh, oh,)-he would urge on the noble lord to discard the plan on which he had previouly acted, if he desired to form a Government calculated to be of a permanent, not an ephemeral character. To adopt the sporting metaphor of the noble lord the mem- ber for Tiverton, he must not select his Government from the old political Whig stud. (Laughter.) The hon. and learned member concluded by assuring the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) that if he did not depart from the course he had adopted in reform he would fail in forming a Government that would enjoy the confidence of the country, or take the place permanently of those who had been compelled to surrender the helm of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) Mr Beaumont said that he had had a seat for seven years in the house, and had never until this debate found himself in opposition to the noble lord the member for Tiverton. It was his intention on this occasion to go into the lobby with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) The feeling of the people out of doors on this question had been alluded to; but he contended that if the Secretary for the Colonies or the Prime Minister, or any others of equal eloquence, had convened meetings like the hon. member for Birmingham, they would have secured audiences quite as large (hear). This resolution was an ingenious and well-worded trap—(hear, hear)- leaving altogether untouched the merits of the question. (Hear, hear.) He thought the measure a boon, inasmuch as it carried out the views of the hon. member for Surrey with respect to the county franchise. The objection to uniformity of franchise he feared, was rather an after- thought—(hear, hear)—but he confessed himself opposed to the disfranchisement of the 40s freeholders, and the proposal of an option in voting in counties or boroughs lie held to be bad. He considered that the principle of voting-papers could be applied to non-resident voters; but he retained his hostility to the adoption of the ballot. But he thought, generally, that it was quite out of the question to attempt to discuss a measure of reform on a resolution like this. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons he could not vote for the resolution, and he would give his support to the Government. (Ministerial cheers.) Lord Elcho said that the present bill had been objected to on the principle of uniformity contained in it. The question of unilormity of franchise was just one of those which might be discussed in committee. The bill being one for the amendment of the representation of the people, was, he believed, based on the principle that represcntatisn should rest not on population alone-not on property alone—but on interests. There were many excellent points in the bill to which he should be ready to give his assent. The noble lord had himself admitted onCFriday that there were many excellent points in the bill, and had disapproved of no part of it except the uni- formity of the franchise, which lie thought ought not in counties to be so low as X-10. It was said that the bill would not effect a settlement of the question. He should like the noble lord to say what would settle the question. Did the bill of lf532, of which the noble lord was the author-liberal as that bill was-settle the question? There had been no fewer than 35 motions in that house for a reform of the constitution since 1832. In the very next year after the passing of the Reform Bill there was a motion made in that house for t c ballot, and another for shortening the duration of Parliaments. In 1837 no fewer than seven motions were made on the subject. In fact, whatever measure might be carried, theve would always be persons calling themselves advanced Liberals— men who were in favour of progress—of progress they knew not what—who would advocate further change. On the subject of a dissolution he could add nothing to what had been said by the right hon. member for Cam- bridge University, and by the right hon. member for Bute. A dissolution could not be too strongly deprecated; and if tue Government decided on that step he knew not what power the house possessed to check them, but for himself he ahould be ready to support an address to her Majesty, praying her Majesty not to dissolve Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The other alternative—resignation—im- plied the formation of a new Government. What would be the nature of it? Was it to be presided over by the noble lord the member for Tiverton? (Hear.) He had listened to the speech of the noble lord. He had always had the utmost confidence in the integrity and ability of the noble lord. He believed that the noble lord would act consistently in the spirit of his speech in any reform he might propose, and that the details of the bill would be such as he had foreshadowed to the house. He was confident the speech of the noble lord the member for Tiverton fell like a shell on the benches of the Opposition -(hear, hear)—and that there had been no such astonish- ment like it since Balaam stood up in high places, and ended by blessing his enemies instead of cursing them. (Cheers). The construction of a new Government might, however, fall to the lot of the noble lord the member for the City of London and he hoped that noble lord would not take it as anything personal to himself if he (Lord Elcho) declined to express the confidence in him which he was ready to extend to his noble friend (Lord Palmer- ston). He knew not whether the noble lord would be disposed to place the honourable member for Birmingham in his Cabinet, or appoint the honourable member for Finsbury (Mr Cox) his vice-president of education, or whether he would have the right hon. gentleman the member for Wells (Mr Hayter) and the hon. member for Walsall (Mr Forster) as his colleagues; but he (Lord Elcho) should look upon a Reform Bill introduced by such a Government as laying the foundation of democracy in the British Senate. (Cheers.) He hoped, therefore, that all who had file interest of the British constitution at heart would join together for the purpose of rejecting the resolution of the noble lord, which, as had been well said, unsettled everything and settled nothing. (Minis- terial cheers.) But if hon. gentlemen, even on such an occasion as this, when the interests of England and the political inheritance of their children were at stake, could not lay aside party feeling, lie would ask them to listen to the words which had been addressed to them last year by the hon. member for Birmingham. The hon. gentleman one evening made a short speech, in which, after stating that every man who went to our colonies repudiated our policy and our debt, and thanked Heaven that he had at last found a countty where his industry was unfettered, went on to say that. however many of our countrymen emigrated, the landed proprietors of England must still remember that their acres remained, and that by-and-by they would have a different tone assumed in the House of Commons after another reform in Parliament; that their succession duties would be overhauled, and it would not be got rid of so easily as at present; their property tax would come hack in increased nrnnortion fmrl flipv micht rely upon it that the course they had pursued for some years had been foolish and wicked. By casting unfair burdens on the people they would create a spirit of dis- content and disaffection, and when the people once had the power, which they would shortly have, to lay taxes on those who had the money, they might depend on it the poor would not always go to the wall, and the rich always escape. He (the noble lord) was not about to answer this, although it easily admitted of one, for legisla- tion had of late years been especially directed for the benefit of the poorer classes. (Cheers.) What he would say was, that the house ought to take warning by the words of the hon. member for Birmingham, who spoke openly then, but he very much doubted whether the hon. gentleman spoke in the same open manner in the speech he made the other evening. (Cheers.) He was not in the house upon that occasion, but he had asked an hou. member what sort of a speech it was, and the description given was this, 'It was milk and water, prepared to order.' (Laughter.) He asked the hon. gentlemen opposite to pause before they played a game which might lead to a coalition between the noble lord (Lord John Russell) and the hon. member for Birmingham. (Hear.) He called upon them, while there was time, to resist this tide of democracy which was setting in, and to hand down that noble constitution which they had received from their ancestors, of which they had only a life interest, and of which Mr Fox had wiselv said, 'combined all the efficiency of a monarchy with the liberty of a republic, without the despotism of the one or the licentiousness of the other.' (Cheers.) Mr I,. Ellice said that lie quite acquitted the Govern- ment of any want of consistency in bringing in a Reform Bill, however unfortunate it might be that a question of this magnitude should fall into the hands of a Ministry representing a minority in that house. The question of reform had been recommended to the Crown, and brought before the house in 1M52 and 18.54. His noble friend at the head of the late Government had also produced a measure on the subject; and he was therefore not sur- prised when the noble lord at the head of the present Government told the public he would do his best to settle the question- (Hear, hear.) He agreed with his noble friend who had just sat down on one point, namely—that it was better, if they could agree upon a certain principle of reform, to proceed gradually with that work. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that great organic changes in the constitution of that house were to be made suddenly. He was as much desirous as the hon. member for Bir- mingham that the working classes should have a large share in the representation but he was not prepared at the present moment, looking at the state of education in this country, to give the whole power of the representation to the working classes or the holders of small tenements. He should therefore vote for the resolution of the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) But he wished to go a step further, and look at the position of the house and the country on this subject. He confessed, for his own part, he should very much like that, the house having carried the reso- lution, the Government should still go on with their bill, and, having expunged all the objectionable clauses in committee, they should make the bill satisfactory to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Government ought to be fairly left to the alternative of resigning their offices or dissolving Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He at least should throw no obstacle in the way of their doing so, but he should not think of advising them to dissolve, for he believed they would cut a very awkward figure on the hustings—(hear)—and therefore he thought that would not be a safe expedient for them to take. (Hear, hear.) Col. Smyth said tie should support the second reading of the bi.l, reserving to himself the right to propose such amendments and improvements in committee, as he thought would make it a satisfactory measure to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr John Locke regretted that the Government, not knowing their followers, had rejected the advice of the right hon. gentlemen who had retired from among them to lower the borough franchise to £6. He called upon the Government to consider well whether they could not consistently adopt the resolution. ,If they did not intend to adopt the principle of the resolution, it was absurd to proceed with the bill; and he thought it was a misfortune that the Government had not met the resolution in this spirit. Lord A. Tempest said there was an assumed theory on the part of the lion, member for Birmingham and the hon. member for Oldham (Mr Fox) that they possessed an exclusive sympathy for the working classes. But he would challenge those honourable gentlemen to a com parison with the landed gentry, whether in agriculture or in trade-for there were members of the aristocracy en- gaged in trade—in order to see by which of the two classes the comforts and status of the working classes were most cared for. All he said to hon. gentlemen opposite was—Don't put yourselves forward as if you and you only had sympathy with the working classes. Who was it that resisted the passing of the Factories Act? Why, hon. gentlemen opposite—(hear, hear)-and who supported it? The aristocracy of the upper house and those connected with them in that; therefore let not hon. gentlemen opposite pretend to monopolise all sym- pathy with the working classes. (Hear, hear.) He be- lieved that the present Ministry presented a very favour- able contrast to the last, by their industry, their devotion to business, and their general courtesy (hear, hear) irrespective of all political views. (Hear, hear.) Several hon. members rose together, but the Speaker's choice fell upon Mr M. Milnes. Mr M. Milnes said he would not have found so much difficulty in dealing with the bill if it had not contained one important principle—that was, the extension of the franchise in boroughs. His ideas with regard to that were so distinct that so far from thinking the resoltuion of the noble lord the memoer for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) a trick or a dodge, he considered it, or at any rate the latter part of it, a mere truism. He wished to vote for that principle either now or in com- mittee but he felt himself precluded from the latter course from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Disraeli), who did not appear to leave such a course open to the committee. Sir J. Graham said,—Mr Speaker, for one, I would gladly have adhered, at least during my life, to the set- tlement of 1832 as a final one. Its authors, at the time of passing it, certainly did hold out to the country, and to the Sovereign, whose assent it received, an assurance that, because it was large, and because it was comprehen- sive, hopes might justly be entertained that it would be a final settlement. I clung to that sentiment for a very long period myself; but I subsequently found, from cir- cumstances upon which it is needless now to dwell, that finality, as a position, was no longer tenable, and from that period it beame my duty from time to time to con- sider what alterations or amendments of that measure might safely be proposed and supported, Now, the first care of Reformers, as it appears to me, ought to be to prevent the necessity of further reformation. I was struck by an observation which fell from the noble lord the Secretary of State for India, in the able speech which he made in defence of the measure of the Government, clearly showing that at the very time he advocated this bill he violated the great canon of reform to which I have alluded-viz., that your first care when you reform ought to be to avoid the necessity of further reformation. The house will remember that the noble lord, in using the term identity of suffrage,' said that that principle would afford an easy mode of hereafter altering, or rather dis- franchising, the smaller boroughs, which disfranchisement, he said, was, in his judgment inevitable. By the favour of the gentlemen who sit around me I occupy this place (the second bench below the gangway on the Ministerial side), though in many respects differing in opinion from them. But they will permit me to recall to their recol- lection how great, practically, has been the change whien has taken place in reference to reform within the last month. Lord Derby, the head of the present Govern- ment, received the confidence of the Conservative party, when in 1852 he became Prime Minister, upon the as- surance that his special mission was to stem the tide of democracy and to raise a barrier against its dangerous encroachments. (Hear.) Well, what has occurred within the last month ? I, in the year 1857, voted with my hon friend the member for East Surrey for the reduction of the occupation franchise in counties from £.50 to £10. I then took the liberty of assigning the reasons which appeared to me sufficient to justify that proposal, and I stated why I thought it might safely be conceded. Gentlemen on this side of the house offered a strenuous opposition to that reduction. I do not think think there was a gentleman sitting on this side who supported it, and they urged the gravest objections against it. Now, Lord Derby's Government has proposed that change-the reduction from JE50 to £ 10—deliberately and advisedly and, as a counterpoise to what might be apprehended as the democratic tendency of that change, the bill brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a counter vailipg disfranchisemeit of the borough freeholders with the view of diminishing what, in the opinion of gentlemen who sat around me, was its danger. Well, without a division, without any more than an ex- pression of opinion from different parts of the house, one- half at least of that counterpoise has been withdrawn; t and the measure, I must say, appears to me to be framed upon an entire misconception of that which, when pro- perly understood, is truly conservative in its character. (Cheers.) Now, what are the real dangers of a a repub- lican or an extreme democratic change in this country ? What are the great landmarks of republican institutions > I say distinctly that they are manhood or univeral suf- frage, equal electoral districts, and vote by ballot. The President of the United States, in his inaugural address, distinctly stated that I the Republic rested upon the ballot-box.' I don't intend now to argue that question; but I believe I have not misstated what are the true dangers to be apprehended by those who fear republican change. Now, observe what are the principles of this measure. The Chancellor of tho Exchequer said em- phatically, and it is not to be denied, that identity of suffrage is the key-stone, the leading principle of this measure; and it has been argued so by the noble lord the Minister for India. You have, then, identity of suffrage; you have electoral districts, not now equal, but unequal; and it is proposed to have voting papers. I contend that these three propositions, which are the principal outlines of this measure, all have a direct tendency to that which is most to be apprehended by the opponents of republi- canism. This identity of suffrage once established at £10, as my right hon friend the member for Wiltshire said, one single turn of the hand in a rash moment and that suffrage will be reduced from £ 10 either to household or manhood suffrage. Again, your electoral districts are now unequal. By all sound logic and consequential reasoning, from the moment your suffrage is identical your electoral districts ought to be equal -(Cheers.) and there is a process shadowed out under the Boundary Commission contemplated by this bill, and which is to be issued simultaneously with the reduction of the suffrage, that will constitute your unequal districts into equal ones. (Hear, hear.) There remains, then, only the ballot; and, if the house will permit me, before I sit down I will glance at the question as to voting papers. I think, if the conversion of unequal electoral districts into equal ones will be found an easy operation, in the conversion of voting papers enclosed in envelopes into the ballot will be easier still. (Cheers.) I turn now to another branch of the subject, and I should beg to give an opinion that the danger of reform is infinitely increased if you proceed upon abstract principles and, according to logical inferences from general principles of change, I should say that this bill was conceived with, I will not say with too much sagacitv, but with the avowed inten- tion of obtaining from every quarter of the house that support which might effect the object which has been declared to be the primary -viz., the object of passing it. (A laugh.) It appears to me too clever by half—(laughter and cheers)-and a much simpler measure would have been much safer and much more effectual. The resolu- tion of the noble lord appears to me not essentially and in effect to vary from the course that was pursued with respect to the India Bill last year. It varies in this par- ticular, that the Government then, as now, produced a bill which did not meet with general approbation the India Bill they voluntarily withdrew, and upon its with- drawal resolutions were passed which were the founda- tion of their second measure; on this occasion, though, I do not think the draught of their first Reform Bill is much more fortunate in conciliating the acceptance and good will of the house than was the first draught.of the India Bill, they refuse to withdraw their measure, and under these circumstances the resolution is moved, cer- tainly for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present shape- (hear) -but affords to the Government an oppor- tunity of withdrawing it and introducing another measure more conformable to the opinion of the house. (Hear, hear.) My belief is, that at this moment a bill taking the common point of departure, the £ 10 franchise, lowering to a considerable extent the borough franchise -(hear, hear-) multiplying polling-places, disfran- chising within moderate limits the smaller boroughs- (hear)-and enfranchising with strict impartiality the larger counties and larger cities, wonld command the support of a decided majority of this house. (Cheers.) But I pass on to consider this bill as it now stands. It proposes to deal with the imperfections of the Reform Bill of ] 832. As it appears to me, those imperfections, so far from being remedied, are aggravated by this measure. I will now advert to some admissions of great importance made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech. He admits that in cities and boroughs there has been a great increase of population; he admits the in- crease of wealth he admits the increase of intelligence. The natural consequence, it might be supposed, is that. this increase having taken place since 1832, there must have been also an increase in the number of the voters in cities and boroughs; but the fact is otherwise; the number is gradually diminishing. The hon. gentleman said he wished to reform accoiding to the genius of the existing constituencies.' Now, this difference between the county and city franchise has never been described more forcibly, clearly, and explicitly than by the noble lord the head of the present Government, in his speech in 1854. The passage was quoted by the righl hon. mem- ber for the University of Cambridge, and it has appeared in juxtaposition with a passage from the recent speech of the Secretary for India. It may be an old prejudice or predilection, but it appears to me that the argument of the father outweighs that of the son. (Hear, hear.) I have already said that the prescription of the borough freeholders is of the most ancient date; in the very great change of 1832 that prescription was carefully preserved. The immediate object and the operation of that bill was the transfer of power to the middle classes; but I con- sider it a most dangerous doctrine to hold that the classes below them bo not take a deep and real interest in re- form. (Hear, hear.) Tr.e working classes may appear indifferent to it; but there can be no more dangerous error than to suppose they have not this question at heart. Speaking, then, in the stronge-t Conservative sense, I hold it infinitely more safe to make timely con- cessions to reasonable demands than to stand on extreme rights and make no concession at all. (Hear, hear.) I do not believe that the admission of a portion of the working classes to the electoral franchise can any longer be refused with safety. (Hear,:hear.) The concession of a lower county franchise makes a resistance to a lower franchise in the towns ten times more difficult. It has been said that this is a kind of Dutch auction, that low- ering the franchise for the counties will render it neces- sary, ere long, to lower it for the cities also; I come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Stand upon the ancient difference between the two; if you establish one common level, there will be a rush to lower both, and that rush will be ten times more dangerous, inasmuch as the higher level is an innovation, and inequality, on the ancient prescription and usage. I say, therefore, that justice and safety both point to a lowering of the city and borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) The Solicitor-General has told us that the resolution has two objects. He says, in the first place, that it indicates a fear to give a direct negative to the second reading of the bill. I have already stated that, as far as I am concerned, I could not hesitate to vote against the motion for the second reading, because I think the principles and details of the bill both objec- tionable. (Hear, hear.) But then he says, addressing those who support the resolution, You talk in general terms of lowering the franchise; what would you do?' Upon that point I speak only for myself. I agree very much with the right hon. gentleman the member for Coventry, in thinking that if yon do lower the franchise in cities and boroughs you should do so effectually, upon some principle known to the constitution of the country, on which a stand may be made against ulterior changes. (Hear.) I say distinctly, in conformity with what has been urged by the right hon. member for Oxford, that the ancient borough franchise does rest upon rating and residence—(hear, hear,)—and I am decidedly of opinion that the municipal franchise, as originally framed by my noble friend the member for the city, with three years' uninterrupted payment of rates, would be a good fran- chise for Parliamentary elections. (Cheers.) It would afford you the best security that could be found for the character of the voter, his permanent residence, his stake in the place in which he lives, and his fitness to exercise political privileges. (Hear, hear.) I may allude inci- dentally to the statement we have heard in the course of the debate, that the bulk of the taxes are paid by the upper classes. I repudiate that doctrine altogether. (Cheers.) It is only necessary to mention six articles; they shall be sugar, tea, coffee, malt, tobacco, and spirits. These six articles pretty nearly cover the interest on the national debt, and the duties on them are paid chiefly by the working classes. (Hear, hear.) On the ground of taxation, therefore, they are entitled to the suffrage; on the ground of ancient usage they are entitled to it; and on the ground of their admitted character and conduct, such as the Chancellar ot the Exchequer allows to exist on their part—on the ground of theirgrowing intelligence, and their increasing numbers—they have a fair claim to a larger share of the national representation. In short, let me regard this question in what light I may, I come back to the conclusion that a considerable increase of the working classes in the election of members of Parliament for cities and boroughs is most expedient, most just and most necessary. (Cheers.) I would be sorry to we&ry the house with a discussion of details, but I have the strongest objection to the proposition of voting papers. (Hear, hear.) 1 have already glanced at that point, and 1 dare say in say in a sense which will not be acceptable to hon. gentlemen below the gangway on the other side, because I have always been opposed to the ballot. I retain my objections to it, but I should not deal candidly with the house if I did not state that in the constituency which I represent no object of reform in my memory has made such rapid progress as the demand for secret voting. (Cries of No,' and cheers.) I go further, and say that throughout the country-I lament it, I think it will end in disappointment-l am not a convert to it-the desire for the ballot has made greater progress than any demand for change. (Renewed cries of 'No,' and cheers.) I would wish it otherwise, because, as I have said, I am not a convert to the ballot, and have always voted deci- dedly against it; but, regarded in ttiat light, I must say that the proposed system of voting papers appears to me the closest approximation to it. (Hear.) I object alto- gether to the lodger votes which are now proposed. I say that lodgers are a class of persons belonging to a floating population; they have no settled habits-(alaugh) -no fixed residence, no payment of taxes, and no settled interest in the place which they inhabit. On all these grounds the provision in the bill is an innovation, and is uot coupled with residence or payment of rates and taxes, which I consider essential. (Hear, hear.) If the amount of rent should drop frosii. the Ss a week mentioned in the bill to 4s, I think you might as well come to universal suffrage. (Hear, hear.) I also have very great doubt about others of these franchises. It may be unnecessary jealousy, but why have a certified schoolmaster? On u the question of education being discussed 1 ventured to predict that the Government of the day would have very -n .xtensive influence arising from the arrangement in res- pect to that matter, but I never expected to see a propo- sition so soon made, that no schoolmaster other than cer- tified should have the vote. (Hear. hear.) Then with respect to the pensioners the words are significant. They are—-who shall no longer be permanently employed.' You might imagine that occasional employment might be dealt out to them on the eve of an election, and that the pensioners, together with the schoolmasters, would be under the control of the Government. (Cheers) I shall not now argue the question of the savings banks and the amount of £ 60. I think that in the bill which the noble lord the member for London and I introduced the amount was placed at £50. But the more I reffect on this suff- rage, the less expedient and just I think it. Suppose it were necessary for the qualification of a peer or com- moner to vote in either house that he should have a balance of £,5,000 at his banker's, how many persons and commoners would have a vote? (Hear, and a laugh.) I shall now conclude, for 1 have said enough, and more than enough. I have not, and I am sure they will admit it, taken any factious course in opposition to them. (Hear, hear.) I have not desired their overthrow, and I do not now desire it; but if they think fit to meet their fate they must encounter all the danger as well as the difficulties (Hear, hear.) Our course, however, is plain. We must do our duty while we remain here the representatives of the people of tnis country, to that noble people whom we represent. (Cheers.) We shall be ready at all times to give an account of the manner in which we have acted, and, for my part, I cannot hesitate both to support the resolution, and, if necessary, to vote against the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) Sir John Pakington On the part of the Government I complain of the course which the noble lord has taken. (Hear, hear.) I admit the great weight due to the opinion of the right hon. member for Carlisle on any question connected with the practice of this House, but I have taken some pains to ascertain from the highest authority how far the noble lord's proceeding is consistent with the usual practice of this House, and I have no he- sitation in saying, on far higher authority than my own, that the course taken by the noble lord is unparliamen- tary and irregular, and one of which we have justly the greatest reason to complain. At the commencement of this season we voted an Address to Her Majesty, in which we pledged ourselves calmly and impartially to consider this great question of Parliamentary Reform. Yet the noble lord nas invited us to violate our pledge and to dis- regard our promise. (Hear, and cries of I No, no!') We have invited the noble lord to meet us fairly on the ques tion of Parliamentary Reform, and to discuss an I con- sider our bill; and what has practically been the answer we have received? It has been 'No, we will not even entertain your bill.' (Hear, and 'No, no!') 'We will not allow it to be discussed on the second reading,' and the Governmejit are met with a preliminary resolution by the noble lord, who, by the course he has taken, declared, It is not my object to discuss your bill, my object is to embarrass, and, if I can, to overthrow the Administra- tion. (Applause.) Ho was sorry to hear the argument of Mr S. Herbert and others They said that there were parts of the bill which they disliked, and parts which they approved, and that they ought to condemn by a preliminary resolution the parts which they disapproved. If this course applicable to the bill now before the House, there was hardly any measure brought forward to which it might not be applied. It seldom happened that any bill of great importance was so drawn but that some part would be acceptable and some objectionable. (Hear.) The noble lord said the bill was dangerous and injurious, and an hon. member said it was condemned on every hustings in the country. That was rather an unfortunate statement, because of the five elections which have taken place since the introduction of the bill-two of them being contested were all in favour of the Government. (Hear.) But he had no doubt the meaning of the hon. member was that it was condemned by the country. If that argument was true, and if the measure was dangerous and noxious, as stated by the noble lord, then the proper and consistent course to adopt was to meet the bill with a direct negative, and to call on the House to reject it altogether. (Hear.) Why did not the noble lord adopt that course? The noble lord knew that if he met the Government by a oirect negative to the second reading, he would not have succeeded, and that was the reason lie adopted the course of proceeding by resolution. (Hear.) The measure of Government was safe and moderate, and if it were not so the Government would not propose it, but at the same time it would give a considerable exten- sion of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted that it would add 15,000 to the list of electors in Maryle- bone. The hon. member for Marylebone had told them that it would add 15,000 to that constituency. (Cheers.) The noble lord, aware that the House would not reject the bill on the second reading, thought the only way of getting a party triumph was to move this resolution, and therefore lie adopted that course. (Hear.) Cut the course adopted was as ungenerous as it was irregular. The House could not forget that the Government accepted office in an avowed minority. The noble viscount boasted of the forbearance of the present Government received. (Hear.) That was not the first time he had held such language, but there was nothing for which they to thank the noble viscount. (Cheers.) The House could not have forgotten the scene which took plaee last year in that affair which went by the name of the Cardwell Plot.' (Cheers.) He was sorry to connect the name of his right hon. friend (Mr Cardwell) with a scene of such discom- fiture and ridicule—(Hear)—but remembering what was done then, and coupling it with what was passing now, how the noble viscount could claim credit to himself for forbearance surpassed in coolness of assurance anything that came even from the lips of the noble viscount. (Cheers.) But he was willing to admit that there was a section of the liberal party opposite from whom they received a fair trial, and even generous treatment—treat- ment different from that which they experienced from the noble viscount, or the noble lord the member for the City of London. How wcrt they met by the noble viscount- how were they met by the noble lord ? Not by a con- sideration of the bill, not by a fulfilment of the pledge which they advised the Crown to recommend, but by a resolution which, if it meant anything, meant that the bill was to be set aside, unless they accepted it coupled with conditions which it was impossible to consent to. (Hear.) They were told they ought to accept the reso- lution, and go on with the bill. The last time they heard that was from the noble viscount on Friday night, and that opinion was expressed by him, he was sorry to say, in a tone of arrogance—(cheers)—in a tone of arrogance which was unusal between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that House. (Cheers.) And in that tone the noble viscount presumed to tell them that they were to a line which he must know perfectly well no gentlemen would condescend to take. (Cheers.) Which he must know equally well-if such advice had been offered to him—above all, if it had been offered in such a tone-he would have rejected with scorn and indignation. (Cheers) The noble viscount went on, and there was a passage in his speech which he heard with astonishment and dis- approbation-he meant that passage of his speech in in which he referred to the possibility of a dissolution. (Cheers.) He could construe that passage in any other way than as an attack on the prerogative of the Crown— (cheers)—for the language of the noble viscount was You shall not dissolve Parliament: we the House of Commons will prevent you; you oaunct dissolve without the concurrence of the House of Commons, and that con- currence shall be refused. (Cheers.) That was the lan- guage of the noble viscount, but it was language which he should not nave expected to hear from one of his long experience and standing—(cheers)—for it was language which he considered to be wanting in due respect to the Crown and violation of its prerogative. (Loud cheers.) It exhibited an utter disregard of one of the most acknow- ledged prerogatives of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) And for what reason, under what pretence did the noble vis- count hold such language ? He Degged to say that the Government never threatened the House with adissolution. (Oh. and hear, hear.) lie challenged any one to con- tradict what he said. (Hear.) The Government could not be responsible for what was said out of doors. The government did not presume to threaten Parliament in any way. Irrespective, then, of that language and that tone, the noble viscount must have known—the noble lord (Russell) must have known—that it was absolutely out of the question for the Government to accept the advice which the noble viscount was pleased to tender to them. (Cheers.) An hon. member, the member for Northumber- land, told them that night-he did not know if he was in the secret of what was going on, but he told them, and with perfect truth, that it was not intended, that it never had been intended, that the resolution should be accepted -that it was not drawn for acceptance—(cheers)—bat that, on the contrary, it was drawn for the rejection of the Government. (Cheers.) He accepted the description of his right hon. friend (Mr Whiteside), that it was an 'offensive resolution., (Hear.) It was drawn with the view of stopping discussion. You had a fair option of two courses. You might have met the Government in a fair, candid, and patriotic spirit. You might have said, and you ought to have said, You (the Government) have undertaken a difficult task-you have approached a most difficult question—you have undertaken to legislate on a subject which every man who loves his country must feel ought promptly to be settled. We do not like your bill; there are some parts of it good, but there are other parts which we consider objectionable. We will go into committee, we will accept what is good and reject what is bad, and thrown upon you the responsibility of the future course to be taken.' That wag one course which might have been adopted. There was another course to be taken-to adopt a course of party-(hear, hear.)—he should not exaggerate if he said a course of faction—a course which out of the difficulties of the Government would endeavour to make a party triumph. (Cheers.) That was the other course open to the noble lord opposite, and that, he was sorry to say, was the course he deter- mined to adopt. Let him advert to the position in which the Government now stood on this question. They could not misunderstand the attempt of the noble viscount to place them in a difficulty on this question. There had been a systematic attempt on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite—which had been car.ied still farther by the noble viscount-to place the Government on the horns of a dilemma-(Iaughter)-to make them avow that they would stand firmly by some part of the bill, or that they would concede everything. (Hear.) The Government did not intend to allow the noble viscount to place them in that dilemma. I beg to tell the noble viscount and the House (continued the right hon. baronet), in the name of the Government- (loud cries of 'order')—that they have two courses open to them. They may pass the second reading of this bill, or they may pass the resolu- tion but if they pass the resolution they will not have the bill. (Loud cheers and counter ones.) I am sure the House will think it far better that we should come to some understanding We don't want to Lave any more of this trying to entrap us. (Cheers.) There has been a great deal too much of it—a great deal more than is con- sistent with our position, or with fairness on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) As my noble friend Lord Stanley has well said we have to think what is consistent with our self-respect and with our honour. (Great applause.) This is the language which, on the part of the Government, I wish to hold. We look upon the resolution as a hostile one, and the only thing we can do is to resist it. (Hear, hear and cheers.) When we come into committee we shall be quite ready to reconsider the question of identity or of the borough freeholder; but we will not allow ourselves to be fettered by a pre- liminary promise, which would be inconsistent with the practice or the House, kricar.) n lVU met ua m it fair spirit we would have met you in the same; but so long as this resolution is before us, we can say nothing. It is inconsistent with our duty to entertain it, and till it is disposed of we can say no more. If the bill goes into committee, my right hou. friend (Mr Disraeli) has fairly and frankly told you what will be the course of the Go vernment; but I must say that it was needless for him to do so. I was certainly surprised to hear my right hon. friend (Mr Walpole) taking a course which I cannot help feeling that he will be sorry tor-(laughlcr)-trying to entangle us in a promise with regard to those parts of the bill which he objects to. My right hon friend said that if we would only give up our plan and take his he would support us but no one is more conversant with the forms of the House than my right hon. friend, and he knows perfectly that when we get into committee—(a laugli)-it will be competent to him and my right hon. friend (Mr Henley) to move that the county franchis be raised to jE20, and the town franchise reduced to household suffrage. (Cheers.) Nobody knows better that it is quite compe- tent to the House to decide those or any other questions in committee, and when it has decided them it will then be for us to determine what we may consider it our duty to take, I confess thatafter the mode in which theGovern- ment has been met upon this occasion, and the nature of (Continued in our second page.)

THE LONDON MARKETS. From the 'Ilurk Lane Express. IL 10 MARK LANK, MONDAY AFTERNOON, March 28.-1,26t WoTbs arrivals were moderate. There was nothing exported- Ii QZ4 receipts of English wheat were 7,816 quarters, of fortign > quarters. The near counties, especially Essex, sent up quantity for sale in good condition; but the trade ruletf^ j„ and only a few parcels were sold at the previous currenc) • foreign the trade was retail, and somewhat cheaper for tl»e diing sorts. Of country flour there were 16,630 sacks, »' 50 barrels 5 £ 6 sacks. Norfolks, as well as foreign ,'c*?n?0un- sold heavily at former rates. There was no change j-n made. Of English barley there wtre 4,260 quarters, of 13,555 quarters. All sorts, both malting, distilling, and Krin TbO were about Is per quarter cheaper, with a very slow ita eót (11111 malt trade was heavy, but without change of value. ,ter» there were in all only l/,356 quarters, comprisiag 6s' *1" of quarters of English, 3,773 quarters of Scotch, 3,5S0 nuar.yL „»» Irish, and 9,360 quarters of foreign. The trade Sfner* inactive, and cargoes out of condition about 6d per 'luart?I Of foreign beans there were 890 quarters, of English l,1 ftet*- ters Of English peas 202 quarters, of foreign 1"* 0t Business was dull in both these pulse at unaltered r*fe linseed there were 2,500 quarters, with nothing exported- was a heavy sale, at about 6d per quarter less money hut t) £ being scarce, sold well. There was a good attendance seed market, and a fair business transacted in clorerseed, red and white, at former rates. Canary firm. Tares o« rather cheaper, with less inquiry. Hempseed, muttardstldl other descriptions much as on last Monday. BRITISH. r of Shillings per c¿r. stjilial-I f It Wheat-Essex and Kent, Oats—Er.glisk feed 26 29 white, 38 48 Ditto potato J* Ditto, red 35 44 Scotch feed P Norfolk, Lincoln, and Ditto potato .>0 J) Yorkshire, red 35 43 Irish feed, white 190 Barley—Malting — 33 Ditt0> v>lack it Distilling 2» 29 Beans— Mazagan }( fi Chevalier 35 40 llck8 58 Grinding 24 26 Harrow M*"r$',s«'Norfolk'and TVa/i—White boilers fj 4 *uff".lk 52 66 Maple # H Chevalier »' Kingstone,Ware,&town iF/oi.r-Towni' househoW «nade 52 66 n0Useh0hi jf J* Brown 50 52 Country "l ¥ Rye 30 32 Norfolk and Sutfolk-^J^, IMPERIAL AVERAGES. FOR THE I. A ST SIX WEEKS. (J Wheat 40s Gd Rye \\l Barley 34s Od Beam Ju Oats 23s Od | Peas

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET. London, Monhav, March 28.—Our market t.-o'q moderately supplied with foreign stock, and sales Pr0"tj)f slowly on lower terms. From our own grazing districts tbeoa rivals' of beasts fresh up this morning were on the inere?!'n'ceV of considerably improved qualities. Although the atteivj butchers was tolerably good, all kinds of beasts met a <> j of quiry, at a decline in the quotations realized on Monday fully 2d per 81bs. From Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, r0t*c* biidgeshirc, we received 2,000 Scots, Shorthorns and c ^c0t' from other parts of England, 200 of various breeds fron\ 1 JC' land, 382 Scots and crosses; and from Ireland, 1R(| °*heep' We were seasonably well supplied with most kinds of -sl} fair condition. The mutton trade was in a very slugK' £ |j jot#' Downs in the wool declined 2d, other breeds 4d per ptf pared with this day se'nnight. The top quotation was^,iltavi^' 81bs. Lambs, the supply of which was moderate, sold » -fb* and prices were 4d per 81bs lower than on Monday few calves in the market sold slowly, at 2d per 81bs less ,ff. We had a very dull sale for pigs, and prices were a shade (9 Per 816*. to sink the offals f I Coarse and inferior s. d. «. d. Primecoarj#woolled »• j beasts 3 4 3 8 sheep Second quality ditto 3 10 4 4 Prime South Down j 1* Prime large oxen 4 6 4 8 Sheep m < J Prime Scots, &c. 4 10 i 0 Large coars* aalves 3 r j Coarse and inferior Prime small ditto < J J sheep 3 10 4 4 Large hogs S I 4 Second quality ditto 4 6 4 10 Neat small porkers .3 8 i*»t* Sucking Calves 18s to 21s and Quarter old Store Pig" 1 21s. each.

PROVISION MARKETS. fri-- LONDON, MONDAY, March 18.—There was more doinff butter last week than might have been expccted, con^ mildness of the weather nearly all fine quality was cie of first hands at full prices, and a fair quantity of °'J <gfl» sold. Foreign being in limited supply, met a ready »al at 130s, and for other descriptions in proportion. active request towards the close of the week, and dealt in to some extent (mostly for shipment) at an a' 2s to 3s per cwt. Hams and Lard scarcely varied in de value. dO-" The English butter market is slow, and prices have ward tendency. Dorset. 12118 to 130 1per owl Ditto, middling 112s to 116s Devon — to — „ Fresh 13s to 15s perao*

POTATO MARKETS. BOROUGH AND S PIT A L FIE L D s. 10 LONDON, MONDAY, March 28.—Since Monday last, the of potatoes, coastwise, have been less extensive but the tø b by land carriage have rather increased. The importe. amounted to 420 tons from Antwerp, and 92 ditto from oro Present rates as follow, with a dull trade toll York Kegents 7511 to ltws y Kent and Essex do 70s „ 95» •' Shaws 60s „ 7i» Scotch 40s „ 8«» Foreign 40s „ 60#

BREAD. LONDON. SATURDAY, March 26.—The prices Bread in the metropolis are- Wheaten Bread, per 41bil Lojp iA toj^d^ElouseholdBread^4jdtB6d^

SOUTH WALES RAILWAY TIME TABLE, CORRECTED FROM COMPANY'S TABLES FOR APRIL. .P^^g*~y5 T*Ali*S. fAHIf, J* WEKK DATS,—1>0WN TKAIN8. illitUAtS.— Uf TKAINH. IVHIIAtS.— HO\»K TKA1NS. § Stationt. k2'3* isfif' Vif2' 3' **9™ Urinary. |g Station* 1, 2,3,il, 2,3, 1,4c 2,: Mxp. ,1 it ~i\ Jizp. 1 tc 2 „ ,,1, 2,~3,7l7t, 3,17^3, il.M, 1,2,8, 1. 2, 3, 1 fc 2 J! clag8- clasH-j1 A 2j class. 1 & 2 class. 1 2 1 | k 3^-2 Stattoni. class, j class, j class. |1 & 2 class. 1 & 2 class. S'0<,0W,| class, class, class, class, class, class, class. V''• VpxM^ml^p'at pt\ m* a' *a i & Tn P,8* 8* g* ^i!* Starting from a.m. a.m. I a.m. a.m. p.m. p,m.'p.m. From a.m. a.m. p.m. from ja.w. a.m. a.m. p.m. 4* Johnston IM»frd !??',«« 1*1 0 Aldington 6 10 II 30 9 30 4 50 8 IS Neylundj 9 15 4 7 Pad.I 8 8 2 0 9I HaTerfordwist a ts 1 ? I ill 1 0 0 9 0 4 £ 77 Swindon (dep.) 9 20 2 30 11 40 6 55 10 47 Johnstn 9 35 4 22 Swin.rf* i 1 » 5 12 ulciarbM^Road 2 7 !}} ,5 i I 9 1 8 0 9 121 Cheltenham (dep 6 30 1*2 1,2,3-12 15 7 30 Mail H.West. 9 45 4 32 Chel. del i 8 10 Mail 1 vSrth Um? o on i 1 « 1*1 2 9 2 0 1 2.J 114 Gloucester (dep.) 6 45 111 1» 4 20 1 5 | 8 30 2 15 Clar. lid! 10 0 4 47 Glou. dr 30 3 0 2 15 Ml Whitland i a !} S c ,? 39 2 9 19 HI;. Chepstow 7 55 12 17 5 33 1 55 | 9 22 3 12 Nar.Kdt 10 20 5 2 Chep 9 48 4 15 3 12 32 St Clears I i i I il 4 9 3 6 2 2* 158} Ne*l>°rt 8 40 1 0 6 20 2 30 9 47 j 3 40 Whit— 10 35 5 17 New. 7 38 10 17 5 5 3 40 401 Carmarthen s'Vn 55 I ? J f 29 59 48 2 « 170J Cardiff 9 5 1 25 6 50 2 46 10 7 4 4 StClears 10 50 1&2 Cardiff. 8 3 11 2 5 29 4 4 fifl rSllv 7 »n JS *? ?* *2 73 5 6 3 4 208 Neath (dep.) 10 47 3 8 8 40 3 45 11 10 5 25 Carmar.1 11 20 5 52 Nenthdc 9 5« 1 7 17 5 25 72 Swansea 7 tn in™ ? 55 Hn ? f? 1 I 10 6 8 0 5 0 216 Swansea 11 0 3 35 8 50 3 45 11 30 5 55 Llanelly 12 11 6 40 Swan.de 10 20 I 7 52 5 55 77 Swdeni loo ft 22 I ?n I 9 54 .i" 12 • 9 6 6 0 225 Llaneu, 11 48 9 42 4 43 6 25 Swan.rfc 110 7 15 Llanelly 10 55 8 24 1.2.3 111' Cardiff 7" ft in?? 10 \i t? 1 2 I ?2 I ™ 6 10 9 13 6 10 3 6 5 244| Carmarthen 12 34 10 35 5 31 7 15 Neath 1 30 7 33 Carmar. 11 42 9 9 7 15 2«: Sewwrt 7 as lin ™ 1 5? ? on I ?5 !6 9 20 3 15 3 9 6i 253 St-Clears 12 5# 5 49 7 28 Cardiff. 11 15 3 0 8 48 StClears 8 29 7 28 4i; SSKr I I 1 52 J 1 II t J* o 2 15 S i8 6 22 3 16 9 10 6l 258i Whitland 1 0 6 4 7 4t New. 11 49 3 28 9 15 Whit. 9 46 7 40 171' G\oiice«tV(d«'\ 9 45 la 4 lo h*i? 1? I 2? 2 21 0 25 19 0 11 11?264 N«berth Koad. 1 21 6 19 7 55 Chep. 12 29 4 10 8 45 Nar.Kd+ 10 • 7 5» lul Che temhamU?;l 0 U ? tS I 5 k iH« *1 3 ?5 3 30 1 22 10 14 »4 2704 Clarbeston Road 1 35 6 35 8 15 Glou. dr. 1 38 5 25 10 47 Clar. Rd 10 19 8 15 1108 Swtndonffi Hu 4 t A I l12, IK II 26 4 31 » 23 9 14 lol 275? Uaverfordwest. 1 46 • 50 8 30 lAel. «r 1&2 H.West. 10 34 8 3* IMS l I « I 0 I 1 I Wi t a Vi lii « 1 S 27 8 I17 280i Johnston(Milfrd)l 2 1 7 i 8 45 Swin. de\ 7 20 JohnsU 1« 50 8 45 Y*a M 0 9 B 'u • M 1 Us n \*9 Us 8 \a7 \o \n sthns InctUtiA (v»twS\ a \5 1 10 1 > \p»a.. j 1» 1 \u i'hs ttQ*v P TYvVrA. CVa»* T toi BouWi Nf a\M wj cml "Sai\)enk UosA Va fct&ttw fot Twby *n4 C&rdijAti. ^VV TKt MnltiaiM taku wk.& OanTmwuiMlnUmiw 1KVML 11- Ciuwfla

———— — — ORDERS FOI NEWSPAPERS AND ADVJ-RJH RECEIVID BY THE FOLLOWING AGJW"4 London Mr. Joseph Clayton, 320, Strand- „ Mr. G. Reynell, 42, t „ Mr. S. Deacon, 154, Leadenhall- .Hammor-rl & Nephew, 27, Lomo* Mr Whu 33, Flee'-street. -refiPatf,P „ Mr.H.Ada i,9, Parliamen ri>ei, »v Mr. W. Thoir.as, 21, Catherine- t> Newton and Co., Warwick Squ# Cardigan Mr. Clougher, bookseller. Carmarthen .White and Sons, printers, &c. Fishguard Mr. Thomas Daries. Milford Mr. T. rerkinf.CustoBL-houfe. Narberth Mr. Win. Phillips, Registrar Newport .Mr. John Harries. Pembroke Mr. Ormond' Pembroke-Dock .Mr. F. Trewent. ..Mr. Barrett. Tenby .Mr. Thomas, opposite th«hthe And by all Posi Masters and News Agents thro g Uot „ and filed at Peel's C-. f:ee-house and Johnson street, and Deacon's offee-house, 3, A i 1'0" Printed and Published by the Proprietor, i,myr' of a-I" at the Office in High-street, in ■X\Pr{or^ Mary, ia the County of the Town of Haver Friday, April 1, 1859.