MR. HORSMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has given Notice that to-morrow, at half past four, he will move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn for the Easter holydays. I presume he will not make that Motion until late in the evening, when the debate is finished.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I see no reason for deviating from the usual course.

power may safely be placed in their hands. If you gave it to them freely and fully that might be the case-I do not say that I advocate such a course; my opinions are well known-but you might have that recompense; by the constant exercise of the vote they might at last learn in some degree how to use it, and thus to avoid the temptations by which it is surrounded. But practically by this Bill you decide that they shall only exercise the franchise in troublous and not in quiet times. You say, "No, they shall possess a vote only when it is worth some agitator's while to put them on the register. When they are calm and uncorrupted you refuse to give them facilities for getting on it; but as soon as they are tempted by bribery, or swayed by passion, then you put political power into their hands. I cannot conceive any course more calculated to bring on us the dangers of democracy-a result which Gentlemen on both sides of the House are equally anxious to avoid. It is for these reasons that it appears to me that I am bound to prefer the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire to that of Her Majesty's Government. I do not say the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are such as, if made last year, I should have liked-I do not say that they are proposals which in all respects I approve; but it is because they are pitted against others which seem to me to involve all the evils of democratic measures with none of their advantages, which seem pregnant with future irritation, and to give a cover for corruption-it is on that account, and without concealing my regret that we have arrived at such a stage, that I am compelled to make that choice-that I feel bound to vote for the Amendments, for I take them as a whole, which the right hon. Gentleman has placed in your hands.

MR. ROEBUCK moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. AYRTON asked, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to resume the Committee? Was he prepared to do so the first thing to-morrow, if Members were agreed to waive their rights?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: To-morrow is not under my influence; I have reason to believe that Gentlemen who have Motions on the paper for to-morrow will not be indisposed to give way; but I cannot presume to press them.

MR. EARLE said, that this question had now for five hours been under discussion upon its merits; but there were some who were anxious that it should not be decided upon its merits. A few days ago everything was concession, conciliation, and candid co-operation. They had now come upon a period of threats, of defiance, and of daily ultimatums. It was true that early in the evening the wind seemed to be veering round to the old quarter; but last Monday, at any rate, they had more than their share of menace, and even the Secretary of State for India, under circumstances somewhat disconcerting, found courage to send them an ultimatum of his own. There had been deputations. The working man had been to Downing Street to see the working man's friends. He doubted, however, whether the argument as to fitness would be strengthened by the interview ; because the working man came away deeply impressed with the broad distinction between popular privileges and democratic rights. A dissolution of Parliament had been threatened. He wished to know to whom Her Majesty's Government intended to appeal. If they addressed themselves to the Conservative party in the country, were they to say with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that popular privileges were not democratic rights, or with the Secretary for India that household suffrage was a fancy franchise? If a constituency were found to listen to such things, they would schedule it by acclamation. It was said, however, that an appeal was to be made to the Liberal party, and that Gentlemen on the other side were to be outbid by the Government. He, for one, did not believe that such tactics would succeed, or that the Liberal constituencies would desert their old friends. Let them therefore, without any fear of a dissolution, decide the great question before them, which was, whether, be the measure of enfranchisement large, as the Opposition desired, or moderate, as they (the Conservatives) would prefer it-whether its extent should be determined in the old constitutional 3 E 2 [Committee-Clause 3.

way by Queen, Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled; or whether they should leave it to fluctuate according to the caprice of municipal cabals, by adding to the normal constituency a sort of constituency of reserve, which at any moment might be called under arms by the competition of opulent candidates, the violence of political passions, or the corrupt manœuvres of organized agitation.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, that in deference to the wish of the House, he would postpone the Motion which stood in his name (on our relations with Spain) for to-morrow evening until Friday, the 1st of May.

LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) has given notice of a Motion with reference to the claims arising out of the American civil war. I intended to-morrow to have made to him an appeal, to which, from what I have heard to-day, I believe he would listen favourably, to postpone the Motion for the present, on the ground that negotiations are still going on. We are anxious, I believe, on all sides that these negotiations should be brought to a favourable conclusion, and I believe that a discussion at the present time would not tend to promote it. If the hon. Member be in the House, I would address my appeal to him now; if not, I must repeat it to-morrow afternoon.

MR. OTWAY said, he had no hesitation in responding to the appeal, and postponing his Motion; which, however, he should feel bound to propose after the Easter recess, if no other Member took up the subject.

MR. AYRTON hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the answer he had given, and not proceed with the Motion for Adjournment for the holydays until this discussion was concluded. If the right hon. Gentleman could not take a course so obviously convenient, he hoped the sense of the House would be taken on the matter. It was quite impossible that the House should adjourn before the Motion before the House was brought to a conclusion.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he had consented to postpone his Motion only on the understanding that it was the wish of the House to adjourn as usual for the Easter recess.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, that as the hon. Member had given way under the apprehension that there was to be no further alteration, if any were made, they

were bound to put him in the position he had yielded.

MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified in saying that the ordinary practice has been to move the Adjournment for the Easter recess at half past four o'clock; but, at the same time, the present circumstances are somewhat peculiar. I apprehend we all feel much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) for having cleared the ground for the continuance of the discussion on the Bill of the Government. There is a great desire, I believe, in the House that it should be prosecuted to its conclusion. Therefore, it appears to me we are reduced to one of two things-either the Motion for Adjournment should not be taken until later in the evening, or else, if it is taken early, it should be with the understanding on the part of the House that the discussion will be prosecuted to its conclusion. If there is not such an understanding, difficulty will be raised on the Motion for Adjournment.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read a second time. upon Monday 29th April."-(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. CRAUFURD said, he desired some explanation with regard to this Bill, which he believed would be unanimously opposed. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say, when asked whether he would proceed with the Bill before the recess, that he had made certain proposals to the Gas Companies, and that he proposed to withdraw this Bill and bring in another, differing only from the other in the extraordinary particular that the price and dividend should be left in blank. The question involved in the Bill had been treated as though it were merely one between the thirteen Gas Companies of the metropolis and the Board of Trade. But there was far more

than this in the Bill, the principle of which was the principle of confiscation. It was a piece of legislation unprecedented in the history of Parliament, and ought never to have been introduced by any Government. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well come down to the House and propose to reduce the Three per Cents. The petitions which had loaded the table of the House for the last few nights showed how the measure was regarded out of doors. Such legislation was really monstrous. It had depreciated the value of gas property throughout the kingdom by £2,000,000; gas companies were in some cases unable to raise fresh capital, and shareholders could not realize their property. He was not satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the Bill for three weeks, and should move its postponement till that day six months.

MR. WYLD seconded the Amendment, and said the Secretary of the Board of Trade, whose discrimination and sense of justice in public matters were well known, could not have read this Bill, which was a disgrace to the Department.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Monday 29th April," in order to add the words "this day six months.' (Mr. Edward Craufurd.)

The Go

of labour or coal were to rise. vernment promised to consider these points, and state, after Easter, what they would do in the matter. He could not now state the counter proposals of the Government; but it was probable they would propose an arrangement which the Gas Companies would be willing to accept, and which would form the foundation of a Bill. In his opinion, it would be very much for the advantage of the Gas Companies themselves that the matter should be dealt with during the present Session in the impartial spirit in which it had been taken up by the Government. But as the question had been raised to-night, he was obliged to remind the House of what had occurred. In 1860 an Act was passed giving to the metropolitan Gas Companies certain privileges in the nature of a monopoly, but subjecting them to certain restrictions intended for the public protection. Three or four years after that Act was passed, the gas consumers complained that though the Companies had received the full benefit of the Act, the public had not derived from it the protection which was intended. Last year, therefore, the City of London promoted a Bill enabling them to make gas for themselves. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who were also empowered to consider the

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, the course which had been taken was peculiar, but he was quite ready to answer the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd). When the Bill was brought in considerable opposition was offered to it, and a deputation from the London Gas Companies, and from water and railway Companies, waited upon his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) and stated their objections. He proposed to withdraw the Bill, and introduce another which should be similar but with the figures entirely left out. To this proposal the Companies would not agree, suggesting the withdrawal of the Bill and the introduction of another with certain alterations. One of these was the omission of the clause giving to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London an optional power to purchase the gas works, and of the clause which was described as limiting the profits of the Companies to 7 per cent; while there was to be a clause allowing an increase in the charge for gas if the price

mittee took a certain amount of evidence and presented a Report, which stated that the conditions of the Act of 1860 had not been fulfilled, that the price of gas ought to be reduced, the quality improved, and better security provided that the public should be properly served. When the present Government came into office, the Report of this Committee was laid upon the table, and various deputations waited upon the Government from the Metropolitan Board of Works, vestries, and gentlemen representing consumers. The Government had no interest in the matter; but, feeling that the question was in an unsatisfactory state, they volunteered to bring in a Bill. On the other hand, the Gas Companies came to the Government and said, "We were not fully heard before the Committee. We had reason to suppose that the Committee were going to decide in our favour, so that we did not offer the evidence which we might have offered, and our case was not complete." The Government were anxious that the parties should come to a friendly arrangement and endeavoured to bring about a

RAILWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

On Motion of Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Bill

to define the duties of the Assessor of Railways in Scotland in making up the Valuation Roll of Railways, and to amend in certain respects the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY and Mr. HUNT.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.] House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Friday, April 12, 1867.

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Third Reading Judges' Chambers (Despatch of Business) (58); Vice Admiralty Courts Act Amendment (71), and passed.

Royal Assent-Canada Railway Loan [30 Vict. o. 16]; Alimony Arrears (Ireland) [30 Vict. c. 11]; Criminal Lunatics [30 Vict. c. 12]; Shipping Local Dues [30 Vict. c. 15]; Mutiny [80 Vict. c. 13]; Marine Mutiny [30 Vict. c. 14.]

MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that no Report had yet been received; but that when it should be laid on the table. information reached the Government any

INDIA-FAMINE IN ORISSA.

QUESTION.

MR. SMOLLETT said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is willing to put upon the table of the House all the Correspondence that has passed up to the present time with the several Governments in India relative to the Famine in Orissa, and to the alleged enormous loss of human life from starvation in that Province in the year 1866; a subject prominently noticed in Her Majesty's Speech to Parliament at its opening upon the 5th of February last, but upon which no official information whatever has been communicated by Government to the House of Commons?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, in

reply, that the late Secretary of State for India had appointed a Commission for inquiry into the subject, but they had not yet reported. The Report having been so long delayed, the Secretary of State had telegraphed to India to know when it might be expected. The correspondence, so far as it had gone, would be laid on the table immediately after Easter.

ARMY-THE WAR DEPARTMENT.
QUESTION.

GENERAL DUNNE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it be true, as stated in the papers, that General Sir Henry Storks has been appointed head of a new department under the War Department, notice having been given in the House for a Committee on the re-organization of the latter?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he must beg to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that no part of the rumour in question was true. No new department at the War Office had been created, and no appointment of the kind made.

ARMY-REWARD TO MAJOR PALLISER. QUESTION.

MAJOR ANSON said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What are the recommendations of the Ordnance Select Committee with regard to the reward to be given to Major Palliser; whether the Treasury has approved of those re