The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL P.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening,
The SPEAKER took de chair at 12 o'clock.
BARNSTAPLE ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The, following members were called to the table and
sworn as a committee t. try the validity of the late return
for Barnstaple, viz. :—Sir F. Goldamid, Mr, Dunlop, Mr.
Humphrey, Mr. Howes, and Mr. S. Booth.
COUNTS FRANCHISE BILL.

Mr. LOCKE KING moved the second reading of this

bill, with respect to which he said there was such an unani-
mity of opinion amongst the leaders of the house. The
justice of the measure had also been admitted by
gentlemen who had for fire and twenty years ,been
recognised as party leaders in that house. There was
an urgent demand fcr an extension 'of the franchise, and
however it might be realised, a Lill of a similar nature to
that now under their attention must pass. There had been
many attempts certainly to extend the franchise, but up to
the present time all endeavours to accomplish such a desir-
able object had failed. The bill of 1852 was the result of a
Government defeat—it attempted a compromise and
failed. Then again there were the bills of 1554 and 1859,
which, also, were both unsatisfactory. The bill of 1850,
which might be regarded as the bill of the noble lord
at the head of her Majesty's Government, had disap-•
peered like a child—a child badly nursed—it had
never been allowed to take the air, it had never
been ventilated, and its disappearance had been un-
accountable. There was no new principle laid down in the
bill now under attention. There was nu novelty in it to
be urged for the first time, the principle had been admitted
in 1862, and the only question was whether the limit, which
in 1852 was fixed at £5O, should be now restricted to £lO.
The present bill was not merely to add more members
to the electoral roll, but it proposed to allow enlarged
trade, increased intelligence, and a vast number of inte-
rests to be represented in that house, which were now
entirely shut out. lie did not believe that the
bill would enlarge the county constituencies to
the extent it was said, viz., 250,000; but, even if it did, it
would only be doing that which was but common justice to
the increased intelligence of the county constituencies. It
was said by all parties that a £5O qualification was bo high,
and that a £lO one was too low; but both parties, he
maintained, were committed to that sum, and he thought
IL was too late now to effect any compromise. The
house, he contended, was committed to reform by the
pledges of its leaders—(bear, hear)—and if it post-
poned or further delayed it, the house, he con-
sidered, would be lowering itself in the eyes of
the country. (Hear, hear.) Many of the members have
been elected solely on the cry of reform, and the present
Government had been placed in office solely to obtain re-
form or to do the best they could for it. He should like
to know whether chucking a bill on the table, and
getting it printed—(hear)—was doing all that could be
done towards obtaining reform. (Hear, hear.) He felt
the time was come when it was absolutely necessary some-
thing should be done, and he accordingly begged leave to
move the second reading of the bill.
Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH thought the measure a dane
gerous and impolitic one, and therefore he should move the
previous question, as an amendment to the motion of the
hon. gentleman who had just sat down. The result of the
bill would be to swamp the town constituencies, whilst the
whole of:the present nomination boroughs, which amount
in number to about 66, would remain precisely as they
existed. That objection he should have thought would have
been quite sufficient to ensure the rejection of the bill, but
apart from that there were other and serious objections
why the measure should not receive the sanction of the
house.

Mr. KNIGHTLEY said the house was for about the
20th time engaged in a flat, stale, and unprofit-
able discussion which would lead to no practical
result, and he believed had only been brought
forward by the hon. member opposite in order to give him-
self and his friends something to talk about at the next
general election. In his opinion the bill was neither a
liberal one nor a step in the right direction, but, on the
contrary, it was one opposed to all the fundamental prin-
ciples of reform ever laid down, and one that could not but
be productive of the most endless confusion. It was said
that the working classes, by their education and intelligence
were entitled to admission to the franchise. (Hear.) That
might be true in boroughs, for which the hon. member did
not propose to legislate, but it was not true in counties, to
which the provisions of the bill now under discussion solely
applied. It was said that the country gentlemen were not
the friends of the working classes, but if the division lists
were examined, it would be found that the Ten Hours Bill,
the Factories Bill, the Bleaching Works Bill, and many
other measures which mainly benefited and improved the
condition of the working class, have been carried by the
votes of the country gentlemen. He opposed the present
bill because ho thought it would injure the rural districts.
Viscount ENFIELD thought that much embarrassment
was occasioned by discussion on this bill. He did not think
the measure would at all effect the object proposed. He
must say he was not prepared to vote for a £lO county fran-
chise, but one fixing it at L2O should have his cordial support.
The late Lord Herbert was of opinion that that sum was the
proper sum to fix it at, and he entirely subscribed to that
opinion. He wished to extend the county franchise, but
not degrade it; and although he could not approve of the
motion of the bon. gentleman who had moved the previous
question, he should in committee move that the qualifica-
tion under the bill should be £2O, instead of £lO.
Lord IL MONTAGU opposed the bill.
Lord HENLEY regretted the bill had not been allowed
to pass the house without encountering such opposition,
because he looked upon it as a step in the right direction,
and on the whole beneficial. If the bill was rejected, he
hoped the present discussion would be found of great ser-
vice in assisting the framing of a better and more general

measure.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he should vote for the previ-
ous question, because the house was asked to take a leap in
the dark. He objected to the bill because in effect it pro •
posed a uniformity of franchise of both county and borough.
He represented a large number of 40s. freeholders, who, if
this bill passed, would be entirely swamped, together with
the tenant farmers. He, however, thought the people of
the country ought to have a fuller representation in that
house, but the way to accomplish that was not by bit-by-
bit reform, such as was proposed by this bill.
Mr. WARNER, although he did not approve of the bill
as it stood, thought it would be wise to allow it to go into
committee with a view to improving it. He should, there-
fore, vote for the second reading of the bill. After it had
passed that stage it could be referred to a select committee,
where the whole of its provisions could be minutely in-
quired into and discussed.
Mr. BENTINCK opposed the bill. He thought it
would destroy the representation of the counties as they
now exist. He appealed to representatives of the rural
constituencies to join in securing the rejection of the bill.
Mr. NEATE denied that the rural districts were not
properly represented in that house. He believed that three-
fourths of the country was in the hands of the landed aris-
tocracy. He agreed with the noble lord who in the early
part of the debate expressed an opinion that £2O would be
the proper sum at which to fix the county franchise.
Mr. TREHEARNE, in a somewhat discursive first
speech, expressed an opinion in favour of a £2O franchise
for counties. He looked upon the present bill as merely an
attempt to revive a cry of reform on the eve of a general
election, with which certain persons might be enabled to
meet the country. He did not think there had been much
argument on the other aide of the house in favour of the
bill, but there had been a great deal of begging the

question.
Mr. PEASE highly approved of the bill, and expressed
his intention of giving it his most hearty support.
Sir J. WALSH said he believed there was no sincerity
at all in the support given to the bill by the opposite side
of the house, because scarcely any of the hon. gentlemen
who had expressed their intention of voting for the second
reading had done so without some sort of objection to the
measure. At the present time it seemed utterly unnec-
cessary to proceed with the subject, and therefore he hoped
the house would reject the motion for the second reading
of the bill.
Mr. COLLINS said he had a motion on the paper for
the rejection of the bill altogether, but rather than put the
house to the trouble of two divisions he should vote for
the previous question. Ho thought the measure a mis-
chievous one, and one that only received but a very quali-
fied support from its most ardent friends.
Lord PALMERSTON said he thought there might be
some advantageous change made in the county franchise,
but he could not bring himself to vote for the £lO fran-
chise, as laid down in the bill of his hon. friend.
Therefore, in committee he should not feel called upon to
support the proposition. The object of all parliamentary
change should be to procure an equal apportionment of the
trading and commercial and the agricultural interests. He
confessed it would have been advisable not to have mooted
the question at present, as there was no desire for great and
organic changes other than these which had already been
effected. What improvements had been made in the condition
of the country, which had been attendant on a liberal, com-
mercial, and political policy, had been effected by the Par-
liament as now constituted, and therefore the pople of this
country did not seek any change in its constitukion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
Ayes .. 227
Noes .....................
Msjorit.y --27
The bill was consequently lost.
TRESPASS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. BAG WELL moved that the house resolve itself
into committee this day six months.
Mr GORE and Mr DAWS'JN supported the motion for
going into committee.
Mr. BRIGHT thought the bill 'would be attended with
the worst consequences in Ireland, and would only increase
the number of deadly encounters occasioned by the illegal
pursuit of game. He therefore hoped the house would
reject it.
Mr WHITESIDE, on the contrary, thought the measure
a very useful one, and likely to be of great service. He
therefore should support it.
' Sir R. PEEL said he had assented to the second reading
of the bill on the understanding that its provisions should