Ither5 nub Vrombings in Varttranrut.

PRINCIPAL BOSINESS OF THE WEEK.

nom OF Loans. Monday' February 28. The State of Europe ; Lord Claren- don's Question—Debtor and Creditor ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, March 1. Vexatious Indictments : Lord Campbell's Bill read a second lime.

Thursday, March 3. No business of importance.

Friday, March 4. Royal Academy ; Question by Lord Lyndhurst.

Moose or Commons. Monday, February 28. Parliamentary Reform ; Mr. Dis- raeli's Bill read a first time—Title to Landed Estates Bill read a second time—Re- gistry of Landed Estates Bill read a second time pro forma. Tuesday, March 1. Ministerial changes ; Explanations by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley—Shipping Grievances ; Mr. Lindsay's Motion—Endowed Schools; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill read a first time.—Petitions of Bight; Mr. Bovill's Bill read a first time.

Wednesday, March 2, Real Estate Intestacy; Mr. Locke King's Bill thrown out—Conveyance of Voters ; Mr. Collier's Bill read a second time—Recreation Ground Bill read a second time.

Thursday, March 3. Admission of Jews ; Mr. T. Duncombe's Motion—Timber Duties ; Mr. Mitchell's Motion—The West Indies ; Mr. Buxton's Motion—Scotch Liquor Trade ; Lord Melgund's Motion—Marriage Law Amendment; Lord Bury's Bill read a third time and passed—Manor Courts (Ireland) Bill committed. Friday, March 4. Supply; Army Estimates.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

The orders of the day were suspended on Monday evening in order that Mr. Disraeli might move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Re- presentation of the People in England and Wales. The House was very full ; the galleries were crowded with "strangers," and there were a number of peers and other privileged persons below the bar. Mr. Disiumm began by enlarging on the importance of the question— more important than that of peace or war—and the difficulties that beset it—Efficulties mitigated by the absence of passion and the advantage of experience." The tribunal to which he Appealed is as impartial " as is compatible with a popular form of sOyerimient." There is a general wish to settle the question, and the Government offer a solution not based "upon any mean concession or temporary compromise," but consistent with the spirit and principles of the constitution. They are in a far more favourable position than those who in 1832 so ably dealt with the ques- tion, and introduced a measure equal to the emergency it controlled and directed. Without attributing to the legislation of 1832 every measure of public benefit that has since been passed, it may be said that it has added greatly to the energy and public spirit in which we had then be- come somewhat deficient. But the transactions of that time were eminently experimental, and hence it is not to be wondered at that some errors were committed. Still our progress since 1832 has not only been rapid, but perhaps precipitate ; and there is no instance in history of such an increase of population and accumulation of capital as those which have taken place in England since 1832. Hence Parliamentary re- form has become successively a public question, a Parliamentary question, and a Ministerial question. It is ten years since Lord john Russell de- clared that some alteration ought to be made in the settlement of 1832. Successive Ministers, Lord John Russell in 1852, and Lord Aberdeen in 1854, counselled her Majesty to announce from the throne a measure

of PaxlielettfllT.RefCM: " Another 'citatesraan, who may well be corn- _

pared with the two distinguished men who preceded him, a statesman re- nowned not only for his ability, but his great experience, and whose political prejudices—if he has any—(laughter and cheer8)—I will say, then, that superior to prejudices, he was considered a statesman who had no morbid sympathy with advanced opinions." (Renewed cheers and laughter.) That noble lord also counselled his sovereign to inform Parliament that their attention would be called to the laws which regulate the representation of the people. Nor was the House reluctant to deal with the question. What under these circumstances was Lord Derby's duty ? It might have been practicable by evasion to stave off the solution of the question. But was it to be left in abeyance—as a means of reorganizing an Opposition, as a desperate resource of faction ? He could not think that a course free from danger or honourable to any public man. Lord Derby's Cabinet were unanimous in thinking the question should be dealt within a sincere and earnest spirit. Nor was there anything in the antecedents or position of the Premier—Lord Grey summoned his to his Cabinet in 1832—to preclude him from deal- ing with the question. In 1854 the Conservatives declared their wil- lingness to consider any measure that might be introduced by Lord Aberdeen. Hence Mr. Disraeli could not understand the justness of the taunts so "freely used against our undertaking" the task which no Conservative ought to shrink from. After this exordium Mr. Disraeli proceeded to describe the two classes of Parliamentary reformers—those who would act in the spirit of the constitu- tion ; and a new school who are of opinion that the chief, if not the sole ob- ject of representation is to realize the opinion of the numerical majority. They admit with a murmur that property should be considered, but say that property and population go together : they do—in statistics, but in nothing else. "The function of the House is to represent something more than pro- perty and population ; it ought to represent all the interests of the country." Interests are local, and representation must be scattered. The metropolis and Scotland are about equal inpopulation' but unequal in wealth. The metropolis pays income-tax upon 44,000,0001. ; Scotland upon 33,000,0001. ; yet who would say that Scotland would be adequately represented by the same number of members as represent the metropolis ? Again the wealth of the city of London exceeds that of twenty-five counties returning 40 mem- bers; and 140 boroughs returning 232 members. The city of London is richer than Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham put together. Yet the citizens of London do not ask for more members. The power and influence of these great towns are not to be measurtd by the number of mems bers they send to Parliament. There are three score members who take more interest in Manchester than its authoritative representa- tives. The sixteen members for the metropolis do not represent its in- fluence in the House. So much for the fallacious principle of property and population combined. Besides none of the principles of the new school apply except in cases where population is concentrated. Here Mr. Disraeli cited the statistics he employed in 1852 as an answer to Mr. Hume, show- ing that the larger, the county population, returns 150 members, while the smaller, borough population returns 330. If, therefore, the False principle of population be taken as a basis the boroughs must be disfranchised, and the members given to the counties ; the House would be composed of great landowners and manufacturers, but it would not represent the various in- terests of England. "You want in this House every element that obtains the respect and engages the interest of the country. You must have lineage and great territorial property ; you must have manufacturing enterprise of the highest character and commercial weight ; you must have professionial ability in all its forms; but you want something more,—you want a body of men not too intimately connected either with agriculture, or with manu- factures, or with commerce—not too much wedded to professional thought and professional habits—you want a body of men representing the vast va- riety of the English character—men who would arbitrate between the claims of those great predominant interests—men who would temper the acerbity of those huge conflicting interests. You want a body of men to represent that immense portion of the community who cannot be ranked under any of those striking and powerful classes to which I have referred, but who are in their ag- gregate equally important and valuable, and perhaps as numerous." (Cheers.) This object has been effected by the borough system, and before we subvert it we are bound to substitute equally effective machinery. Now the new school offer no substitute. They lay down their principle, and carry it to its consequences ; but the consequences would be that the House would lose its hold on the Executive. [Mr. BRIGHT—" Why ? "1 " Why ? asks an honourable Member. Because the experiment has been tried in every country, and the same result has occurred ; because it is not in the power of one or two classes to give that variety of character and acquirement by which the administration of this country can be carried on." (Cheers.) We should fall back to the bureaucratic system and the House of Commons, after all its reform and reconstruction, would find itself in the same compa- ratively ignominious position from which the spirit and energy of the old English gentry emancipated it more than two centuries ago. Mr. Disraeli next touched on the franchise. He has always been biassed in favour of a rating suffrage ; but on examining the question in detail he found there were insurmountable difficulties to making the rate-book the register. Not only must you trust the overseer, but you would double the franchise in some towns and disfranchise one half the existing constituency, in others. The ten-pound franchise has been severely assailed—describe-4 as monotonous, and said to be founded on no principle. But it is not mos•1

notonous. Every man who votes under a ten-pound qualification does not live in a ten-pound house. All orders of men vote under that qualification, the most affluent and the most humble. Therefore it secures a great va- riety of interests. The argument that it is not founded on principle is cavil, and is good against all tests. But there are many persons who do not live in ten-pound houses capable of exercising the suffrage. Should it be extended to them by the coarse expedient of " lowering the franchise " ? why that would give a nonotonous constituency, and hand us over to a pre- dominating household democracy. The proper mode is to vary the elements

, of the borough constituencies and introduce new franchises. This the Go- vernment propose to do. In the first place to extend the suffrage to holders of personal property—Consols, Bank Stock, bonds—to the amount of 101. ; next to give the vote to every man who has 601. for a year in a savings' bank ; to confer the suffrage upon public pensioners ; upon lodgers who pay 88. a week or 201. a year ; upon graduates of all universities, clergymen and ministers of all denominations, members of the legal profession and of the medical body, and schoolmasters who have certificates from the Committee of Council. With regard to the county franchise, Mr. Disraeli proposes to lower it to 101. occupancy. The old distinction between property and occu- pancy franchise was destroyed in 1832 by the introduction of the Chandos clause giving a vote to 501. tenants at will. This led to dissatisfaction and occasioned great bitterness. It was said that commercial changes were pre- vented chiefly by this 501. tenancy clause. But the voters under this clause never exceeded one-fifth of the constituency ; the proprietors of the soil hold all opinions ; and the voters must have been equally divided. Still dissatisfaction was felt, and a manufacture of forty shilling freehold votes began, and has gone on until the number of county voters who do not dwell in the counties exceeds those who vote under the 501. clause; and thus members are elected, not by the dwellers in the county, but by voters who pour out of large towns. That is a state of affairs much to be deprecated. A man should vote where he resides. Where then are the means of restoring the county con- stituency to its natural state. Her Majesty's Government fixed a means in re- cognizing the identity of suffrage between county and town. Thus a man will vote in the place where he resides, and the forty-shilling freeholder will have a right to vote in the town where he resides, and thus the freeholders of the town will be transferred from the county to the town. This will require other measures. Since 1832 an extra-mural population has grown up who, for Parliamentary purposes, are pariahs, but who ought to be borough electors. Hence Government propose to empower the Inclosure Com- missioners to rearrange the boundaries of all the boroughs in England. They will appoint deputy Commissioners who will report to the Home Se- cretary ; he will embody those reports in a bill, " and that bill will be sub- jected to criticism in this House. After that no one can for a moment sus- pect there will be any opportunity for making arrangements favourable to any party." By lowering the county franchise to 101., it is estimated that 200,000 voters will be added to the constituency. "If the measure we re- commend be adopted, you will have a great homogeneous constituency, with a great variety of character, for variety in the franchise is perfectly con- sistent with the identity of the suffrage ; you will have a great homogeneous body, between the different sections of which there will no longer exist feelings of dissatisfaction and distrust. The elector will elect a man of the community in which he lives, and he will exercise the right under the high sense of duty that influences Englishmen in performing it. I have always thought the idea of a constituency in England should be this—it should be numerous enough to be independent, and select enough to be responsible —and that is the constituency her Majesty's Ministers believe will be formed by the measure I propose to the House tonight."

Registration. The registry is to be self-acting. In every parish the overseer will make out a list of owners as well as occupiers, and any one not included can claim to have his name inserted. How is the elector to vote ? It is proposed that every parish or group of parishes containing 200 voters shall have a polling place, erected at the cost of the county. Every elector may vote personally, or by means of "polling papers." This will render the expression of public opinion more complete. Thesepapers are used in the election of Poor Law Guardians and 90 per cent of the constituency votes ; but only 60 per cent of the Parliamentary constituency records its vote.

" But it may be said, voting by polling papers may lead to personation ; as if there was no personation nowt! In the history of man there never was any improvement proposed which the interests and passions of seine would not distort ; we believe the electors can vote by polling papers without per- sonation, and in an honest and satisfactory manner. Sir, 1 shall always go myself to the hustings, but if a man wishes to vote for his member by a polling paper instead of going to the hustings, I see no objection to his being allowed to do so." Personation will be a misdemeanour. So far with regard to the electoral body. It remained to be seen whether any interests are left unrepresented, and to discover this her Majesty's Min- isters had diligently and even curiously investigated the whole of England. They desired to adapt the scheme of 1832 to the England of 1839, and to offer the country—not a final, but a conclusive settlement. " Finality, sir, is not the language of politics." Ministers sought to discover interests either not represented, or not adequately represented. Both these circumstances are characteristic of the West Riding of Yorkshire and South Lancashire. Therefore the West Riding is to be divided into three divisions—a West Yorkshire, a North-west Yorkshire, and a North Yorkshire—varying in interest and population, but nearly equal in property, and two members given to each. In like manner South Lancashire will be subdivided and two members added. Middlesex will be divided into North and South, the lat- ter including and satisfying the claims of Chelsea, Hammersmith, and Ken- sington. Thus eight members will be added to the county representation. Next there are seven places having distinct interests, not represented. These are Hartlepool, Burnley, Staleybridge, Birkenhead, West Bromwich, and Wednesbury, Croydon, and Gravesend. Now as it is the opinion of the House that its members ought not to be increased, means must be found of representing these new interests. It is sometimes said that some con- stituencies arc ao small it is an indefensible anomaly to permit them to exist. But some small constituencies play an important part. In all those rattling schemes of disfranchisement with which we were favoured during the autumn, all the Utopian meddlers agreed to hunt to death the borough of Arundel. Now there are 900,000 Roman Catholics in this country, and there is one English Roman Catholic mem- ber of Parliament, and he is returned by Arundel. "That is the prac- tical working of our constitution. You talk of the small numbers of the constituency of Arundel. 900,000 Roman Catholics ! Why, it is more than the West Riding of Yorkshire; it is double the Tower Hamlets. (Laughter and Cheers.) Therefore, Sir, we are not to say, because a constituency is small, that is the source from which we must inevitably draw the constitu- tional means of completing the representation of England." By the mea- sure proposed no borough returning one member will be disfranchised. But some arbitrary rule must be fixed on to procure fifteen seats. " In the last census, if you throw your eye over its Parliamentary results, you will find that there are 15 boroughs represented by two members each, and the population of which is under 6000. Only 15 boroughs ? It will be an ad- mirable opportunity for a display of patriotism—(laughter)—an opportunity seldom offered by the circumstances and occasions of society—to the members of those places. (Laughter.) I have no personal feeling on this subject. I do most sincerely and ardently hope that when there is a new Parliament we may all meet again ; but if these 15 boroughs now represented by two members each, though with a population under 6000, would consent, with- out our using force to compel them, to make this concession we should com- plete the representation of the country according to the principles that I believe to be those upon which our representation ought to rest."

Here arose cries of " Name ! Name ! " Mr. Disraeli coquetted with the House ; asked them to consider his feelings ; but as the House insisted ho gave the names. " They are—Honiton, Thetford, Totness, Harwich, Evesham, Wells, Richmond, Marlborough, Leominster, Lymington, Lud-

low, Andover, Knaresborough, Tewkesbury, and Malden." (Cheers and _Laughter.) With a few words in conclusion, in which he described the measure as " wise, prudent, adequate to the occasion, conservative, and framed by men who reverence the past, who are proud of the present, and confident of the future," Mr. Disraeli completed his task, and resumed his seat amid much cheering. Members immediately began to leave the House ; drowning in the bustle and noise they made the speech of Mr. BAXTER, who moved, as an amendment, that the laws relating to the representation of the people in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, should be considered not separately but in one measure. Sir Jolts Ocatvir seconded the amend- meat ; but it found no favour with the House, and was subsequently withdrawn.

A number of Members briefly expressed their opinions. Mr. Joax

Loena said that Mr. Disraeli had dealt with the question as if it affected the counties only. Mr. W. J. Fox objected that the bill did nothing for the working classes. Lord JOHN RUSSELL strongly objected to the dis- franchisement of from 90,000 to 100,000 freeholders who have enjoyed the right of voting four hundred years. " It is a perilous innovation." Lord John had resisted such a proposal in 1832, and had told Lord Grey that if the bill came from the House of Lords with such an amendment, he would risk the fate of the whole bill on its rejection. Then the bill does little or nothing for the working classes. If the bill is to give sa- tisfaction, some hundreds of thousands of working people ought to be admitted to the franchise. Unless you are prepared to make a more effectual change, better make no change at all. Mr. ROEBUCK defined the bill as a change that would lead to a worse state of things. The object of the bill is to enhance the power of the landed gentry. It does not give one iota of power to the working classes. Mr. BRIGHT said a Government representing a party who have always opposed the exten- sion of political power to the people, ought not to have undertaken to settle this question. Nobody asked them to do so. Their party would have preferred that they should not bring in any bill at all. Mr. Bright took exception to a great many points, but especially to the total exclu- sion of the working classes from power.

"The noble lord (Lord John Russell) thinks the measure is not a conser-

vative one; no measure affecting the representation of the people can be conservative that disturbs but does nothing to settle. I am not so anxious about Parliamentary Reform as not to know it matters little whether a mea- sure is carried now or four or five years hence. The country is not bound up with the legislation of any one session or one day. But when a Govern- ment, having the confidence of the Crown, and speaking from that bench, undertakes to meddle with a question of this nature, it should not be a thou- sand times less conservative than those who, the right honourable gentle- man says, have been discussing new schemes of representation throughout the country I do not wish for any violent political discussion or angry controversy, in or out of this House. I had hoped the experience of 1831 and lsn would have induced any Government who undertook to deal with this question to do so on a broad and comprehensive principle. I hoped, from what the right honourable gentleman said, that he was about to do so to- night ; for I did not for a moment believe that the sketch we saw in a cer- tain newspaper—bribed, I presume, into sup porting this miserable Bill by early information—was a fair description of the Government measure. I hoped the right honourable gentleman would have taken the bread out of my mouth by a Bill so broad, complete, and worthy of public support that I could have given it my hearty approval ; and that I should not be forced, as I now shall be, to ask the House for leave to introduce another Bill on the subject on any early day." Mr. HENRY Daummoxn made an attack upon Reform bills in general. Lord PALMERSTON reserved his opinion altogether. Mr. CROSSLEY was very frank.

The Liberal party in that House are badly off for leaders. The noble

lord the member for Tiverton is too backward as a political leader, and the noble lord the Member for London is a bad ecclesiastical leader. They would have been glad if the gentlemen now on the Treasury bench had taken a step in advance. They would have kept them in power till they were prepared with leaders—(great laughter)—till they got leaders in whom the party could have confidence.

After further objections, including a fierce attack upon the Reform

Bill of 1832 from Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. DISRAELI replied to several ques- tions. The Government intend to reserve the forfeited seats for Sudbury and St. Albans. They intend that an elector who may possess a double qualification in a borough shall have only one vote. He remarked that

from above the gangway came modest inquiries, from below tho gang- way opinions. The noble lord the Member for London has not hesitated a moment in

expressing his opinion upon this Bill. He has two objections, which at once decide his course upon the subject. The noble lord had the advantage of being acquainted with the provisions of this Bill before they were de- tailed by me in the House tonight. He must have become acquainted with them through that corrupt agency to which the honourable Member for Birmingham alluded. All I can say with respect to that transaction is I that I witnessed the publication of that information with dismay ; and should have thought that the honourable gentleman and the noble lord would have acquitted me, of all Members of her Majesty's Government, of any combination of that kind ; for anything more suicidal than to consent to that revelation before making the statement which I have had to make, ant which by the indulgence of the House, and almost to my own astonish- ment, I have succeeded in making, I cannot conceive."

He retorted upon Lord John Russell that in his last bill he proposed to

disfranchise all the freemen of England ! Mr. Disraeli insisted that the savings bank deposit and forty shilhng freehold clauses open two avenues to the constituent power to all working men ; and put forward a claim to know the wants and wishes of the working man quite as well as Mr. Bright.

Leave was given to introduce the bill; and it was agreed that the second reading should be fixed for that day three weeks.

THE MLNISTERIAL Ex.rts3rAnoss.

Early on Tuesday evening Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. HENLEY explained to the House the reasons that led them to recede from the Ministry. Mr. WALPOLE said that when a year ago Lord Derby asked him to join his Government he said he wished on public and private grounds to decline. Mr. Walpole doubted whether he could agree with his col- leagues on the Reform Bill they were to propose ; but Lord Derby pressed him in the kindest manner, remarking that the Reform Bill was.a subject for consideration, and the Government was not pledged to any part. To this Mr. Walpole replied, that he would accept office if there were no- thing dishonourable in retiring from office should he not agree with his colleagues on the Reform question. " It was upon these terms I joined the Government." Now he had no difficulty in conjecturing what the principle of the bill would be, since Lord Derby in 1854 had explicitly recognized the distinction between the two great divisions of constituen- cies ; those who represent property, and these who represent occupation and residence. " I do trust," said Lord Derby in 1854, " that the Go- vernment in the measure they are about to introduce, will not attempt to break down this old, well-grounded, and most important distinction." Those were the words of my noble friend in 1854; and I recollected those words when I joined the Government."

At the end of the session the Government had to consider how it should

redeem its pledge. Mr. Walpole's opinions were perfectly well known. "They were known to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in September. They were strongly repeated to my noble friend at the head of the Government towards the close of that month. We had discussions of the question in the November and December following. I never could give up what I believed to be essential to the constitution of this country—viz. the distinction to which I have adverted ; and therefore to the part of the measure which abolishes that distinction I could not con- sent. The Members of this House are not aware, but, without mentioning any Cabinet secret, I may inform them—and in my own justification I ought to inform them—that nothing was settled upon this part of the question until after Christmas; and I was requested to consider the subject as a whole 'before I gave my final decision upon any.portion of it. The Cabinet was to have met on the 10th of January to conaderpo that question. Other business, or other causes, prevented its consideration then ; and it was not until the 25th of January that it came under consideration for final adoption or re- Caction. Previous to that day I informed my right honourable friend the hancellor of the Exchequer of my strong convictions upon this subject. We met; we deliberated upon it. I was in a minority ; and I then felt that I had nothing to do but, with the most cordial desire to support the Ministers in every way that I could, to request Lord Derby to place my resignation in the hands of the Queen. I have in my hand the letter which I wrote to my noble friend, and, as it states the only reasons for which I have retired from office, will the House permit me to read it? It is as follows- . 27th January 1859. My dear Lord—I regret to say that I am about to take the most painful step which I have ever had to take in the whole of my life. I am going to request you to place my resignation in her Majesty's hands, because I find it is utterly impossible for me to sanction or countenance the course of policy which the Government have now determined to adopt on the important subject of Parliamentary reform. When you were so good as to ask me to join your present Administration, I told you I thought that I had better decline. I then foresaw that there were one or two ques- tions with reference to which I might not be able to agree with my colleagues. On being assured, however, that, if that should happen, there would be nothing dis- honourable to you or to them in asking leave to retire, I consented again to bear my part in the arduous task which the tueenwasplea d to invite you stndegake reform cannot hope to come to an agreement with the majority of the Cabinet. The reduc- tion of the county occupation franchise to a level with that which exists in bo- roughs is utterly contrary to every principle which the Conservatives as a party have always maintained. It is a complete destruction of the main distinction which has hitherto been recognized and wisely established between the borough and the ,county constituencies. It is a to my mind a most dangerous innovation by giving to temrary and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over property

po

and intelligence, while it throws large masses into the constituencies, who are al- most exempt from direct taxation, and therefore interested in forcing their repre- sentatives to fix that taxation permanently on others. I will not dwell upon other points, for this is enough. But I cannot help saying that the measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recommend is one which we should all of us have stoutly opposed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ventured to bring it forward. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) Under all these circumstances, I have no other alternative but to repeat the request with which I commenced; and I shall therefore consider myself as only holding the seals of office until you can conveniently fill up my place.'

"That letter was written at a date which requires a word of explanation, in consequence of certain reports that have been circulated in the country relative to the reasons which induced me to remain in the Government after I had tendered my ;resignation. My noble friend at the head of the Go- vernment was pleased to request me, owing to the great difficulties with which we were surrounded—not difficulties merely affecting our domestic policy, but difficulties touching our foreign relations—to withhold the ac-

• tual announcement of my resignation until Parliament had met, because "he was anxious that it should not be prematurely known that Government had to meet Parliament with divided counsels. My answer to my noble friend wa's immediate. I told him that, whatever I might believe it my duty to do, I should always wish to consult him as to the mode in which it .ought to be done; and that if he thought I could assist him in any way at the meeting of Parliament, I would willingly, when that event occurred, appear in my place as one of his Administration, agreeing with my col- 'leagues in their general policy, provided I should be allowed to retire be- fore the Reform Bill was actually announced. It was upon those terms that I have sat upon the Treasury Bench for the last three weeks, [here the right honourable gentleman became so much affected that he could not proceed until he was encouraged to do so by a general cheer,] doing, I hope, my duty to my colleagues, to this House, and to my country • and, it was not until the Reform Bill was announced that I thought 'I was bound to make my resignation known. Indeed, Sir, I might, without any dereliction of duty have delayed for some time longer, because, as one of nip friends was good enough to say to me, I had no right to go out until I knew that the Government had finally adopted the Bill, and would not alter it. ("Hear, hear !" and a laugh.) Such are the only reasons for which I have retired from the Cabinet It has been said, 1 know, that I was proposing in the Cabinet to reduce the borough franchise to 61. How that should be known I cannot tell, but I do know that any information which I have given upon that subject was of the most private and confidential character. (Cheers.) I also know that I never proposed such a measure as that to the Cabinet, hut, on the contrary, told my colleagues—and they well know it—that I was prepared, if they thought they could adopt it, to stand by the 101. value which had been settled by the Reform Act of 1832. I shall not disguise from the House, now that the circumstance has been published to the world, that I think it is desirable you should obtain some resting-places to which the franchise should be limited, and that those resting-places should be adopted as a per- manent settlement of the question. I believe' for reasons to which I shall advert on the second reading of the Bill, that areduction to a 20/. occupancy in counties would have been such a resting-place, and that a reduction in boroughs to a 61. rating, which is equal to an 8/. value, would also have been such a resting-place, because that is the point at which a landlord ceases to be able to compound for his tenant's rates. I advert to this sub- ket only because the circumstance has been made known to the world, but I must deprecate in the strongest manner the publication of private opinions communicated in the Cabinet as the reasons for my resignation, when they were not so ; and I must further say that, if that is the policy upon which we are to act in future, I may be at liberty to reveal any schemes or pro- positions which may have been propounded by any other honourable gentle- man. (Cheers) Never shall I take such a course as that ; and I must re- peat that, whoever may have wished to damage ins by making the state- ment to which I have referred, I am at a loss to understand how it got into the newspapers."

Mr. Walpole expressed his approval of the general policy of the Govern-

ment, offered his support as an independent Member, hoped he had never wounded the feelings of any honourable gentleman during his tenure of office, and that he had done what he bad endeavoured to do, his duty to his Queen and country. (Loud cheers.)

Mr. HmiLzr said that he could have been content to let his case stand upon what Mr. Walpole had said, but his own position differed somewhat from that of his friend. He accepted office on the sole con- dition that the Government should deal with the Reform question. But he had taken as his guide the principle expressed by Lord Derby in 1854.

" I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the principle of the Go-

vernment Bill, is fatal to the constitution of this country. (Cries of " No, no" ! and cheers.) I care not whether it is 10/., or 151., or 51. ; I care not at what sum you fix it, but I hold that, if you take a paint brush to draw a line across the country, and say that all the people upon one side are to have the franchise, and all the people upon the other are not to have it, although you may have no trouble for a few years, yet as sure as the sun is in heaven, you will have all the people upon the outside of the line, at some time or other, making a very ugly rush to break over it. (Cheers and laughter.) Depend upon it that when they do break over it in that way you will not find it easy to maintain the constitution of England. You have no precedent for the present proposal in your past history. You could not get identity of suffrage without a large measure of disfranchisement. (Cheers.) To obtain it you are obliged to disfranchise all that large num- ber of persons who have a freehold franchise within boroughs, who, as far as I know, value that franchise, who wish to retain it, and who have not abused it. (Great cheering from the Opposition.) I, for one, could never consent to secure identity of franchise upon such conditions." Ever since the Act of 1832 the working people have had a less and less share in the re- presentation. Before 1832 they had considerable power through the scot and lot voters and freemen. To draw a hard line and leave the working people behind it is to lay the foundation of revolution. " It is for that reason that I cannot agree to identity of franchise. if there be an identity of franchise the whole electoral power would then be placed in one class, and whether it were a 101., 15/., or 51. class, it would, in my judgment, be equally dan- gerous, for when a qnestion might come up you would have them all going to rush into one thing. ("Hear, hear" ! and laughter.) Our safety— the permanence of this constitution, in my judgment, has depended on the great variety of the constituency. You never have all at one time for one thing. If anything is proposed it gets well ventilated and well considered, and then the truth is found out and the country accepts it. I believe that under an identity of franchise you would lose that great and invaluable safeguard." Mr. Henley explained that he had desired to resign before Christmas ; but pressed to remain until the whole bill was completed he did so. "We had not the opportunity of knowing the decision of our colleagues till the end of January. Then, without any concert with my right hon. friend, I placed my resignation in the hands of the First Minister, requesting him to lay it before her Majesty, and do so in that way which he might consider most convenient to the public service, whatever sacrifice it might be to myself ,- and no one who had been in the situation in which my right hon. friend and myself have been placed for the last month but must feel how great was the sacrifice of feeling we made in having to carry on the business of office solely for the convenience, as we were told, of our former colleagues. (Cheers.) I hope, with my right honourable friend, that I have not failed—I am sure I have not from any want of exertion—in doing my duty during that time to the country and to the Queen, but every one must feel that my position was a most painful one, and, if I may use such a phrase, it was almost like walking about with a mask on one's face. (Cheers and Laughter.)" As to the lowering of the franchise he had the same complaint to make as Mr. Walpole ; but he did not care about it " because I am not a person who keeps his light under a bushel." Ho did desire to see the franchise lowered because he thought the working men should have a share. " I have always acted, I hope, with perfect frankness to all those I have come across, and I felt that I could not sit on that [The Treasury] bench, letting it be sup- posed that I approved the principle of this Bill to which I have adverted. Any other part I say nothing about ; I do not want to give an opinion on any other part, but I can never agree to that great change in the constitu- tion of this country—namely, the establishment of one uniform franchise throughout the country, both in counties and boroughs."

Mr Henley thanked the House for its attention, and trusted he should always retain its good opinion which he hoped he had hitherto enjoyed. He was greeted, as he sat down, by general cheering.

REAL ESTATE INTESTACY.

The Wednesday sitting was mainly occupied by a debate on the second reading of Mr. Locke King's Real Estate Intestacy Bill. Lord WILLIAM Ga.sitem moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. Ho treated the subject mainly in its political aspect, contending that the measure would undermine our political institutions, by promoting the subdivision of land. The bill was also opposed by Mr. HENLEY, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Sir IIIIGH CAIRNS, Lord HARRY VANE, Mr. HOPE, Mr. WHITESIDE, Mr. WALTER, Sir FITZROY KELLY, and Lord PAL- MERSTON.

Mr. HENLEY showed the effect of the bill upon small proprietors. There are hundreds of thousands of poor men owning cottages, and small plots of land. They never make a will. When one of them dies the eldest son takes the cottage, the widow continuing to live therein, and thus it is handed down from generation to generation. The bill would drive these men into the hands of the attornies to make a will for them. For these poor people there was one consolation. They might go to the Court of Chancery. Great, no doubt, is the privilege of going to the Court of Chancery ; but it is not necessary to give by Act of Parliament liberty to go there. Like another and nameless place its doors arc always open. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the effect of the bill would bI that real estate in cases of intestacy would be distributed according tc the Statute of Distributions. There would be no such thing as inheritance. That class of persons called heirs would be extinguished. All classcs, peers as well as peasants, would be affected by the bill. It would alter the whole custom of the country with respect to the devolution of landed property, and lead in time to the subdivision of real as well as perso.ial

estate. Sir HUGH Cenars said that Mr. King would be surprised at the consequences which his bill would produce. If a man devised his real property but died intestate in regard to his personal property, the will would be set aside, and the real estate divided among next of kin. If a man acquired an estate by descent through his mother, under the bill, if he had one cousin on the mother's and nine- teen on the father's side, one twentieth would go to the former, and nineteen-twentieths to the latter. If a large family estate descended to a married woman as she has no power to devise, that estate would be taken from the sons and given to the husband. These are some of the con- sequences that would flow from the bill. Where are the hardships the bill is required to remedy ? Where are the petitions for it ? The rule of law is well known and acquiesced in ; wills are made expressly to interfere with the rule of law, and where they are not made it is known that the law will take effect. Those who desire the change are persona who desire to interfere with entails and settlements, and abolish the dis- tinction between land and money. But the owners of land are satisfied with the law as it stands. It would be a grievance were the law to pass all real property to the eldest son, and take away the free power of dis- position. But that is not the case. Then hardships are inflicted in cases where there are wills as well as in cases where there are no wills : and it would be as reasonable to interfere in the former as in the latter. Quoting Sir Matthew Hale and Sir John Davis, Sir Hugh showed that these eminent men were quite opposed to the subdivision of land; and that it is inimical to agriculture, and at variance with the interests of a constitutional monarchy. Finally, he showed that Mr. Ring's bill, would increase litigation, because, where there is now one heir-at-law to dispute a will, there might be twenty disappointed persons anxious for an equal division of the property. If the bill passed there would be a brand of injustice upon all settlements in this country. Lord Panisa- STON remarked that the bill was at variance with the habits, feelings, and customs of the country. Among all classes there is a settled dis- position to make an elder son. A constitutional monarchy requires a landed aristocracy—" by aristocracy meaning land gentry, titled or un- titled." Without such a body the constitutional monarchy of England could not exist.

If you have a peerage and a gentry reduced to individual poverty it would be impossible that they could exercise those functions which are essential to the maintenance of a balance between the different powers which com- pe the fabric of our representative constitution. The present law, giving the succession to the eldest son, is a just one; but if any one thought other- wise, he might, by will, dispose of his property in any other manner that be

i

pleased. There is no constraint upon him except the constraint of custom, of public opinion, and of individual feeling ; and therefore he should to the utmost oppose this Bill, which is at variance with our monarchical institu- tions, and would tend to produce either despotism or republicanism. (Cheers.) On the other side were Mr. MELLoa, Mr. MoNearana Minus, General THOMPSON, Mr. EWART, and Mr. Lows. Mr. MELLOR described the existing law as one of the relics of feudalism, and insists that it worked great injustice in cases where, by sudden death, a widow and the young- er children are left dependent on the eldest son. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said the alteration demanded by Mr. Locke King is in accord- ance with the feelings of the middle classes, who make wills in favour of all the children. It is mere sentimentalism to talk, as Mr. Henley talk- ed, about cottage owners. Mr. LOWE said both parties magnified the matter above its true dimensions. It is not a question of state policy. The point really is this, where a nian, either by accident or design, has not availed himself of his right to make a will, is the law to make a will for him ? and if so, what should that will be ? In these two questions lay the whole gist of this discussion. The feeling of the landed interest ought no more to be decisive on this question than the feeling of the commercial

i interest ought to be decisive in a commercial question, or that of the legal profession in a legal question. He submitted that if a man died intestate the law should make such a will for him as, supposing him to be a good and prudent man, he would have made for himself.

General THOMPSON said there is a prevalent impression, though perhaps somewhat exaggerated, that the aristocracy combine to support this law in order that they may always have one stout representative of their family in a position to assist his kindred in quartering themselves upon the civil, military, or ecclesiastical services of the State. (Laughter.)

On a division the motion was negatived by 271 to 76.

THE MARRIAGE LAW.

The third reading of Lord Bury's bill to legalize marriage with a de- ceased wife's sister was moved at a late hour on Thursday night, or rather at an early hour on Friday morning. Mr. HOPE made a formal protest against a measure, to which he had given and should continue to give " an undying, undeviating, and unmitigated opposition" ; a decla- ration that created much merriment. He moved that the bill should be read a third time that day six months. The House divided, and carried the third reading by 137 to 89. The bill then passed.

Amnssrow or THE Jaws.

Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE moved for leave to bring in a bill to make the resolution admitting the Jews a standing order, so that it might be per- manent. Mr. BYNG seconded the motion. Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to this course, insisting that the act contemplated that the resolution should be a sessional order • and he moved that the resolution should not be con- verted into a standing order. Considerable difference of opinion arose ; one party, led by Mr. Disaarra, held that the House had no power to convert the resolution in a standing order. Sir GEORGE GREY and others expressed doubts, but thought it not advisable to ask the assent of the House of Lords to a course the House of Commons might be competent to take.

Finally both motion and amendment were withdrawn in favour of a suggestion from Mr. Wer..por.z. On the motion of that gentleman a committee was appointed to consider the best mode of carrying out the act of last session.

THE ITALIAN QUESTION.

The EARL, of CLARENDON drew attention to a discrepancy between the statement of Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons, and that of the Earl of Malmesbury in the House of Lords on Friday week. In reply to Lord Palmerston Mr. Disraeli said that the Government had reason to hope that France and Austria would ere long evacuate the Roman States, "and that, too, with the concurrence of the Papal Government." The inference from that was that Austria and France had determined to evacuate the Papal territory and that the Papal Government approved their doing so. But Lord Malmesbury said that the evacuation will take place " at the request of the Papal Government." This is an important dis- crepany. If France and Austria have agreed to withdraw their troops there is an end of the question; but the case is different if the Pope has simply desired them to withdraw. Differences may arise as to the mode of evacuation, and one or the other power may impose conditions on the Pope which he may not consider it consistent with his dignity to grant. Lord Clarendon asked what information on the subject the Government had received.

The Earl of MALMESBURY thought that the alleged discrepancy was a distinction without a difference. The Papal Government, of its own will, has requested France and Austria to withdraw their troops. The Government had received a general intimation from Austria that " if the Pope desired the evacuation she was ready to comply with his request" From France had come a general statement, namely, that she was anxious and willing to withdraw, if Austria would withdraw, and should the Pope request them to do so. He had received no further com- munications ; but he could not conceive that Austria and France would hesitate to withdraw, they having " no right to remain after the so- vereign of the Papal States requested their absence." Of course there must be some previous arrangement, but he was not in a position to say what.

In reply to Lord BROUGHAM, Lord MALMESBURY said that in respect to their alleged preparations for war the French Government had told him those preparations have been carried on to fill up the usual Re- quirements of military service, and that there is nothing special in them to raise alarm in Europe.

STATE OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the House of Commons on Thursday, Mr. BUXTON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the present State of the West Indies, and the best means of promoting immigration. Mr. Buxton disclaimed any desire to renew the policy of the Anti-Slavery Society with regard to immigra- tion, but ho insisted that the opposite party, the planter interest, have unduly exaggerated the indolence of the Negroes, and have ascribed to emancipation, embarrassments which are really to be traced to absen- teeism. One-third of the cost of emigration falls on the general com-

munity; in order to place the whole system on a wholesome basis, he proposed inquiry. Sir EDWARD Ltrrorr represented that there is no need for inquiry. He showed that immigration is necessary to the prosperity of the West Indian colonies. A very few figures will demon- strate this. In Mauritius 170,000 persons have been introduced : in 1844 the sugar crop was 70,000,000 pounds; in 1864, it was 238,480,000; while the Coolies who returned to India proved, on the testimony of Sir G. Anderson, a distinguished Judge, as good as any labouring population in the world. In British Guiana, the sugar crop has risen from 34,000 *hogsheads in 1841, to 55,366 hogsheads in 1855; and last year 277 Coolies paid into the hands of the authorities for transmission to India, more than 60001. The results in Trinidad are very similar. In Jamaica, where the immigration has been checked, the produce of sugar has fallen off from 1,812,000 hundredweights in the three closing 'ears of Negro Apprenticeship, to 1,244,000 in the three latest years. With indentures, the immigrant becomes a useful and industrious member of society; without them, he becomes a wanderer, an idler, and a mendicant. Sir Edward proposed that Mr. Buxton should wait for the production of " papers" which are about to be laid upon the table of the House; that if he found the information then deficient he should pursue the motion for inquiry into the best means for promoting immigration into the West Indian Colonies. Sir Edward concluded with an eloquent warning to the Anti-Slavery party, by whose side ho had fought in early youth, not by over zeal to spoil their own cause, and by preventing the immigra- tion of labour and capital, to render the West Indian colonies an example of avoidance, and thus rivet the bonds of Negro slavery wherever it yet desecrates a corner of the earth. Mr. LABOUCHERE concurred in Sir Edward's view, which was also sustained by Mr. FRANK CROSSLEY and Mr. Cirreazsraa FORTESCUE and the motion was by leave withdrawn.

SHIPPING GRIEVANCES.

Mr. Lncnsax moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the opera- tion of certain burdens and restrictions especially affecting merchant shipping. No less than 70,000,0001. are invested in British shipping and trades connected therewith. The shipping interest is in a state of great depression. During a period of close protection the shipping of the country only slightly increased. But with the repeal of the navigation laws and the extension of commerce, not only has the tonnage in- creased, but a larger number of British sailors are employed. A reversal of the policy of free-trade would be suicidal to the British shipowner. Foreign countries which maintain protective laws have gained little by them. Upwards of one half the ships entering French and Spanish ports are foreign. While in British ports, open to all the world, 69 per cent of the shipping employed is British, and only 39 per cent foreign. Having shown that he did not advocate a return toproteetion, Mr. Lind- say pointed out that the shipping interest suffers under special burdens. Those burdens are light dues, of which foreign nations also complain; passing tolls, local dues, marine insurances, and pilotage. There is also the burden of the timber duties. He hoped the Government woud grant a committee before which the shipowners could state their grievances.

Mr. LIDDELL seconded the motion ; and especially devoted himself to showing that foreign nations have not carried out reciprocity. Mr. CRAUFORD moved an amendment extending the inquiry to the following statutes, 9 and 10 'Victoria, cap. 93, an Act for compensating the families of persons killed by accidents; the Merchant Shipping 'Act, 1854; the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855; the Passenger's Act, 1855 ; and the Chinese Passengers Act, 1866. Mr. Courita seconded this amendment, and it was ultimately incorporated in the motion. A desultory debate on the operation of the existing navigation laws, and the grievances indicated by Mr. Lindsay, followed, in which a great number of Members took part ; Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. CARDWELL being among them.

The motion was carried nem. dis.

CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS. The second reading of Mr. Collier's bill to make the conveyance of voters illegal was carried by 172 to 163. TIMBER Dorms. Mr. Mr-num.'. moved a resolution expressing an opin- ion that the timber duties should be repealed. The objection to the motion was that it would be unwise to pledge the House to repeal these duties. Nobody defended them. On a division the motion was negatived by 133 to 77. Tut FORBES Isisc-xmrzrz Aer, Lord Ilztouren moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the law regulating the sale and consumption of exciseable liquors in Scotland. It is urged that the Forbes Mackenzie Act, which closes public houses at eleven on Saturday night until Monday morn- ing, has increased drunkenness, and other forms of immorality, and led to tyrannical conduct on the part of those who grantlicences. It has increased the number of " shebeens," unlicensed houses; and caused the spy system to be extensively employed, the police at one time being engaged as spies. The Magistrates also, incited by teetotallers,. have been most capricious in granting and refusing licenses. The propriety of some inquiry was not disputed, even by Sir ANDREW AGNEW, but it was suggested that the in- quiry should be by a Royal Commission. The Government favoured this proposal, and the House agreed to address the throne for the appointment of a Royal Commission.

&a ARTHUR ELTON'S CHURCH RATE RESOLITTIONS.—The following is an amended copy of the resolutions which Sir Arthur Hallam Elton intends to bring forward in the event of the Government Church Rate Bill being rejected :—

1. That this House, considering that church rates are productive of frequent strife and litigation, and have ceased to be levied in an increasing number of parishes, deems it advisable that they should be wholly discon- tined, except for payment of existing charges thereon, and that the main- tenance of the fabric of the church should be confided to the zeal and liberality of the clergy and laity. " 2. That in order to afford every facility for the free exercise of that zeal and liberality, it is expedient that in every parish the incumbent and churchwardens should form a corporation, with power to take, hold, and manage all property given or appropriated for purposes relating to the parish church, and to administer the income thence arising. 3. That the authority of the present vestry in every parish with reference to the parish church should be transferred to a new vestry, to be termed the Church Vestry,' to consist of the incumbent and churchwardens, and those owners and occupiers of property in the parish who give not less than a fixed yearly sum to the parish church funds, the present vestry retaining its authority in secular affairs. " 4. That the churchwardens should be chosen from the members of the church vestry, and their purely secular duties performed by the overseers."