The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-03 00:00:00

he took the same course now that he did on the first in-
troduction of the Bill. On that occasion he voted with the
Honourable Member for Surrey, and he did so chiefly fur
the reasons assigned by the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government, who, he considered, had shown that
the class of persons for whose benefit the Bill was de-
signed might be safely entrusted with the franchise.
This was not a democratic or dangerous measure, but,
on the contrary, would make the people: more conserva-
tive and more anxious to preserve the institutions of the
country; and he thought the fears entertained by the
Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were alto-
gether groundless; and if ho could at all rule their de-
cisions, he would earnestly entreat them to support the
second reading.—(Hear, and cries of " Divide.")
Colonel 'THOMPSON said he was exactly in the same
situation as the Hon. Member for Manchester. He had
been sent to the House of Commons to promote two ob-
jects, to advance free trade, and to extend the franchise
among the working classes as far as he could.—
(Hear, hear.) To these objects he felt conscientiously
bound to direct all his efforts. Judging, however, as
well as he was able of this measure, he looked unon it
as a kind of military movement designed to ondanger
the position of the Government; and he would state
frankly that he would rather see London for
six weeks under the protection of a foreign
army, than see the Protectionists six weeks on the
Treasury benchos.—(hear.) Entertaining this opinion,
he should vote against the second reading of the Bill,
if the Hon. Member for Surrey did not take the opinion
of his sincere friends and withdraw it.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said no inducement would make
him allow the question to be decided without taking the
tense of the House.

Colonel ROMILLY said, as an advocate for the ex-
tension of the franchise, ho was prepared to go beyond
the provisions of the Bill, but he should vote against the
second reading, considering that if he took au opposite
course he should diminish the prospects of ob-
taining a better measure, which the Premier
had promised to introduce next year. He hoped the
Bill would be withdrawn.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. H. BERKELEY appealed to the Hon. Member
to withdraw the Bill, and said if he went to a division he
should be compelled to vote against it.
After a few words from Mr. PIGOTT and Mr. HEY-
WORTH, amidst some confusion, and cries of "Divide,"

Mr. B. OSBORNE said he did not rise to question the
sincerity of the motives of any Honourable Gentleman,
but ho must be allowed to question their discretion on
this occasion.—(Hear, hear.) It was very well for the
Honourable Member for East Surrey to say, that his
was not a flash in the pan or sham motion.—(Hear.)
It was a sham motion, because he knew he could never
carry it into effect. He had much greater faith in the
Government carrying out reform measures than the
small party to which he (Mr. Osborne) and the Hon.
Gentleman belonged. However sincere or energetic
they might be, it was impossible for any one of
them to be called ou to form a Government out
of their party which would euable them to carry out
such measures.—(Laughter.) If they were sincere,
therefore, the best thing they could do was to support
men who were able and willing to effect reforms in the
franchise.—(Hear.) When the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government said it was his intention to bring
in a Bill next session, he would be the last
to doubt his word, he believed he was sincere in making
that promise to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He there-
fore called on all real and practical Reformers to support
the Noble Lord on the present occasion.—(Cheers.) He
believed the people out of doors did not care one
farthing for the small modicum of reform which this Bill
would give them; they expected to have a large and
comprehensive measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOORE hoped, after the exhibition which Hon.
Gentlemen opposite had made to-day in expressing their
determination to vote against an extension of the fran-
chise, which they said they felt bound to promote, and
in favour of which they had voted only a few days ago,
would act as a warning to them not to attack the Irish
Members with inconsistency on questions of legislation.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary at War, at the commencement of the discus-
sion, had stated, as he (Lord John Russell) had
said on a former occasion, that ho had no wish to
question the respectability or intelligence of the class to
which the Bill proposed to extend the suffrage. The
grounds on which he argued the question was, that the
allowing of these persons to vote for counties would
not bo an improvement of the representation.
The observations which had fallen from some
Honourable Gentlemen in the course of tho
debate he thought required from him some explanation.
The object of the Bill he perfectly understood and agreed
in, but as the Hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as only
one of many changes which he wished to see effected,
be put it to the House, considering the gravity
and importance of making a change in the
electoral body, on the nature and constitution
of which would depend so intimately the effect of any
future measure, whether it would not be wiser, in a
question of this kind, to have the whole scheme placed
before it at once, instead of considering the changes one
by one? The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Man-
chester had called upon him to go then at once into a
general view of the proposal which it was his intention
to bring before the House in the next session. He thought
that would be the worst course he Gould pursue; he did
not think it would be at all expedient to state in the
present year the general nature of that which he intended
to do in the next, to hese his scheme go into the coun-
try unexplained and undefended, to be canvassed during
the period which must elapse before it was brought
before the Legislature. He should therefore ad-
here to the declaration which he had made on
other occasions, that he was favourable to the extension
of the suffrage partly for the grounds which had been
stated by the Hon. Member for Canterbury, that the
growing intelligence and the spread of information which
had taken place since 1831 rendered such a measure ne-
ccssary, and partly from the defects which were
almost inseperable from any great measure
such as the Reform Bill, and for those reasons he thought
that the House of Commons, at the commencement of
the next session, should proceed to the consideration of
a measure for the extension of the suffrage. He had so
often stated his general views with regard to the repre-
sentation of the country upon which he thought any
alteration in the franchise should be based, that
he should not now go into them. With
regard to what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen who had just sat down, ho thought that
whatever pretext he could assign for virtually committing
by his late vote the fortunes of free trade into the hands
of the Hon. Member for Bucks—he did not think he
could find any excuse for it in finding fault
with the conduct of those Hon. Members who had
voted for the Bill on a former occasion, but to-day had
opposed the second reading. It must be observed that
the Hon. Gentlemen who had to-day spoken against the
Bill had done so with a view to promote the cause of
reform, thinking that they should better promote their
own principles by leaving this question in the hands of the
Government than by giving such a vote as the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had done on a former occasion.
—(Laughter and cheers.) With these observations he
should leave this question in the hands of the House,
and he should certainly vote against the second reading
for the reasons which he had given.
Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to make a few obser-
vations on what had fallen from the Secretary of War.
That Right Hon. Gentleman bad spoken of Honourable
Gentlemen on this side of this House as being banded
against every species of reform.
Mr. F. NIAULE—The Hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. DISRAELI—The words used by the Right
Honourable Gentleman certainly conveyed that impres-
sion. He begged, however, to remind the Right
Hon. Gentleman and the House, that same sentiment
was put forth when the Reform Bill was proposed. It
was said that no sincere adhesion could be given to that
Bill by Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House,
in spite of all their protestations to the contrary.
But when that Bill had passed, Hon. Gentlemen on that
side of the House proved the sincerity of their protes-
tations; they had supported the settlement which was
come to on that occasion of a great question, an
adherence to which in all its principles—the Bill
the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, as it was called,
was held forth as being necessary for the holding, not
only of office, but even of a seat in Parliament. Bat
now that the party who introduced, framed, and
carried the Bill themselves repudiated their own handi-
work, he thought he was perfectly free to consider the
question apart from any reference to its antece-
dents, and with reference only to those considerations
which concerned the public welfare. All ho would
pledge himself to would be to oppose any measure which
had for its effect the retaining and confirming in power
of any political section. He had that confidence in the
good sense and spirit of the country,and he had no fear of
what the result of the measure would be. He should
certainly oppose any measure which seemed to have for
its object to place obstacles in the way of the exercise of
their proper and constitutional influence of that terri-
torial power which an Hon. Gentleman had referred to,
and which he believed to be the best security for our
liberty, and the best means that we had for retaining
that firm, stable, and fixed character which our his-
tory and institutions possessed.—(Cheers.)
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY was rejoiced to hear that in
future
tohfrothwen
Government,overboard and. He had
had
confidence he
should decline to support the second reading of this
finality
Bill, but in doing so he wished his constituents still to
believe that he was faithful to the principles of Parlia-
nailnityth we
apromises to be
Parlia-
mentary reform.
Mr. LOCKE KING, in replying, said he should leave
the Bill in the hands of the House, to deal with it as
they thought proper, and abstain from acceding to the
appeals which had been made for its withdrawal.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ••• 83
Against it ... ••• *** 299
Majority against it ..• 216
The Bill was accordingly thrown out.
AUDIT OF RAILWAY ACCOUNTS.
Mr. LOCKE moved the second reading of this Bill,
and in doing so he recalled to the recollection of the
certainllouse rtandeweaybuaseeeseenwthsich
.Thwaedatltieimthto c
petrehadhahreaecntemriesd
made
to legislate upon this subject, but these proposals all
events, owtheveer,
Brest had pbrnodvyed
went upon the principle that railway shareholders wore
far
unable to manage their own affairs. Subsequent
oft ralhisito be a mis-
take,repri eway
tore in this country had repeatedly shown them-
selves alive to all discrepancies and abuses that
might exist or had existed in the keeping p
and proper
auditing of their accounts. On one occasion a deputa-
tion from the railway proprietors of England had
an interview with the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, who was induced to
abandon all idea of meddling with the internal arrange-
ment of railway companies, and to consent to the with-
drawal of their Government measure. Two or three at-
tempts had since been made to legislate upon this impor-
tant subject, but owing to circumstances to which it was
LIM necesutry'rlow.to refer, those schemes were zeterred to