Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-01 00:00:00

CIIIIRCH RATES

The Duke of Marlborough gave notice that he should next
Thursday move for a select committee, to enquire into the mode of
assessment and collection of Church Rates.

The Indictable. Offences Districts Bill, the Vexatious Indict-
ments Bill, and the Evidence by Commissions Bills were severally
read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TatrimAr.
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.

CORPORATION OP THE CITY OF LONDON.
Mr. Brady asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce
the bill for the better regulation of the Corporation of the City of
London, and if so when it will he laid on the table of the house.
Mr. Sotheron Estcourt said, that it was the intention of the
Government to introduce a bill shortly after Easter.

The Solicitor-General referring to his remarks on the conduct of
Lord John Russell, made at the conclusion of his speech on the
Reform Bill, explained that he meant no personal offence, and im-
puted no sordid motives to the noble lord.

THE ADJOURNED DEtATE,

After some discussion as to the time when the debate ought to
close, was resumed by •

Mr. Du Cane, who expressed his thanks to the Government for
having undertaken this difficult question. It might be true, as
asserted, that no member of the house had expressed unqualified
approbation of the bill, but it would be impossible to introduce any
bill on such a subject which should command the unqualified appro-
-

bation of any one. On the other hand, no one on either side has
expressed an unqualified disapprobaiion- of the measure. The
Government had not declared that they would forte upon the
house the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill, but
they had declared that they would not accept the bill
coupled with the resolution. He protested against that reso-
lution as intended to stifle discussion on its very threshold.
Believing that its adoption would have no other erect than
delay, he should unhesitatingly give his vote against it,
No measure could have any chance of passing except upon the
principles of mutual concession. On these grounds he asked the
.house to consider the bill of the Government. The general body of
the ministerial supporters would have preferred a bill founded on
the principles advocated by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley ; but even
if such a bill had been introduced, it would have been attacked just
as this bill was by the opposition. The opponents of the measure
expressed themselves strongly against uniformity of suffrage, yet
the hon. gentleman opposite had supported the motion for reducing

the county franchise to £lO, which had the same tendency. T
Government had felt themselves hound by the decision of the hot
_ _

on that motion, and had been unfairly dealt with for having done
so. With regard to the bill itaelf, while it contained much to merit
his approbation, there was one or two prominext. features in it
to which he could not give his consent. Those features were the
identity of suffrage and the alteration of the freeholders franchise.
These propositions were intimately connected, and must stand or
fall together. The identity of suffrage, as introduce into the bill,
was no doubt one of its main features, but was not its principal.
Had it been so, he must have voted against the second reading ;

but it was greatly mitigated by the other franchise introduced in its
various provisions, and no one could doubt, from the declaration
of The Ministers, that 'the house would' be permitted to modify it
in committee to any extent. There were many proposals in the
bill which he fully approved ; amongst those were those for the re-.
distribution of, seats and the prohibitions against the payment of
travelling expenses. Above all, he approved of the man-
ner in which the bill dealt with the working classes,
granting them the franchise on grounds. of their education and
intelligence. He believed that the lodging-house and savings' bank
clauses would enlarge the franchise to are extent greater than the
largest calculations yet made in respect of those franchises. After'
passing a warm eulogium on the conduct of the ministers, he
declared his intention of supporting them in their endeavours to
pass a good measure for the reform of the representation, of the
people. They had at present a good oocasion of adopting a fair
compromise between the various shades of opinion in that house.

--, —.
Let them put off the settlement for another year, and the compro-;
raise between the opinions of Mr. Bright, of which they knew a
great deal too much, and tbe opinions of Lord' John Russell, of
which they knew a great dear tbolittle.

Sir R.Peel observed that the subject was almost exhausted, and
there was little left to be said upon it. But after all that had been

said, the question yet remained—where are we?' He had sat out
the debate almost without any solution of continuity, and he had
heard with amazement the opinions which had come from I%th
sides of the house. He had heard ConserVatives who had gave
utterance to Radical opinions, and Liberals who. talked conserva-
tism. Lord Derby had called Mr. Henley his late Radical colleague,.
which astonished the squire of Oxfordshire. The minor Conserve:.
tive member for Dorsetshire, Mr. Sturt, told them that he was not
afraid ofthe people. On the other side, Mr. Horsman had ridden,
furiously through the ranks of his own party, where happily he
got a fall, and was forced to take ample doses of divers powders.
Then there was the Secretary for the Colonies, whose speech had
provoked the question—" what will he do with it." It was said
that to proceed with the bill, would lead to a. settlement of the
question. That argument might weigh with some members,
but it did not weigh equally with him. The, resolution was
at first sight open to some objection, inasmuch as the noble
lord who moved, did not declare in it his own intentions. But such
was the pressure of public opinion, that the noble lord would, '
before long, have been compelled to declare his intentions. As for
the consequences of adopting this' resolution, he was not afraid of
them. Even if it had the effect of postponing the settlement of the
question for one, two, or even five years, he believed that whole-
some agitation of the question would do no harm.. He advocat,,d
liberal extension of the franchise to the working classes ; any bill
founded on that principle he would have supported, but to most of
the provisions of the present bill he gave hit decided opposition.
If the present Government could not deal satisfactorily with the
question, let them give place to abler and better, hands. He sup-
ported the resolution on no party or factious grounds, but as
pointing out the main objections of the bill. They would show
that the great liberal party could be united when the good of the
country was at stake, and maintained its position as the recognised
olgrao. of putille oplolvu. Tie lOulse(1 ferivercl wtci, ennimence to
the triumphant success of the resolution, which would be hailed
with applause by the nation.
Mr. Gaskill, admitting that there were many provisions in thebilt
to which he could not consent, declared that he could not support
the resolution, which raised a false issue, and brought subjects
under discussion at the wrong time. He disapproved of the princi-
ple of uniformity, of establishing a non-residential class of voters.
He distrusted the system of voting papers,which he believed would
lead to the ballot. But there were subjects to be considered here-
after with reference to the general question, and he denied that
there was any desire on the part of the country for organic reform;
and maintained that the agitation which prevailed was more ficti-
tious than real. It would, under the present circumstances both of
this country and of Europe, have been better if the Government had
declined to undertake the settlement of the Reform question, for
which, he was persuaded, the people were willing to wait. The
matter had now got into such a state that they could neither
advance nor recede without discredit; but, at all events, let them
refuse to hamper themselves with vague and unnecessary conditions
Mr. Slaney said that there were parts of the bill which he cor-
dially approved. It introduced for the first time the principle of
giving the franchise to personal property. lie further approved
of the lodging-house clause, and the lowering of the borough
franchise ; for these boons he gave the government his warmest
thanks, but he objected to uniformity of the franchise, the transfer
of the borough votes, and the absence of all provisions for lower-
ing the borough franchise. The inhabitants of the towns
their great improvement desired to be further trusted. On thes:
considerations he felt bound to support the resolution..
Mr. L. C. Egerton objected to many of the provisions of the
bill, and advocated a further extension of the franchise to the
working classes. Of the merits, advancement, and good conduct
of those classes he bore strong testimony, but the paramount
consideration was the speedy settlement of the question, and for
this reason he should support the second reading of the bill. If,
however, the resolution was carried, he trusted that the govern-
ment would not forget their duty to the country, and proceed with
the bill notwithstanding.' - _
Mr. Cobbett did not approve of the bill, but declared that, as it
opened a greater variety of questions than any bill ever produced
on reform, he thought that it ought to be allowed to go into com-
mittee. The bill was so wide in its scope that it opened even the
vote by ballot, a proposal for which might be moved on the opening
clause. He held the opinion which had been advocated hitherto
by none but those members of the government who had framed
the bill, that the proposition for transferring the borough voters
from the counties was a good one, and in strict accordance with the
constitution. lie entered into the history of the borough franchise
to show that it was anciently framed on the same basis as that of
the ministerial proposition. He advocated the preservation of the

distinction of the liorough and county franchise, and thought that
the entire body of the 40s freeholders ought to be disfranchised, as
they often swamped the rest of the constituencies. He therefore
felt himself justified in supporting the second reading of the bill,
that its provisions might be properly discussed in committee. He
saw nothing sufficiently definite in the resolution to induce him to

vote for them, and urged that the bill should be put into Coro-
rniftee as soon as possible.
Mr. Collins objected to the influence of the borough voters in
the counties, and approved of the provisions of the bill, which
restricted them to their boroughs. The bill, in enfranchising the
copyholders and leaseholders only, carried out the principles of the
old Reform Act. He did not think that by the provisions of the
bill the boroughs would be swamped by non-residental voters,

although be should be glad to see a clause introduced into the bill
;ontining the franchise altogether to residents. He defended ti
imall constituencies, to the independencies of which la

With regard to, the extension of the franchise to the work-
ing classes, he thought that in certain words it would be well to
restore the old scot and lot voters, so as to give representatives to
the masses. He saw nothing in the bill to lead to territorial dis-
tricts. As to the resolution, even it the points

raised on it were true, they would not be
the house agreed to it. The bill was eapabl
improvement. It might be made the basi sofa, wider measure of
reform, and he therefore gave it his support.
Mr. Western objected to the bid as establishing non-residental
voters, to the transfer of voters, and others of the provisions of the
bill. He therefore supported the resolution.
Mr. W. N. Hodgson thought that theAouse had not treated the
Government with candour and fairness, considering the many
futile attempts which had been made to settle the question, and the
spirit in which the Government had undertaken it. Lie objected
to the identity of franchise, but it might be amended in committee.
He expressed himself willing to lower the lodging-house franchise
to 5s or 6s a week, and further to lower the Savings' Bank clause,
and would extend the franchise by other means among the

,dvanced i

deserving portion of the working classes. He empressed but
small confidence in the 40s freeholders who were often neither
independent or trustworthy, and whose votes were easily
manufactured. He denied the assertion of his right honourable
colleague Sir J. Graham, that the feeling in favour of the Ballot had
made progress in Carlisle— it had on the contrary diminished. The
Government• had been advised to withdraw their bill—he advised
the noble lord to withdraw his resolution, so as to permit the great
question to be settled.
Mr. Wyvill supported the second reading of the bill, believing
that neither Lor 1 Palmerston nor Lord John Russell would be able
to pass a satisfactory measure ; the present bill, on the contrary,
might be made an excellent measure after passing through cora.
mittee.

Mr, Hudson denounced the resolution as a claptrap, and its sup-
porters as scramblers for plaoo. They could not be sincere
Reformers, or they would not do what would only postpone
Reform.
Mr. Walter declared that he should not vote at all upon the
resolution, and that he should vote against the bill. He approved
neither of the one nor the other. The resolution stated no principle
with precision, and committed no one; while the bill required to
be gutted before it could be passed. It was, he considered, a
mistake for a Government in a confessed minority to attempt to
deal in any way with the subject.
Mr. Greenall supported the bill.
Mr. Gilpin opposed it. Rather than take such a bill, he would
prefer to have no bill at all. He did not mean by saying this to
express any want of confidence in the Government, except in this
particularinstance. He advocated the claims of the working
classes, who were admitted to positions of trust in other ways, and
yet were not allowed to exercise the franchise. They were trusted
with muskets, but not with votes.
Mr. Henley said that the bill was a large measure—large
in itself, and larger in the principles it contained. It increased
the constituencies of the country by one-half. But it did
not do these either safely, or so as to content the people.
He quoted the estimated numbers of the constituencies, if the bill
was carried out, to shew that the whole power of the country would
in that cane be thrown into the hallas of ple 9cmiers—the whole