The Welshman

AN APPEAL TO THE COUNTRY WITHOUT ISSUE JOINED. Lord Derby has set the country a difficult if not an im- possible task,—to send back to the llcute of Commons a powerful and united party, bound together by no intelligi- ble party tie. A recent and thoughtful writer has said that the only means now left of seeding a strong Govern- ment in the House of Commons, is to convince public opinion that a strong Government is a sine qua tion of a good administration ;-and he tells us that directly this principle is grasped, the different constituencies will make it a condition with their representatives, whether they belong to the Ministerial or to the Opposition benches, to act in phalanx, and never, except on very rare and momentous occasions, to sacrifice the greater end of an organised, united, and consistent policy, to the pmaller ends of individual preference. Lord Derby seems to be of this opinion, and has, in fact, appealed to the country upon it. He says to the constituencies that their first duty in the elections should be to send back a strong and closely united party to support the Government. Now this is easy to say, but very difficult to do. The one direction which the constituencies are least able to follow, is the direction to return a strong and united party, when that direction id unaccompanied by any indica- tion as to the bond or tie of that party. Left to themselves, different constituencies are of course apt to choose the men who most nearly represent their vague and floating views. But if they do this, they are certainly not likely I to respond successfully to the exhortation to secure a strong and united party organisation. It is the office of a statesman who desires to remodel parties to give them some new principle of combination,—to utter some watch- word which may unite the constituencies in a common impulse, and elicit from them some spontaneous unity of action in testing the views of their representatives. To tell constituencies that a Parliament of close organisation is required of them, without giving them a single hint as to the nature of the party-tie an assent to which they should require from their representatives,—to ask them to return men who will act together, and give them no com- mon principle by which to measure them,—is to impose on them an impossible task. It is a cruelty like that of enjoining self-government on weak minds, or serious re- flection on empty minds. To choose men of the same sort is possible if you ;will let the country understand clearly what that sort is to be-for what the electors are responsible,—what test they are to apply. But Lord Derby withdraws the only test the poor constituencies had, and gives them no other test. He says, I will net be judged by my Reform Bill; I do not appeal to you on that I appeal on the necessity of getting a strong adminis- tration, not liable to perpetual defeat.' Very well; but Lord Derby should at least let the constituencies know the principle of judgment. It is to be simply personal adhesion to Lord Derby ? Even a personal test of that kind requires a fresh conviction that Lord Derby has done something to distinguish himself strongly from other statesmen, in order to ensure its acceptance by popu- lar constituencies. Pitt, no doubt. in a very different time, secured support simply by the confidence his personal administration inspired. But even he did not borrow the measures of his opponents, but chalked out a line strongly and distinctly characteristic of himself. Lord Palmerston at the last election secured a majority that seemed almost a personal following. But then he had the wisdom' to appeal to the country on an intelligible issue in which his conduct had been in distinct antagonism to that of the other statemen of the House of Commons. The Pittites understood how Pitt's India Bill differed from that of his rival; the Palmerstonians understood how his Russian and Chinese policy had differed from that of his rivals and on such questions the constituencies were prepared to speak. Similarly they might perhaps have judged Lord Derby by his Reform Bill, and made it clear whether or not on that measure he had marked out a policy sufficiently characteristic. But this he will not let them do. He says, Support me if you will, because I need strengthening. Do not support me because you like a Bill which I have abandoned, and do not mean to revive. I give no definition of Derbyite Conservatism. I simply say my Cabinet is not to be judged by its last fruits.' This is very like the conduct of a prisoner who should plead guilty ana men appeal against. me sentence. The election addresses both Conservative and Liberal show the bad effect of this meaningless kind of appeal Many of the former reluctantly admit the Government wrong, and none of them feel it an occasion on which they can enthusiastically cry up Conservative principles. Some of the latter inclined to palliate the Government, and few at all events are able to elicit any enthnsiastic feeling for Liberal principles. Instead of tending to strengthen the unity of parties in the House, this dissolving on a point not distinctively characteristic tends directly to relax the ties of Conservative unity, without in any way strengthening that of Liberal unity. There is nothing clear for the one party to attack: nothing sacred for the other party to defend. What is the only point which even so keen a party-man as Sir Hugh Cairns can find to propose to his constituents as the one point at issue? The ques- tisn on that appeal," he says, is no narrow one as to the particular provisions of a Reform Bill. It is the much greater question whether a Governmegt, earnestly and suc- cessfully endeavouring to conduct public affairs with ad- vantage, is to be supported against the factious movements of those who are without that agreement and union which would enable them to form another Government in its place." To those who remember that sudden change of policy in the Conservative ranks and sudden alliance with the Radicals, which drove Lord Palmerston last year from power, this appeal will appear singularly unfortunate. But, in fact, it only shows that Lord Derby's party has no new principle of combination to throw out, and that the administration could not have appealed to the country at all if they had waited for an issue of principle on which they could have hoped to work a great change in the feel- ings of the constituencies. We quite agree with Mr. Disraeli and his friends that the complete absence of any clear lines of principle de, termining the party combinations in the House of Com- mons is a very great evil. But we are sure that only time, and the gradual evolution of new political issues, can remedy that evil. The spasmodic effort to bid parties strengthen themselves only ends in greater weakness. Men cannot command close political sympathies at will. I will have my party-trumpets give forth no uncertain sound," says the Premier; but uncertain sounds come from the country as before. This is a time of disorganised political individualism. Lord Derby's rebuke may be de- served, but it will be in vain. Until some genuine struggle between conflicting principles ensue, no appeals to the country will bring what the country has not got to give,— unity of political conviction in large bodies of men. Lord < Derby has dissolved the rope of sand in the hope of getting a tie of closer fibre. He will only get a rope of looser sand than before. -Eco?tomist.

THE MINISTERIAL ASPECT OF THE REFORM | QUESTION. The Reform Bill passed in the first session of the new Parliament must be the Bill of the House of Commons; and last week we observed that the settlement of the measure was really a question superior to party. If the present Ministry could but see its own opportunity, it would perceive that with the necessary tact it might close the question this year. The recent debate indicates the kind of Bill which the whole House would accept as a basis for discussioD. When the late Bill was first pro- posed, we saw in its positive enactments enough to suggest the hope that it would be the basis of the Reform Bill finally destined to pass into law, and the list we gave of its enfranchising clauses justified the hope. But two novelties caused the failure of the measure,—the clause disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders, and the identity of suffrage introduced as a principle. It is now pretty clear that had the Government omitted this dis- franchising clause, and simply lowering the county occu pation franchise to ten pounds, had refrained from asserting identity of franchise as a principle," the Bill would have been read a second time. Whatever may be said in the abstract to recommend identity of franchise, as a Con servative device for resisting indiscriminate reduction of the borough franchise, and whatever may be said of the abstract equity of making borough freeholders vote for boroughs only, it is clear that the House of Commons is not in the mood to discuss the question in any mode so refined or so severed from the direct progress of our con- stitution. 10 its power of dealing with public questions the House can, like its constituents, only grasp familiar Ideas, and those who lead it should present their plans in the old shape. Instead of that, Mr. Disraeli— Too deep for his hearers, still went on refining, And thought of convincing while they-" thought of those short and common hustings cries which involve no thought and are politics made easy for the masses. That fault has now to be redeemed; and the Ministry can make another opportunity. In the first place the Ministry might at once announce that they will introduce a Reform Bill immediately after the assembling of the new Parliament. This promise would tend to satisfy men's minds with a pledge that we should see the end of the question this year. Every one admits that the present Ministers are in an excellent position to settle the question they command a compact united party in the Commons, and a majority in the or a. The announcement of a new Bill might disappom those who are simply looking out for a change of Nlinistry, but it would certainly gratify the country. A settlement o the quesiion is wanted this year; and if the actual Minis- ters do not undertake it, both the Bill and the Government will be taken out of their hands. It may be said that with the chance of a war, the promise of a Bill would be rash; but unless the war involves us immediately, we could soon complete our discussion, and at the worst if we found ourselves in the midst of a great war, the House would deal with the whole subject according to the circum- stances of the day. Should the Government have the judgment and courage to adopt this course, what kind of Bill might be introduced by them ? It is not very difficult to indicate the measure th t would be read a second timo. It should be so framed as to allow a lair field for the discussion of the whule question. There are evidently great differences of opinion I amongst leading men of all sides on almost every point, and no Bill will be a fair field for discussion, unless it I admit amendments and alterations of each clause without affecting the vitality of other clauses, or of the whole Bill. In fact, the Bill should not be a "comprehensive measure," and it should not be based on any novel principle. The British Constitution itself, (which we are now amending,) is not constructed on a comprehensive a priori design it ii a patchwork erection, built bit by bit, altered here, ex. tended there, as time and occasion called. It has leading principles, but they were worked out in action, before they were adopted as II institutions" i it is an aggregate of practices and experiences—recorded and unrecorded. We cannot do better than continue the old principles, amend- ing only the practices. The new Reform Bill should therefore be simply a series of clauses relating to the re, presentation of the people, and brought into one act for convenience of discussion. The following might be the main clauses, 1. County franchise reduced to ten-pound a year occu- pation of lands or houses, with, in the case of lands, the condition of a house worth at least half that amount. 2. Borough franchise reduced to six-pound a year rating; the boundaries of boroughs to be enlarged so as to include all who properly have local interests in the borough. 3. Professional franchises, as in the late Reform Bill. 4. Saving's-bank franchises reduced from jE60 as in the late Bill to a condition that the deposits of the voter were equivalent to E20 in four years; that during the last four years he had been an habitual depo- sitor-that is, having added at least JE5 during each years This would allow for the withdrawals and renewed deposits natural to the artisan class; would be a better test of fitness for the franchise than JE60 at the time of voting, for the habitual depositor is the really saving artisan and would prevent the manufacture of votes. 5. Lodger franchise as in the late Bill. 6. Voting papers, not to be sent by post, but collected by an official in presence of two householders, one nominated by each candidate: the voting paper not to be filled up or signed except in the presence of the three. Each voter to have the option of voting in this way at his own house, or of giving in his vote at the polling-booth. 7. New seats to be given to Burnley, Birkenhead, West- bromwich, Hartlepool, Staleybridge, Croydon, Gravesend, London University, the Queen's Col- leges, Ireland, and the Scottish Universities. Four of the new seats are supplied by the abolition of Sudbury and St. Albans the rest to be provided by an addition to the number of Members of the House. This plan of a Reform Bill is not put forward as entirely unobjectionable, not even as coming nearest to the Reform Bill that will finally pass into law but it would have the advantage of opening a fair field for discussion. It has no penal provisions. It disfranchises no class, no person, no place and thus leaves the House free to apply in after times disfranchisement or disqualification to classes or localities which show themselves unworthy of the franchise. In its enfranchisement it is guided by the consideration of giving new members to the new and distinct interests which have grown up since the Reform Bill It has seven distinct propositions, none of which depend on the others: I each may be passed or rejected separately. A favourite folly of some statesmen is to propose a large measure where one clause which they are obliged to insert is cun- ningly neutralized by another which they hope to pass this above all things should be avoided in a Reform Bill. Each proposal should be simple and easily understood. To expect that general principles can be discussed in that unselect Committee the House of Commons is to expect too much. The first attempt of Ministers has secured three main points for any new Bill—1. A ten-pound county franchise; 2. An extension and elevation of the franchise (to lodgers and professional men,) as a correlative of any lowering of the occupation franchise and 3. The retention of the small boroughs as not unuseful constituencies. By omit- ting in their new Bill four unpopular parts of the old Bill- L. Identity of franchise 2. Disfranchisement of borough freeholders; 3. Non-resident voters for boroughs and 4. Disfranchisement of dockyard voters, they might hope to carry many of the old clauses in the Bill we have indi- cated-a measure which would be the offspring of no party, but, in fact, the Bill of the whole House of Com- mons.- Spectator.

THE UNCERTAIN STATISTICS OF THE REFORM QUESTION. While the argument goes on briskly as to the justice of the various Reform-programmes, it is by no means common to find Reformers who are really concerned to find out the approximate effect of each. We doubt if there is any branch of statistics more confused and intricate than that which bears on the possible results of different proposed extensions of the franchise. Many returns have been moved for and printed by the House of Commons, but most of them have been proposed without any previous thought or study on the subject, and almost all without any community of plan; and, consequently, the various returns are not only full of very puzzling superficial dig- crepancies, but different places, even as included in the same return, present varieties of phenomena wholly un- expected, and which are not at first explicable. Lord John Russell's proposed scheme of Reform includes an exten- sion of the borough franchise to all occupiers of houses who pay a rental of 16 or upwards. But when we consult the Parliamentary returns to form our estimate of the working of this provision, we are met with various diffi- culties. In the first place, all these returns are founded, and can only be founded, on the rate book; and a jE6 occupying limit corresponds to something rather less than a E5 rating limit. If this were the main difficulty, it might easily be surmounted, so far as to form a pretty good approximate estimate. But then we have to take into account that below the jE6 rating limit, occupiers are permitted by the Small Tenement Rating Act to compound with their landlords for the rates,—so that we cannot in any way tell by the mere returns, of rated occupiers, how many there would be below the jE6 rating limit entitled to vote who do not appear on the rate-book in consequence of having taken advantage of this permission. Then, again, there are other general and local Acts, of less importance however, under which owners are rated, instead of occu- piers, even above this JE6 limit,—so that even above this limit we cannot completely depend on the number of ra- tings for giving us the-number of votes. Indeed, in some places the discrepancies of this kind, even above the £6 limit, appear to be considerable. We have now before us returns, moved for by Mr. Tite, of the numbers of occupiers rated to the relief of the poor in 1853 in the represented boroughs of England and Walest-and also some very imperfect returns, obtained on the motion of Mr. J. B. Smith, showing with regard to varions boroughs the number of houses, shops, ware. houses, and other buildings in the represented boroughs, of the yearly value of E10 and upwards jE.5 and under Elo, E4 and under E5, £3 and under E4, and the number under £ 3." If these latter were in any way complete, they would, we believe, be much more satisfactory as Reform Statistics than those of Mr. Tite, simply because the number of tenements rated will,-at least under the £6 rating limit and in many cases above it,—give a much more accurate approximation to the number of actual electoral qualifications involved than the mere number of occupiers rated to the poor. But as there are 109 bo- roughs in default, many of them boroughs of great impor- tance. we can gain but a very imperfect estimate from this return. First, then, with regard to Mr. Tite's return of the number of occupiers rated to the poor in the different boroughs, the varieties and apparent anomalies in the results in the various boroughs are very striking. Let us turn first to Manchester and Liverpool and compare the results. We mans together several of the detailed classes of Mr. Tite's return where the separation is not important e-Occupiers Rated-, Total of Registered Between Between Above Occu- piers Popu- Elec- Under j65 & giO. iC8 & 910. £ 10. Rated lation. tors. X5. Liverpool.375955..18314..1222 28541 12312 38574 61397 Manchester 333663..18041..2706.. 11999 3400 20391 34396 So that we have the extraordinary result, that in places of nearly equal population and nearly equal electoral consti- tuencies, the number of occupiers rated to the poor is in the one place (Liverpool) as nearly as possible double that in the other place (Manchester); the greatest difference being between the annual values of E8 and £10, where the number of ratings in Liverpool is not much short of four times the number in Manchester. At the low rents, on the other hand, under 15, the number of Manchester occupiers is more than double that of Liverpool. How this result may be caused, we cannot at present say. If we turn to Salford, we find, that a borough, of which the population is not one-third that of Manchester and the registered electors scarcely one-fourth, has very nearly as many occupiers of houses rated under £10 as Manchester itself. But, perhaps, the greatest anomalies in this return will be found in comparing the lower ratings of occupiers in Leeds and Stoke-upon-Trent, for example, with those in Birmingham and the principal Metropolitan boroughs. We have compiled the following table from Mr. Tite's return:— ,-Occupiers rated, Popula- Registered Between Total tion. 1851. Electors Under X5 & Above Rated X,5 Y,10 £10. Birmingham .232841.. 9074.. 174..2354..12850.. 15378 Marylebone 370957..20831.. 7.. 125..18421.. 18553 CHyofL?ndon..127869..t9U5.. 98..67?..15531..16303 Stoke-upon-Trent8H76.. 2115..14646..3955.. 2653..21298 Leeds 172270.. 6204.. 9850..3660.. 7445..21955 JNotuiog can oe more remarkable in its way than the discrepancies in this table. While in the City of London and Marylebone we find actually more registered electors than occupiers rated to tbe poor, in Birmingham the regis- tered electors are about three-fifths of the ratings, in Leeds three-elevenths, and in Stoke-upon-Trent about one-tenth. While in Marylebone there are scarcely any, and in the City of London and in Birmingham a mere handful of, occupiers rated under C5, in Leeds they are nearly one-half, and in Stoke-upon-Trent no less than two-thirds of the total rating, while if, in the latter place, we had taken the ratings of occupiers uuden under £6 ..J )" ;4 1; ;i.¡ ¿J instead of under E5, we should have found them more than four fifths of the whole. In Leeds the distribution is the most equal the number of occupiers rated above £10 being 7,445, while that under £ o is 9.850. In Stoke- upon-Trent nearly all the ratings are low. In Birmingham and the two London constituencies nearly all are high, by far the greater number in fact being above £20, If now, in explanation of these differences, we turn to the returns of the number of tenements rated, which are exceedingly imperfect) we shall find scarcely less matter for surprise. Leeds is not included in Mr. J. B. Smith's return, nor Marylebone, nor Birmingham but Mr. Newmarch's papers contain an estimate furnished by Mr. Baines of the ratings of tenements in Leeds, and Mr. J. B. Smith's returns contain. the City of London. Referring to them, we find the comparison as follows:— Un,ier 15, Tenements. Occupiers. Leeds 28701 9850 City of London,. 348. 98 Between Y,5 and £10, Tenements. Occupiers. Leeds 7898 3660 City of London 1272 674 Total Rated. Leeds 8376. 7445 City of London 14552 15531 Above £ 10. Tenements. Occupiers. Leeds 44975 21955 City of London 16479 16303 So that while in Leeds the tenements rated appear to be more than double the number of occupiers rated, owing obviously to the very large number compounded for with the landlords below E5, in the City of London the number of rated tenements and occupiers appear to be nearly the same. It will be observed that even between £5 and £ 10 the very large number of tenements rated in Leeds is more than double the number of occupiers, almost all of which tenements would give votes on the franchise proposed by Lord John Russell. To show still more clearly the various anomalies which the confusion between the number of tenements and toe number of occupiers rated, gives, we will choose three boroughs of entirely different local character which are to be found both in Mr. Tite's and Mr. J. B. Smith's returns, Bristol, Leicester, and Westbury,—and compare the re- suits given by the two returns :— Registered r-Occupiers Rated—, Population, Electors. Under £ 5 & £10 & Total 1851. 1857. £ 5. under ZCIO. above. Rated Bristol 138186.. 18606 2527 5087 11645.. 19259 Leicester. 50642.. 4162.. 566 1880 2751.. 5197 Westbury 7028.. 342 268 176.. 281.. 725 In Mr. J. B. Smith's return of rated tenements, we tind as follows! Tenements Rated Population, Under Between £10 and Tenements 1851. £ 5. £ 5 & ZCIO. upwards. Rated. Bristol. 137328 4.540 8226 12322 25C88 Leicester.. 60642 3972 7157 4285 Not spe- cially returned. Westbury.. 7028 1060 204.. 352.. 1616 While, therefore, in Bristol, the tenements rated under £5 appear to be not quite double the number of the occupiers so rated, in Leicester they are seven times and in Westbury four times as many. Again, while in Bristol the tenements rated between JEo and EIO are about 60 per cent, more than the occupiers, and in Wesbury 20 per cent. more, in Leicester they are nearly four times as numerous, It is clear that in Leicester a vastly greater proportion of tenements, both below JE5 and between £5 and LIO, are at present compounded for with the landlord than in either of the other places. And, again, while the total number of tenements rated, is more than double the number of occupiers rated, in Westbury, and about one-third more in Bristol, in Leicester it appears to be nearly treble the number of occupiers. These results are very curious, and show how much we may be ulialed by special statistical returns in estimating the effects of any particular exten- sion of the franchise. It should especially warn us that we can get no reliable information as to the result of such a measure without exact returns of the tenements rated at given rates in boroughs as well as of the occupiers, and also of the very different proportion between the number of low and high qualifications which exist in different boroughs, even though they may have the general repute of being boroughs of the same general character. In Liverpool and Leeds the number of low ratings are both very large as compared with Manchester, and these again large as compared with Birmingham and London. Nothing can be more evident than that we have at present ex- tremely little reliable knowledge as to the effect of any particular extension of the franchise. -Economist.

SETTLEMENT OF THE BALLOT QUESTION. It is extremely desirable that the question of the Ballot should be settled as promptly as possible; that is to say, that it should be put at rest by adopting a measure prac- tically satisfying the requirement of the public. On this subject we have only to repeat the opinion to which we have for many years past given expression. The Ballot involves no principle, except one of so exceedingly abstract a kind that it hardly enters into working politics. It is a good rule that a truthful man should do all which he does openly but it is a rule broken in every drawing-room, every club, every house of business, in fact wherever men do congregate and it cannot be enforced on this particu- lar question without stultifying all that is done in Parlia- ment and sooiety. The rule must be left to the judgment of the individual; and in the present state of society he he must be a very independent man, In pecuniary as well as moral means, who observes it on every occasion. On the other hand, the measure can be sustained by no abstract argument, and the difficulty of such a feat was perhaps never better illustrated than in the last trouvail of Mr. Berkeley. With great diligence and cleverness, the honourable Member for the Ballot every fear dresses up his ancient argument with new ornaments,-not an easy task where he has been doomed to so much irksome repe- tition yet this year the novelties of the season are pecu- liarly ingenious and amusing. As an example, we take the argument urged upon Mr. Onslow, the candidate for Guildford, by a man who said, "I want the ballot to pro- tectmyself from my wife," because ever since I have voted for you my wife has led me a dreadful life." The argu- ments upon the merits indeed, are almost equally absurd on both sides Lord Palmerston answers the argument of Mr. Onslow's friend so pointedly adopted by Mr. Berkeley, by quoting 11 Palleat infelix quod proxinoa nesciat uxor?" taking Mr. Berkeley's plea for the old man as an adoption of an edict that no man shall be allowed to tell his wife how he voted! Surely this is debate run to seed, and fructifying in nonsense Sir Richard Bethell did better service in combating the argument that the franchise is a trust, which the elected must perform subject to the su- pervision of the people an argument which would show that the beneficial interest of the trust reposes in the people, and that they ought to exercise the franchise. Against this, Lord John Russell urged that morally the representative is liable, and that it is the interest both of the trustee and of the cestui qui trust to elect those who are to dispose of the welfare of the State. Indeed, Lord John includes "the whole community," which is admitting the community to a judgment though not to a share in the election,-to participate in the approval or in the regret for the vote, though not to appoint the voter. The reason why it is impossible to argue the subject upon the merits, is that abstractedly it has no merits. There is properly no question of right; there is merely a question of wrong committed by some persons, and of, the best way to palliate the wrong where it cannot be pre- vented. If you cannot teach landlords, customers, or other social tyrants, the vice of their coercion, you may perhaps prevent it by erecting an obstacle to its gratifica- tion. In this case you secure two moral benefits,-you protect the conscience of the weaker party and, by de- priving vice of its opportunity, you assist it in dying out. Principle, therefore, is unfavourable to the Ballot when there is no paramount necessity for it, favourable when it is wanted; but it forms no abstract question at all. The Ballot is simply and solely an arrangement; it is an arrangement to be adopted or rejected entirely ac- cording to the wishes of those who are to give their votes, and it concerns nobody else. The elected have no right to the votes of the electors, and must take what they can get. If the non-electors-we are speaking strictly within the letter of the existing law under a limited franchise,— if the non-electors have any right," it is not to a control over the franchise for if they have a right to that, they have a right to the franchise itself so that the plea for them proves too much. But if those who possess the vote find that they can give it with the greatest freedom, ease, comfort, and harmony to their own consciences, by giving it under cover, there is no reason why the arrangement should be refused to them. The single practical question is, whether or not the majority of the English people desires the Ballot. Con- sidered still in its purely practical aspect, the measure might very well be accommodated to those parts of the country which desire it, or otherwise. There is no doubt that some constituencies wish to have it; others do not. Considerable doubts exist, and reasonably, as to its ulti- mate working. Why, then, should not the willing con- stituencies become the corpora vilia for the others ? The sufficient measure for the day, therefore, would be the per- missive Ballot suggested by Sir Eardley Wilmot, allowing any constituency of which three fourths desire it to give a covert vote and leaving the other constituencies to vote as they do now. By this method, without forcing the measure upon the whole country, we should ascertain how far it is congenial to English feelings and to the working of our political machinery. If it were to answer well, it could be extended under the same rule to other constituen- cies if it were to fail, only those would have had the trouble of the experiment that desired it. In this shape, or in some other equally moderate, it is very desirable to settle the question promptly for while it is a matter which does not involve any abstract moral prln- ciple, it constitutes the one point on which the Liberal party is most divided, -SI)eciat02-.

THE BALLOT AND THE LIBERAL PARTY. There is nothing mote likely to degenerate into a farce than an annual motion in the House of Commons always left in the hands of the same maa. It requires some- thing even of fanatical faith to preserve in so monotonous a ceremony any sense of the breadth and gravity of the question which may be at issue. The mover of an an- t nual motion," however important his object, gets hardened and dead to its importance, as it is said that a clergyman will in time get hardened to the ceremonial of a baptism or a funeral, and quite unable to appreciate the solemnity of the occasion to those who are principally interested in it. Hence the annual debates on the ballot, which Mr. Berkeley insists on eliciting, are very unpleasant, and very unworthy of the grave and important issue which is at stake. They are made the occasion of much repartee and and much laughter and much audacity of assertion; but violence and banter are not earnestness, and we wish the membeiS of the House of Commons could be persuaded to give that freshness of thought to the subject which would really indicate that they had grasped the principle at stake, and were not merely traversing the time-worn formulae in j the old weary way. Despite Lord John Russell's new conclusion that the ballot, though not desirable, would be nearly harmless, and would effect little change of any kind, we believe that there is no possible alteration in our political institutions which would eventually affect the national character so deeply, and especially the character of the Liberal party so prejudicially, as the ballot. To us, indeed, it is utterly unintelligibly how the ballot should ever have become a Liberal cry for if'there is any party in the country whose strength, cohesion, and general in- fluence absolutely depend on the publicity of elections, that party is the Liberal party. We object to the ballot, indeed, on no mere party grounds. We hold that it must eventually exert a much more pernicious influence on the national character than even the great evils it is invoked to cure. But in our belief, Liberal views are preferable chiefly because they are more truly national than any others, because they repose trust in the people at large, and give freer play in political matters to the national character and, therefore, we hold that any measure which would prejudicially affect the nation at large, would es- peciaHy injure the Liberal party in the nation. It is supposed-very erroneously-that the Liberal, as such, will gain by the ballot, because the poorer classes will be under less constraint to the higher classes than before. But there are two sorts of rcstraint- one gener- ally wholesome, the other alwals the reverse, the restraint exercised by mere opinion, often the opinion of equals,-aud that exercised by the authority of superiors The former, which is the very essence of that public influence which Liberalism wields, would be effectively removed by the ballot; the latter, which is what Liberals fear, would be very ineffectually removed, if removed at all To emancipate men from the constraining power of the social opinion amidst which they ordinarily live, from the criticisms of either inferiors or equals or superiors, is nearly uniformly and absolutely an evil. To protect them from the reach of the artificial motives which their su- periors frequently have the means of presenting to their minds, would be an advantage. But the latter end cannot even be attempted without the former being included, and the machinery used to compass the latter would be much more effectual to secure the former. Mr. John Stuart Mill, formerly one of the ablest supporters of the ballot, who has now thrown his whole influence into the opposite scale, has recently indicated this point of view :—" As long as human beings exist," he says, the most direct mode of obtaining a person's vote will be to ask him for it. Supporters of the ballot have argued that voters might re- sort to those evasive answers which integrity permits in the case of an important question but an evasive answer to a question only succeeds when made to an equal who d,)es not consider himself at liberty to ask a second." This is not only true, but may be carried a great deal further than Mr. Mill has carried it. The ballot would effectually protect the electors from the ordinary criticism of disin- terested opinion, whether high or low. It would effectu- ally screen the political aide of an elector's life from the condemnation of those, whether inferiors, equals, or superiors, who were not interested in scrutinhinR his conduct minutely. But it would not, unless defended by repeated false asseverations, have any effect in screening him from those who cared to bias his choice. It would shut out public opinion. It would not defend him from interested personal influences. But it is exactly the former by which Liberal politics gain, the latter by which it loses. The ballot would diminish that deep sense of responsibility to the public, that just deference for the criticism of society, which tells so largely in favour of the Liberal cause. It would only make a futile attempt at destroying that private injustice which tells so powerfully against it. But what would be the effect of the ballot on Conserva- tism ? We believe that it would be directly unfavourable to thoughtful Conservatism, but favourable to that lethargic form of Conservatism which is now held in check mainly by having to defend itself openly against the open aggressions of Liberal reform. Conservatism would be a much greater and much more pernicious power than it now is in English society if it were not constantly challenged, and obliged to answer the challenge, with regard to the justice of its own position. A Conservative elector knows that he must make some show of defence for his vote among his own friends. He must defend the met its of his chosen candidate, or the merits of the measures he would advocate, with at least decent success. When a cause becomes wholly indefensible, even Conservatives reluctantly abandon it. They cannot stand the ridicule,—the force of logic and scorn combined,—to wbich they are otherwise exposed. And hence the Conservatism of the day cannot be wholly lethargic; it is obliged to furnish itself with adequate grounds of self-justification, and to abandon abuses when they become flagrant. All this would be changed by the adoption of secret voting. On this point, again, let Mr. John Stuart Mill be heard. It is a very superficial view of the utility of public opinion, to suppose that it does good only when it succeeds in enforcing a servile conformity to itself. To be under the eyes of others, to have to defend oneself to o,hers,-is never more important than to those who act in opposition to the opinions of others, for it obliges them to have sure ground of their own. Nothing has so steadying an influence as working against pressure. Unless when under the tem- porary sway of passionate excitement, no one will do that which he expects to be greatly blamed for, unless from a preconceived and fixed purpose of his own, which is always evidence of a thoughtful and deliberate character, and, except in radically bad men, generally proceeds from sincere and strong personal convictions. Even the bare fact of having to give an account of their conduct is a powerful inducement to adhere to conduct of which at least some decent account can be given." Whether, then, to Conservatives or to Liberals, we believe the ballot would be deeply pernicious,—to Conser- vatives by directly fostering the worst kind of dead selfish Conservatism,—to Liberals, by destroying entirely that free play of public opinion, and frequent reference to it, which prevent private and selfish motives from operating unduly on individual character. Everything in the discussion of Tuesday night has tended to confirm this conviction. Mr. Berkeley's assertion that In America the voting was open if a man chose, or he could vote secretly if he pleased but he declared in the name of those who acted with him, that no ballot would be of use in this country which was not entirely secret," will confirm all true Liberals, as Lord Palmerston well said in his manly and able speech, in their rooted dislike to this illiberal innova- tion, Disguise in all its forms, says Mr. Mill, "is a badge of slavery." And though we heartily admit that no one will scan nicely the means by which slaves effect their emancipation," we are quite sure that the many remaining serfs of political tyranny in England would not have any chance of achieving their freedom by the ballot; and that if they could, they would only pass from a less galling into a more galling slavery,—from that, namely, which was a guilt and disgrace to their masters and superiors, to that which would be a guilt and disgrace to themsel ves,-EeononHsr

THE ITALIAN QUESTION. L 'T11 The Italian question has two pnastt.. mere is the ques- tion of foreign influence, and that of internal reform. The first has become a European danger, and must therefore engage the attention of the great Powers; the second had infinitely better be left to the Italians themselves. Let the Congress meet without delay, and let Austria, France, and Sardinia simply eng3ge-the two first Powers to withdraw all troops, the last to send none south of the Po. Let the engagement to withdraw be solemnly guarded by the further engagement never to send them back. This is the one necessary basis-the single and simple principle for the Congress to establish. It might be settled in one, at most in two sittings. Why, then, should the question be complicated f Why must the Congress undertake the never-ending, still-beginning labour of framing Reform Bills for the separate Italian States? It would be an impossible, an utterly endless task. Whether Rome is to have a constitution or a consul ta- whether Naples and Tuscany shall re-establish the constitution of 1818-what administrative reforms are required at Modena and Parma; all these questions must be left to the inhabitants of these separate States to deal with as they think fit. What the Congress can and ought to effect at once is the removal of that obstacle by which reforms are impeded. They complain of the foreigner's presence. Let him withdraw, States hitherto independent and sovereign but in name will at once become so in fact. The Great Powers may give them the friendly counsel to employ aright their independence, but with this counsel their interference should begin and end. This is the plain, practical common sense view of the question. We regret to say that we recognise neither plainness, practicability, nor common sense in all this bother about disarmaments. This is simply putting the cart before the horse; and when so long-headed a states- man as Count Buol does so, the uatural presumption is that he does not intend to move at all. Russia only gave ut- terance to the rational view of the affair in the remark that disarmaments commonly happen as the consequence, not as the causes, of a Congress. A disarmament is the logical sequence of an amicable arrangement; let the arrangement be made without delay, and the disarma- ment will follow. To discuss the time, terms, and pro- portions of a disarmament before the arrangement is the sure way to retard, perhaps wholly to impede, its realisation. We are greatly mistaken if the solution at which we have hinted be not the only one compatible both with the interests of Italy and the peace of Europe. Wt, are sure that it is the only one compatible with the dignity of Eng- land. We cannot be parties to any violation of the faith of treaties. But within these treaties Italy must belong to the Italians. It is most important for the character of our people in the eyes of Europe that this eveuing's opportunity should not be lost-that by the voices of independent members, as well as of our party chiefs, England should emphatically declare that her policy, whilst a policy of peace, is far removed from being a policy of indifference. Our Tuscan correspondent refers to the impression that has sprung up in Italy of our deplomatic efforts leaning too much to the side of Austria. Austria herself, doubtless, has done all in her power to encourage such a belief. It has received but too much colour from the indecision of L-ird Malmesbury, and it has not been so thoroughly dis- credited as it otherwise might have been by those frank expressions of national opinion which other countries naturally expect to hear from the representatives of the British people The reasons of this reserve have been obvious. In hitherto leaving to Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell the task of eliciting from government the necessary informa- tion on the Italian question, the House of Commons has felt that statesmen who had already wielded, and might a;tain wield, the power of England, would beware of hazarding by a single heedless word the slightest chance of peace. B-il. the severe self-restraint in this discretion of the British Senate must not be misunderstood. Parlia- ment is a High Council of the Crown as well as a Repre- sentatives Assembly of the People it would abdicate the function required from it in either character shonld it separate without giving a distinct utterance to its views on the course of policy which the Ministers of the Crown are bound to pursue, and which- the people, whom Parliament represents, will alone aprrove of. There is the greater need that this utterance be most distinctly and emphatically made, as our present posi- tion of mediator possesses, in many respects, a most in. vidious character. Our own national interests—the interests of our commerce-point already to peace. The English statesman, of whatever party, who should neglect the promotion of these interests, would be guilty of a gross betrayal of his trust. The Italian people at the present moment hope in war, and in war alone, for the security of civil liberty and the acquisition of national independence. It is quite possible, nay, it is extremely probabic, that these expectations might not be realised-that neither freedom nor independence might come forth from a European conflict. It is quite possible, nay, highly pro- bable, that a pacific settlement of Italy would, if heartily and honestly realised, effect greater benefits than could be carved out by the sword. But there must be no mis- take as to our determination to secure for Italy those blessings by means of peace, whilst questioning the ex- pediency of contending for them by means of war. Still less must there exist even the shadow of a shade of doubt [qu suspicion] that in our desire to secure peace we are willing to sacrifice Italian interests to our own.— Morning Post. PUBLIC REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.—The accounts for the financial year ending the 31st of March were issued on Monday, accompanied by the usual statement as to augmentation or reduction of the public debt. Omitting shillings and pence, the total expenditure for the year has been £ 64,663,882, and the total income £ 65,477,284, showing a favourable balance of £ 813,401. Examining, in the first place, the different items of expenditure, we find that the interest, management, and so forth of the National Debt absorbs, E28,527,483 the supply services," the army and navy that is, together with mis- cellaneous civil services, £ 34,195,743; while the charges on the consolidated fund amount to £ 1,940,655. Examin- ing these sums more minutely we find that the interest and management of the debt has cost E23,539,886, the remainder of the 28 millions being devoted to the pay- ment for unclaimed dividends, the interest on Exchequer bonds and bills, and terminable annuities, these last requiring E3,972,732 for their liquidation. The army, including militia, commissariat and ordnance, has cost E12,512 290 the navy, including packet service, £9,215,487; miscellaneous civil services, E7,169,47 3 and the salaries of Revenue Department E4,515,968, while two separate items are made of the war expenses in China and in Russia—the first being E391,943, the second £ 390,580. The Courts of Justice make the heaviest charge on the consolidated fund, F.697,064 namely, while the civil list charges amount to E403,225, annuities and pensions come to £ 343,761, and diplomatic salaries and pensions to £ 161,313. On the other side of the sheet we have, first, 1:24,117,943 as the revenue derived from Customs, and £ 17,902,000 as that coming from Excise. Stamps produce ES,005,769, land and assessed taxes L:3,162,000, property tax E6,683,586, Post Office L3,200,000, and Crown lands 1:280,040. A variety of sources of income, such as the sale of old stores, unclaimed dividends, money received from the revenue of India for retired pay, pensions, &c., set down under the one heading of miscellaneous," pro- duce £ 2,125,943. The balances in the Exchequer, which were at the close of the preceding financial year, L6,6,57,802, are now £ 7,789,082. The repayments on account of old advances for the purchase of bullion for public works exceed new advances for the same service by £382,948. The two millions raised by Exchequer Bonds, series E and F, exactly balance a similar sum issued to the Bank of England for the redemption of Exchequer Bonds, series A wtiile another two millions has been applied to the purchase of Exchequer Bonds, and E30,968 to the purchase of funded debt.

RAILWAY TIME TABLE. FOR APRIL, 1859. LLANELLY, LLANDILO, LLANDOVERY, AND CWMAMMAN RAILWAY. UP TRAINS, 1,2,31 1,2,3 1,2,3 up TRAINS. Class Otass Class Starting from A.M. P.M. P. M. Llanelly (S. W. R. St.) 8 40 1 45 5 0 Dock 8 45 1 50 5 4 Bynea 8 50 1 55 5 12 Llangennech 8 55 2 0 5 18 Pontardulais 9 5 2 10 5 25 Garnant.. departure. 8 50 5 10 Cross Inn 910 5 35 Cross Inn arrival 100 5 50 Garnant. „ .10 25 .6 15 Llandebie 9 30 2 35 5 50 Derwydd Road 9 40 2 45 5 55 Fairfach 9 50 2 55 6 5 Llandilo 9 55 3 0 6 10 Glanrhyd. 10 5 3 10 620 Llangadock 10 10 3 15 6 25 Lampeter Road 10 15 3 20 6 30 Llandovery 10 25 3 30 6 40 1,2,31 1,2,3 1,2,3 DOWN TRAINS. Class Class Class Starting from A.M. P.M. P-M. Llandovery. 8 55 2 40 6 40 Lampeter Road. 9 5 2 50 6 50 Llangadock 9 10 2 55 6 55 Glanrhyd 915 3 0 7 0 Llandilo. 925 3 5 710 Fairfach 9 30 3 10 7 15 Derwydd Road 9 40 3 20 7 25 Llandebie 945 3 30 7 30 Garnant .departure. 8 50 7 0 Cross Inn 910 7 25 Cross Inn arrival 10 0 7 40 Garnant 10 25 8 5 Pontardulais.10 15 3 55 7 55 Llangennech 10 22 4 2 8 2 Bynea 10 28 4 8 8 8 Dock .10 36 4 16 8 16 Llanelly (S. W. R. St.) 10 40 4 20 8 20 Garnant Passengers wlil be set down or taken up at Gellyceidrim or Cross Keys, if required. Cross Inn Passengers by Middle-day Trains will in like manner be set down or taken up at Pantyffynon. The Trains will stop at Llangennech, Derwydd Road, and Glanrhyd by Signal only; Passengers wishing to alight must give notice to the Guard at the next Station ot their intention.

f TAFF VALE RAILWAY. 'UP. WEEK DA:YS. SUNDAYS. Mail. I' Starting from ^lJl, 2,31, 2,31, 2, 3 1, 2,3 1, 2,3  a.m. p.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. Cardiff Docks 9 15 240 845345 Cardiff 9 30 2 55 6 io 9 0 1 4 0 LIaadaff. 9 39 3 4 639 9 949 Pentyrch .1947 3 12 647 9 17 4 17 Taff's Well. 9 52 3 17 6 52 9 22 4 22- Treforest !103 3 28 7 4 9 33 4 33 Newbridge 10 8 3 33 7 9 9 38 4 38 Aberdare Junction. ,110 19 3 43 7 20 9 48 4 48 Quaker's Yard Junction 10 32 3 56 7 35 10 1 5 1 for N. A. & H. Railway. Troedyrhiew 10 43 4 7 747 10 12 5 12 Merthyr 10 50 4 15 7 55 10 20 5 20 Aberdare Junction .10 22 3 46 7 24 9 51 4 51 Mountain Ash ilO 35 3 59 7 37 10 4 5 4 Tream?n 10 43 4 7 7 4o 10 12 5 12 Aberdare .1047 4 11 7 49 10 16 5 16 DOWN. WEEK DAYS. SUNDAYS, j Starting from 11 2 qi Mail. I )'bii 1 2 3iMail 11, 2, 1, 2, 31, 2, 3 1, 2, 3. 1,2,3? a.m. p.m. p.m. 8.m, p,m. Merthyr 8 20 1 45 6 30 9 0 4 0 Troedyrhiew 8 28 1 53 6 38 9 8 4 8 uikor's Yard Jutct ion 8 39 2 4 6 50 9 19 4 19 for N. A. & H. Railway. Aberdare Junction 8 52 2 17 7 5 9 32 4 32 Newbridge 9 2 2 27 7 16 9 42 4 42 Treforest 9 7 2 32 7 21 9 47 4 47 Tail"s Well 9 18 2 43 7 33 9 58 4 58 Pentyrch .923 2 48 738 10 3 5 3 Llandaff I 9 31 2 56 746 10 11 5 11 Cardiff 9 40 3 5 7 55 10 20 0 20 Cardiff Doelis 9 50 3 15 10 30 Aberda 8221147 635 9 2 4 2 Treaman 8 26 1 51 6 39 9 6 4 6 Mountain Ash 8 34 1 59 6 47 9 14 4 f.14 Aberdare J unction 8 41 2 12 7 0 9 27 1 4 27

RAILWAY TIME TABLB, FOR APRIL, 1859. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. 1 The Mail Trains run the same on Sundays a8 fir days. DOWN TRAINS. WEEK DAYS, Starting MaU 1,2,3 1 2 3|L Sts 1 & a 1 2 3 1& from 1 & 2 class class j class Expi. lelass class P. ma.m.! a.m. a.m '? a.ma.ra?' Paddngton"l 8.1 6.10 9.30 7.15 11.30 Reading 9.15 j 7.15 10.20! 9.1012.37? Swindon ..ar:10.35 9.5 11.25 11.15 1.55 J°', Swindon .10,47 1 9.20 11.40—— 2,30 GLo'ster ..ar 12.15 11.0 11.0 4.10  Glo'ster..?!2.15 6.4.5?1.10! 1.5 4.20 fl Newnham. 2.38 7.1711.40 4^50 Gatcombe 7: 2 7?11:.50 45..10 Lydney 2 56 7.37 11.58 5 10 Chepstow 3.12 7.55 12.17 1.55 5:33 Portskewet 8.7 12.27 5.44 .Nia-or 8.17 ? 12.37 5? Newport ..ar 8.35112.5-5 2.20 6.15 Newport ..?3.40 8.401.0 I 2,301 16.9 Marshneld 8.49 1.10 6.34 Cardiff 9:5 1.252.46 650? Ely 9 10130 6.55 'I St. Fagans 9.15 1.35 7.0 'J Peterston 9.221 1.42 7.8 $ Llantrissant.. 4,27 9.34 ,5 '7?'J Pencoed 9.52 2,12 7361 .'J Bridgend. 4.46 10.0 2.22 3,15 7 tin Pyle 10.15 2.37 8.4 Port Talbot.. 5.12 10,29? 2.51 3.33 8.2o? Briton Ferry 10.37?2.59 g?o! i1 Neath .ar 5.23 10.44? 3.4 3.41 8?') Ditto de 5.25 10.47? 3.8 3.45 8,401 Llansamlet. 11.1 3.18 8 51 Landore 11.13 3.26 4.5 9.2 .{! Swansea..?5.50 11.23 3.35 4.15 9.12/ a.m. —— I( Ditto.<? 5,55 8.0 11.0 f 3.45 8.50 Landore 8.10 11.18 4.8 9,7 Gower Rd 8.22 11.33 4.28 9,27 Loughor 8.17 11 394.331 932 ?LlaneUy.6.25 8.3 11.481, S 4.43\ 9?' 84? 11  Pembrey ? 8.4511.58 -? 4.53 9? Kid wely 6.45 8,57 12.7 'I 5.5 110,6:: Ferryside 6.58 9.7 12.19? 5 161 10.18 Carmarthen.. 7.15,9.20 12.34 -a :311 )l0.? St. Clears. 7.28 12,00 g< 5.49 )- Whitland. 7.40-? 1.6 6.4 Narberth Rd. 7.5a ? 1.21 '? 6.19 Clarb. Rd. 8.15 ? 1.35? 6.35 Haverfordwest 8.30 (cL 1.46 £ 6,501 Johnston (for eo Milford) 8.45 2. 2.2 7.5 N ey land (for j 5 Pater S.55' 2.15 7.20? The Waterford Steamers leave Neyland for Waterford 8.0 p.m., on the arrival of the 9.30 a.m. Express. -1-1 UP TRAINS. WEEK DAYS, Y ——————————————————————————  Starting 1, 2, 3 1,2,3 1 & ?& 2, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Malir1 <'yi: from class, class Clas2_¡i- claM I & *y a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m.lpoi. a.m. p.n1, Neyland 8.30 "| 5* 10.40 4.7 Y Johnston. 8.45 I 10,55 4.2?? Haverfordwest 8.55 ? ? 11.5 4.32 Clarb. Rd. 9.7 11:20 4.47 Narberth Rd. 9.20 f 11.38 5,2 t Whitland g.35| w| 11.50 5,7 f St. Clears. 9.50 t 3. 12.3 5.'? A Carmarthen. 6.30 10.5jP12.23 5.? << Frryside 6.4510.20 12.38 6.6 tf Kidwelly 6.57' .10.32 12,50 6.20.). Pembrey 7.9 10.44 1.3 A Llanelly 7.20,10.55 1.146.40? Loughor 7.29; 11.4 1.23  Gower Rd 7.35!n.l0 1.28 o,1 Landore 7.5511.30 1.45 A Swansea..? 8.5 11.40 2.0 7.?Y Exp. 1 & 2 Ditto de 7.50!ll.23 10.20 1.40 7.16 Landore 7.58jll.33 10.30 m ^50 Hansamlet. 8.6 ..)10.38 ? IM Neath.? 8.1511.48!l0.46 S. 2.7 7:3l' Ditto de 8.20111.50 10.48 g 2.10 7.33 Briton Ferry 8.27 10,54 »» 2.17 Port Talbot. 8.38 i?.i 11.2 ? 2.27 7.45 Pyle. 8.57 11 L702.40 Bridgend 9.16 12.23 11:32 3.58 Pencoed 9.26 11.40 g? 3.16 Llantrissant 9.40 12.0 03.32 i.,21 St. Fagans. 10,0 12.24 ? 3,49.. Ely 10.6 12.31 & 3.55 Cardiff '7.0 10.13 12.54 12.38 5' 4.2 8.48:, Marshfield 7.1210.28i 12.50 ? 4.17 Newport ..? 7.2710.45 1.16 1.5 r a 4.34 Newport ..? 7.32 10.50 1 20 1.25 g 4.39 9.1?  Magor 7.47 11.8 1.35 p. 4.58 I Portskewet 7.671. 1.57 ? 5.10 ..? ? I Port,kewet 78..58 7  11.27 i.?6 2 .9 6.23 Chepstow. 8,8 11,27 1.46 2,9 g. 5.23 Woolaston 8.18 2.19 o' 5.33 ,« Lidney 8.26 11.44 2.29 3 5.43 10.0 Newnham 8.50 12.0 2.47 g' 6.5 10.? Glo'ster. ar 9.1512.30 2.37 3.15 ? 6.40 10:47 1&2 01 & 2 GIo'ster ..? 9.45 12.40 2.42 3.32 ? 65512-40 Swindon ..ar 11.18 2.20 4.0 5.15 4 8.26 2.? 5' 1 windon ..?e 11,30 2.40 4.15 5.30 §* 835 2 ( Reading 1.0 4.0 7.25 .= 9.53 3:361 Paddington.. 2,25 60 60 9,0 J ii?o 4.4?? The 8.30 a.m. train is thro' 3rd class from Ire? S.W.R. to O.W.R. SUNDAYS. DOWN TRAINS, SUNDAIS. upTBA  tart from 12,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 Startg. from 1,2,3 1?'? -1- -I ø' a. m. a. m. a. m a. m. a. Paddington 8.0 land 9.ib Reading 9.40 Johnston 9. 61'" Swindon.? 11.50 H. West 9A*> Ditto..? 1.5 Narb. R.ad? :?10-20 Glo'ster ar 2.45 Whitland 10-36 Ditto..? 3.0 8,30 St. Clears., 10.50 U()< N ewnham. 3.25 8.58 Carmarthen ill'^O tl! 'U? J, Lydney 3.48 9.21 Ferryside.111.47 6}¡ Chepstow 4.15 9.48 Kidwelly .111,4 it' Magor 4.35 10.8 Pembrey (1*2.0 Newport ar 5:0 UinieUy. Newport de 7 38? 5.5 10. 37 L&ndore 112.45 A Cardiff 8:3 1 5.29 11.2 Swansea? .l2.? Dantrissant 8.331 5.55 Ditto de 8.30? i.lo A Bridgend 8,581 6.28 Landore 8:35, 1.18 Port Talbot 9.27 6.56 Neath ..?r 853 1.? ? Nea.th..? 9.40 7.12 Ditto ..de 1:30 1,; 1 A* al: Ditto d e 9.50 7.17 9.15 Port Talbot 1.? 6.J? Landore 10.10 7 42 9,35lBridgend.1 2.12 9.1 Swansea ar 10.15 7:47 9.40 Llantrissant a mt 2? 0.? Ditto ..de 10.20 7.52 Cardiff li. 15! 3.0 ,? Landore ..10.30 7,671"" Newport ar 3?? Llanelly 10.55 8.241 .I Ditto ..?11.49 3.? Pembrey..H.5 8.33 Magor 12.6 j 3.?. Kidwelly ..?11.17 8.44 Chepstow.. 12.29 4-10 Perryside ..111.27 8.54 Lydney. 12.49 4 28 Carmarthen 111.42 9.9 Newnham.. 1.9 St. Clears.. 9.29 Glo'ster ar ? 1.9 4:48 Whitland I. 9.46 Ditto de1,38? 520 S'r Narb. Rd. 10.0 Swindoc.? 7.2° I r. 7.? t li. West 10.34 Ditto ..d, 7:20 Johnston 10.50 Reading Neyland ..? 11.0 Paddingtonlu1.

VALE OF NEATH RAILWAY. UP TRAINS WEEK DAYS. SO?? ——  1 .j Starting rom 123123?123123123? Starting S From Classjdass Class Class Cta?  SOUTH WALES A.M J P.M. P,M./ P.M. A.? ?'?  Swansea l e .dep. 7 50 I 40 7 15 830 i7f Llansamlet 8 61 1 58 84-3?? Neath .arr. 8 1512 7 7 31 853 I 61 VALE OF NEATH. ) 10 Neath dep. 8 30?2 16 7 45 9 00 Alerdylais ? 8 352 20 7509??'' Resolven 8 47 2 30 8 0 915 Glyn-Neath ,¡' 8 572 38 8 8 9 23 a Hirwain .arr, 9 17 2 58 2 43 8 Hirwaind. for Aberdare 9 23) 3 5 6 30 8 35 950 916 Aberdare Arrival 9 35 3 15 6 45 8 45 10 0 9 I Hirwaind. for Merthyr 9 20 3 51 ? 8 31 9 ? 9 < 'Uwydcoed 927 3 8 8 38 9?? jjerthyr Arrival 950i330? 9 0101??? ,I,lertliyr Arrival 9 DOWN TRAINS. WEEK DATS. SO??'? 1 3 3 1 2 3ll 2 311 2 3 C 3 Starting '?   -1- f !l VALB OF NEATH. A.M.? P.M. PM! PM 'A.)". ? Merthyr .KEA..dep. 8 551 50?6 0 ?. 830  1 Llwydcoed 9 12 2 7 6 17 8 47 ? 1? Hirwain arr. 9 182 13?,623 853 665165 Aberdare Departure ..I 9 0 11 55' 6 5 8 10 8 3? 6 6 Hirwain Arrival 9 13| 2 8.618823848 ?? Hmvam dep. 9 2112 I5i 6 25 855 634 Glyn-Neath 9 41 2 34: 6 44 9 U Resolv 'en 9 51 2 43j 6 53 9 23 aji Aberdylais 10 5 2 55 7 5 9?!; 9 Neath arr. 10 10 3 55 7 5? 9j. 6 Neath arr. 10 103 O? 7 10 940  Neath dep. 10 47j 3 8 7 37 950? Llansamlet | 1 Swansea arr• H 23i 3 35 8 5? lo 1,517

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ORDERS ftFCll;i BY THE fûLLOW[G AG TS LONDON. Mr. White, 33 Fleet-Street; Ma?rs. ??? and Co., Warwick-square Mr. U?con, 1.51 fl,i"e' d.01 hall-tree; W. Dawson and ?un, 74, Cannoa-i*t*°0C i Mr. C. Mitchell, Red Lion Court, Fleet-street, ??K< Hammond and ?ephH.v, 27, L "abetrd-?treet; Mr- C? is* Everett, Old Uru?d Street, London. b lais PAPER M iiEGLJLAKLY FILKU by ?11 the 0yfl agents, and ?so at Peers-Colfee-House, XO- 11 Fleet-Street.  "bo, Printed and Published in Red Lion Yard, in the Parish0i St. Peterin the Cou.it/ of the Borough of (;.rm.r?' lo.U by the Proprietor, Jm.?fK d.Ea?-tHUi.'f??, of Picto? rra.<i, in Carmarthen aforesaid. FIUJMY, AfRUi 22, lSó9'