The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-29 00:00:00

ELECTION INTELLIGENCE.

-

CITY OF LONDON.

Last evening Mr. Lyall, M.P., and Mr. R. N.
Fowler, the Conservative candidates for the city,
accompanied by Mr. Thos. Baring, M.P., the chair-
man, and many of the members of the committee,
attended a large meeting of the constituency assem-
bled in a schoolroom in Bishopsgate. The candidates
were at first tolerably well received, but as the pro-
ceedings advanced the tableswere somewhat turned.
It was, however, a part of the city where they were
likely to meet with most opposition, including, as it
does, the great body of the Jewish community, who
to a man support Baron Rothschild, their co-reli-

gionists.
Mr. GIBBS, on the motion of Mr. IHOS. BARING,
was called to the chair. On assuming it, he said the
present crisis was of momentous importance to them
all. They were not inclined, he supposed, to consent
to the swamping of that constituency and of all
others by the indiscriminate admission of men who,
excellent and intelligent in other respects, had not
opportunities of studying public questions, so as to
be likely to exercise the franchise for the general
good. lie also assumed that they would not be dis-
posed to adopt the ballot—(hear, hear)—unmanly
and miserable way as it was of giving a vote. He I
supposed they had all read a letter in that day's
Times written by a man who had seen the practical
working of the ballot in America. For the benefit
of those who bad not he would just read one pas-
sage from it :
" Extend the franchise as much as you please, but let
education precede that, and never introduce the ballot,
unless you wish to destroy the English character for open
avowal of opinion and action. Open voting may sometimes
injure a person pecuniarily, but secret voting far worse
while it is no protection against bribery, I know, for I have
seen it practised scores of times. I have seen men's votes
bought for an American quarter (an English shilling), the
ticket put into their hand how they were to vote, and the
person walk with them to tho poll and see the tickets placed
in tho ballot-box."

He reminded the meeting that in the city of London
the constituency had now, as for years past, to sub-
mit to the dictation of a society which arrogated to
itself the function of selecting the candidates who
were to present themselves for election. The time
Lad arrived for resisting that dictation, and he called
on the electors to set their faces against it, adding
that the Conservatives had a numerical majority in
the city (" No, no !"), and that it had only been
their apathy of late years which had led to their
losing a share in the representation.
Mr. LYALL, M.P., then stood forward to speak,
and was received with cheers. He felt it incumbent
on him, he said, to state the reasons which had in-
duced him to present himself as a candidate to re-
present this great city. From a very early period
of life it had always been a great object of ambition
with him, if ever circumstances should afford him an
opportunity—and it was but natural that he should
have ambition, remembering as he did that his father
entered Parliament for the city with a majority of
1,100 in his favour. Since that period they had
seen many and great changes, and he himself had
sat in Parliament seven or eight years, acquiring
that experience which he hoped might enable him
worthily to perform the duties if he should have the
honour of being elected their representative. During
the latter years of his father's life he acted as his
private secretary in matters connected with the re-
presentation of the city of London. Eighteen years
had since elapsed, but he had then peculiar oppor-
tunities of knowing the wants and wishes of the
citizens, and he hoped he had not forgotten them.
(" What have you done for the Dissenters ?")
Ile respected the opinions of the Dissenters, though
warmly attached to his own Church—the Church
of England. (Cheers.) With respect to church-
rates, lie had not voted for their abolition uncondi-
tionally, but lie had done so on conditions. As to
free trade, he entirely coincided with the votes his
father gave in favour of the measure of Sir Robert
Peel for the abolition of the corn laws, and while
he had sat in Parliament he had never given a vote
which had not been in entire conforinity with the
principle of free trade. (Hear, hear.) The Liberal
party took credit for having done a great deal of
late years. Ile was not disposed to deny the good
they had done. It would have been remarkable in-
deed if a Government, with all the resources of the
country at command for six years, should have done
nothing at all. Not many domestic measures had
passed in that interval, but some that were good
had, though he could not give the whole credit to
the Government for carrying them. Ile mentioned
one as an instance—the Union Chargeability Bill.
He was one of a committee which sat on that sub-
ject last year, and he, with others, recommended
the adoption of the very principle which had been
embodied in the bill. (Cheers.) The Government
bad passed a Highway Bill, a Poor-rate Assessment
Bill, an Irremovable Poor Bill, and a Union Charge-
ability Bill ; but those were the only domestic mea-
sures of any prominence that be could call to mind
as having been carried by them during the last six
years. Their tenure of office, indeed, reminded him
of the old Swedish maxim as to how little wisdom
was required to govern the world. Whoever was in
must bring forward measures of social improve-
ment, or they could not exist in office. He gave the
Government credit for a good deal, but, consider-
ing the great power, influence, and knowledge they
derived from being in office, he could not say they
had much to boast of. Mr. Lyall proceeded to say
he was opposed to the ballot and to a £6 fran-
chise, believing that in London, in parti-
cular, such a franchise would let in a vast flood
of ignorance. This latter statement gave rise to
great uproar in the meeting, and Mr. Lyall was
obliged to resume his seat.
Mr. FOWLER next presented himself,-but some
minutes elapsed before he could gain a hearing amid
the clamour of contending partisans. He was an
advocate, he said, of non-intenvention in foreign
politics. Wherever that policy had been pursued by
either party in power it had resulted in advantage,
and the adoption of a contrary one had been attended
with some loss to the prestige and dignity of Eng-
land. He approved the course taken by the Govern-
ment during the American crisis, for under very
difficult circumstances the honour of England had
been maintained and we had at the same time been
preserved from war. There had been smallwars,how-
ever, in China and Japan, and we had extricated
ourselves, not without some loss of honour, in the
case of the Brazils. The Government were perfectly
right in not involving us in a war for the sake of
Poland ; but the course of the Foreign-office was to
be deplored for leading the Poles to believe that
England would actively interfere in their behalf, the
consequence of which was that the sufferings of that
unhappy people were greatly aggravated. Then,
again, people in this country generally felt that the
Danes were ill-used. He did not blame the Govern- •
ment for not going to war on their behalf, but he
did blame them for writing despatches and stating
that under certain contingencies Denmark would
not be left alone. Having done so they retired
from the contest, and he considered the result
of such conduct was a loss to the honour and
dignity of England. (Hear, hear.) He had some-
thing to say with reference to the ancient rights and
privileges of the Corporation of the City of London.
n e was not a blind admirer of the corporation, but
it discharged arduous and responsible ditties in a
way which did honour to it. Nevertheless, its
rights and privileges bad been seriously menaced
by the Government. Two years ago Sir George
Grey introduced a bill into Parliament the object of
which was to do away with the city police. The
citizens, laying aside for the time differences of
political opinion, rose as one man and defended the
ancient privileges of the city on that occasion. If,
however, there had then been a Ministry such as
that of Sir R. Peel in 1841, or of Lord Palmerston
in 1857, supported by a majority of 100 in the
House of Commons, the power of the Government
would have overrides everything the city could
have done to defend itself, and the exertions of
Baron Rothschild and Mr. Crawford would have
been unavailing against the attacks of a Liberal
Administration. It was because the Conservative
party mainly supported the corporation on that
occasion that Mr. Crawford was able to make the
stand he did in favour of its rights. Sir G. Grey
had not forgotten the defeat he then sustained, and
with sufficient power in the new Parliament they