to limit the legal and constitutional privileges or prerogatives of the House of Peers. We know, everybody knows, nobody knows it better than the Peers, that a House of hereditary legislation cannot be a permanent institution in a free country."

I am waiting for the cheers from the Members behind me. Now, I deny that the Peers know any such thing-I deny that this House knows any such thing, and I deny that the country knows any such thing, and the Constitution flatly con

lic meetings in several of the most important towns in the North of England, stating at the same time what were the views and principles of Reform which he himself entertained. He complained that his Bill was very much attacked and misrepresented in the newspapers. It was said, he observed, that he meant to assail the monarchy and the House of Lords, and he set about vindicating himself from those charges. At the meeting to which I allude he made a speech, from which I will read a short ex-tradicts the Member for Birmingham. tract. This speech was delivered in his official character as a representative of those who called him to prepare the Bill It was with the others which he delivered at that period revised by himself and pub-ever much it may shock the Gentlelished, and must therefore be regarded as containing the most solemn declaration of political faith which any Englishman could make in the face of the country. In the extract to which I refer, the hon. Gentleman said

"I shall take the course of addressing myself to this question according to the light I have with regard to it from great study, from much consultation with others, and from an honest wish that I have that the question of Reform should be rightly viewed by every intelligent man among my countrymen. Now, we will mention two or three things that we do not want. We do not propose in the smallest degree to call in question or to limit the prerogatives of the Crown. I believe we are prepared to say that if the Throne of England be filled with so much dignity and so much purity as we have known it in our time, and as we know it now to be, we hope that the venerable monarchy may be perpetual."

But that hope of perpetuity is coupled with an "if" and that "if" is unknown to the British Constitution. The British Constitution does not allow any man to set up his own standard of individual excellence in the Sovereign, and make his allegiance personal and conditional. But the language of the Member for Birmingham tolerates the monarchy so long as the monarchy comes up to an almost ideal standard of personal excellence- and I call it an ideal standard, because if we look through the long lines of Sovereigns of this or any other country, I know not where during so protracted a reign you can find such another realization of so high a standard. Well, the Gentlemen behind me think that those opinions about monarchy are quite orthodox. And now we come to the next highest branch of the Constitution-the House of Lords. Let us see what the hon. Member's opinions are in regard to the House of Lords

"We do not propose even to discuss, much less

The Constitution says that an hereditary Peerage is a permanent institution in a free country, and because it is compatible with freedom. I believe, Sir-how

men below the gangway-that there is an irreconcilable enmity between democracy and freedom, but I know of no irreconcilable enmity between freedom and an hereditary House of Lords. On the contrary, I believe that it is its hereditary character that secures to the House of Lords an independence that renders it a stronger bulwark of freedom than an elective chamber can possibly be. But when the hon. Gentleman says that an hereditary Peerage is incompatible with freedom, what is that but saying that it ought to be abolished, or, in other words, that the Constitution ought to be so far abolished? And though the abolition may not be proposed in his Reform Bill, still it becomes a question of levers and instalments. Well, then, we come to the House of Commons. The feeling of the hon. Member for Birmingham is that the suffrage is the birthright of every Englishman, and that an unenfranchised adult is outside the Constitution. What, then, is his political creed? If the monarchy is to be contingent upon the highest standard of personal excellence which a Sovereign can attain, but failing that is to be not hereditary, but I presume elective-if the House of Peers is not to be hereditary but also elective, and if the House of Commons is to be chosen by universal suffrage, what becomes of the British Constitution, and how far are we removed from a Republic? Why, if there be any meaning in words and any force in language, the political principles of the hon. Member for Birmingham, as publicly propounded in the face of his countrymen-I do not presume to judge of his personal and individual feelings- his political principles, I say, are the principles, not of an Englishman, but of an alien. He is not a believer in the British Constitution, but he

we have now a prospect of a succession of short Governments and frequent dissolutions, all tending to that confusion which every moderate man must deprecate as most surely contributing to the ascendancy of extreme opinions. Therefore it is, Sir, that in my heart I believe that much of the future of England may depend on the spirit with which the new House of Commons realizes and rises to the discharge of its first and most responsible duty. But I will tell my right hon. Friend who cheers me what that duty is. It is to vindicate the supremacy of constitutional opinions-to spurn the dictation of an intolerant minority

pancy of that Bench that the Ministers of the Crown shall be men of unquestionable attachment to the principles and the policy which are so deeply implanted in the convictions and cherished in the hearts of educated Englishmen-those principles of freedom which have not been successfully defended against the encroachments of monarchs and the passions of multitudes to be now surrendered at the feet of a more ignoble tyranny, that policy of progress of sound and peaceful and constitutional progress, which has hitherto reflected the growing intelligence of the nation, and can only be arrested fatally driven back by the successful machinations of those who would trade alternately on the weakness of Ministers they despise, and the presumed ignorance of the masses, whose contempt for the abortive agitation of the last four months has proved how deeply sensible they are of the blessings of the institutions under which they live, and that they have become too enlightened to be deluded, and too distrustful of demagogues to be betrayed.

must be as thorough-going a Republican as President Johnson himself. But this is the confidential adviser and director of the head of the Cabinet, and the director and, so far as depends on Lord Russell, the director and dictator of the Liberal partythat Liberal party which, as we have been reminded by the Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), only six months ago followed Lord Palmerston as its leader. Now what is involved in a change from the policy of Lord Palmerston to the policy of the hon. Member behind me? It would be a greater change of policy than has in our time ever been effected by the transfer of Government from one side of the House-to make it a first condition of the occuto the other. But happily that change has not been accomplished, and I do not think it is likely to be accomplished. But the nation, however, has had a great escape. The death of Lord Palmerston brought on a very serious crisis. Two months ago the hon. Member for Birming ham had, apparently, command of the situation. Every moment of the recess was fraught with peril. But with the assembling of Parliament the crisis has passed; for no sooner did Members congregate together and compare opinions and the opinions of their constituents, and discuss the situation, than an almost universal feeling pervaded this side of the House, the real character and effect of which will make themselves known when we come to the second reading-if, indeed, we ever do come to the second reading of the Bill. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] I do not expect that what I am saying is palatable to Gentlemen in that quarter of the House. But what I do say is, that the first and most imminent peril being now over, it is for the Liberal party calmly to re-consider its position and its duties as to the future. We have seen that a succession of weak Ministers have been driven by the necessities of their position to give to a small minority of extreme opinions an importance utterly disproportionate to their number in this House or to their influence out of it. The consequence has been that the whole Liberal party, against its convictions, and still more against its interests, has been drifting towards Democracy. Nothing can be more injurious to its character or more fatal to its stability, as many Liberals of moderate opinions are now beginning to discover. [Cries of "No, no!""] Well, two Gentlemen say "No!" but only two. [Laughter.] And it has brought political parties to this state

or

MR. LOWE moved the adjournment of the debate.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There can be no objection on the part of the Government to the adjournment of this debate under the present circumstances of the discussion, but it is exceedingly desirable that we should proceed with the debate to-morrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) has, however, a Motion on the paper relating to the important question of the Irish Church Establishment, and I, therefore, appeal to him if he will be kind enough to waive that Motion. ["No, no!"] In the event of the hon. Gentleman failing to be successful in the ballot to-mor

row, we would assign an early day for his Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens), and the Motion. course the Government proposed respecting both. The Bill which he had the honour to introduce would simply empower the Government to make advances through the agency of the Public Works Loan Commissioners towards the erection of labourers' dwellings in populous towns. It would not, however, give compulsory powers for pulling down dwellings unsuited for occu

SIR JOHN GRAY: I shall be most happy to do everything in my power to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman, and I should be very sorry to interfere with this measure. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will name any day positively for my Motion, I shall be glad to accede to his request.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-pation. With respect to individuals, the QUER: If the hon. Gentleman fails in the Bill was somewhat novel in England; but ballot, we will undertake to give him a day. it was not a new thing in Ireland, for Debate adjourned till To-morrow. there at the present time the Public Works Commissioners possessed the necessary authority for lending money to persons to erect labourers' cottages. With regard to public bodies, however, in England, under the Act of 1851, loans could now be granted to them for the purpose of erecting la

MUTINY BILL.-THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH called at-bourers' dwellings, and it was simply to extention to the circumstance that the Bill had not been printed, and urged the importance of its being printed and circulated among the Members in future.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the doctrine held by the Government was that the approval of the Mutiny Bill by the House was a mere matter of form. That was not the case;

ment.

tend the powers of that Act that the present Bill was brought forward. It had been intended that the money should be lent at 4 per cent, and the repayment spread over a period of thirty years. That would involve an annual payment of 5 per cent on the capital lent for interest and repayBut it was represented that the lous towns seldom paid more than 5 per dwellings of the labouring classes in popubut, as the words were from year to year to postpone the time of payment to forty cent, and therefore it was now proposed unchanged, it was not deemed necessary to print the Bill. His noble Friend had years, the interest being calculated at 4 inquired into the matter, and he thought per cent. There were some minor Amendthat by making arrangements for greater ments which he would explain in Comdispatch in the office of the Judge Advo-mittee. Coming now to the Bill of the cate General, where the Bill was prepared, it could hereafter be printed and rendered

accessible to Members. It would be un

necessary to circulate copies among the Members, but all who wished to see the Bill would be able to do so before the second reading.

LABOURING CLASSES' DWELLINGS
BILL.

(Mr. Childers, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Mr. Bruce.)

SECOND READING. [BILL 9.] Order for Second Reading read. MR. CHILDERS, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, he hoped the House would allow him to state, in fulfilment of his pledge, the manner in which the Labouring Classes' Dwellings Bill differed from the Bill of the hon. Member for

hon. Member for Finsbury he wished to state in what respects it appeared to him faulty. In the first place, he thought that compulsory power to take property should not be obtained only by the order of a Secretary of State; but that some order of a judicial tribunal should be necessary. Then there was this great objection to the Bill, that under it public money to be advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners would be applied not to half the value of property as in his (Mr. Childer's) Bill, but often to double the value of the new buildings. For the whole expense, both of buying the old buildings and of rebuilding them would be provided in this way, and there was no doubt that under the compulsory clause far more than their value would have to be given for the old buildings. The result would be that local bodies would either refuse to burden themselves with these heavy loans, or if they did would get into difficulties and want to