The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-24 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time :—Central
Wales Railway, and the Great Southern of India Railway
Company.
The London and South Western Railway (New Line to
Bristol and Exeter Railway at Exeter, &.c.) ; (Dublin City)
Steam Packet Company; Keith and Dufftown Railway;
and Torquay Gas Bills, were considered and ordered for
third reading.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented in favour of and against
the Wine Licensing Bill, in favour of legalising marriage
with a deceased wife's sister, in favour of the adoption of
the suggestions of parties practically acquaint( I with the
subject of Scotch fishery in any bill on that subject, in
favour of the Government Reform Bill, in favour of the
abolition of the duty on hops, contemporaneously with the
passing of the Wine Licensing Bill.
MERCHANT SHIPPING.
Mr. HORSFALL moved that the report of the Select
Committee of 1845 on Lighthouses, and the reports on
Passing Tolls and Local Charges ; as also copies of the
following statutes, 9 and 10 Tic. c. 93, an Act for compen-
sating the families of persons killed by accident ; the Mer-
chant Shipping Act, 1854 ; the Merchant Shipping Act,
1855 ; the Passenger Act, 1855; and the Chinese Passen-
ger Act, 1655, be referred to the Select Committee on Mer-
chant Shipping—Agr 'd to.
THE NAVY.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON moved fir a copy of proposed
plan for retirement and promotion of naval officers which
was left by Sir J. Pakington, when he quitted office, in the
hands of the present First Lord of the Admiralty.—
Ordered.
Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that he would ask the
Government a question relative to their not adopting the
suggestion of the commission appointed to inquire into the
subject of the naval reserve force.
THE REFORM BILL.
Mr. B. OSBORNE asked the hon. member for Salford
whether it was his intention to press his motion in respect
to the Reform Bill being referred to a select committee ?
Mr. MASSEY said that as it was considered that his
motion would have the effect of obstructing, if not negativ-
ing, the Reform Bill, and as he had no such intention, he
would not stress his motion. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.)
THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. E. JAMES said he would just make a few remarks
on the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for ;
the University of Dublin. The tendency of the right hon. ,
gentleman's argument appeared to be that the extension of
the franchise to the occupiers of £6 houses in boroughs, ,
was calculated to give a great preponderance to the demo-
cratic element, and to be of a dangerous and revolutionary
character. If it were, it behoved the gentlemen on the
opposition side of the house to have met the motion for the
second reading of the bill with a direct negative. The right
hon. gentleman's speech followed that of the hon. member ,
for Leeds, who gave them statistics proving the provident
habits of the working classes, of their intelligence, and of
their increased education. But the right hon. gentleman
met the whole of that speech with a sneer; and he was the
more astonished at that, because he found on referring to
the debate on the bill of the late Government, in 1859, the
right hon. gentleman eulogised the bill as calculated to
enfranchise the working classes, and he read a letter from
an intelligent elector of the borough of Marylebone, which
stated that the bill was entitled to the support of the work-
ing classes, because it would add 15,000 of the skilled
artisans of the borough to the constituency. Why then had ,
the right hon. gentleman now this dread of the admission ;
of the working classes to the franchisa ? He appealed from
the right hon. gentleman to the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton). No one would
ever forget the eloquent speech uttered by the right hon.
baronet in support of that bill. " 'We are not likely," the
right hon. baronet said, " to fear the working man, and for
my part I am proud of the English workman, whether it be
the simple English peasant with his homely virtues, or th
more agitated, but amid all_ his faults that noble human
being, the skilled mechanic of our manufacturing towns,
with his thirst for knowledge, and his dreams of some poli-
tical Utopia quite as rational as that which Plato himself
dreamed." The right hon. baronet, he presumed from his
writings, had a better acquaintance with the working peo•
ple of this country than the right hon. gentleman, and he
had no fear of them, and yet they were told that this bill
was revolutionary. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) spoke against the franchise pro-
posed, because it created what he called a homogeneous con-
sistency. He (Mr. James) did not understand the argu-
ment, but th:, bill of the right hon. gentleman himself pro-
posed a £lO constituency for counties. In conferring the
franchise they must have some political status, and he could
not understand the objection unless the bill were deficient
ix not having other franchises, and unless the right hon.
gentleman had in his mind some mythical and celestial con-
stituencies that lived in houses not made with hands. He
would not revert to the speech of the right hon. member for
Droitwich, who omitted no opportunity of having a fling at
metropolitan members. The right hon. baronet related an
imaginary conversation in which a sulky elector of Mary -
lebone told him that he never interfered in the elections of
that borough.
Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked that what the hon. and
learned gentleman was quoting was an extract from a pam-
phlet written by Sir John Walsh.
Mr. E. JAMES—But it was some imaginary conversation
that took place at the sea side.
Sir J. WALSII—A fact.
Mr. E. JAMES—WeII, he said such was the preponder-
ance of the liberal electors that he never troubled himself
to vote at all. Well, perhaps he did not. But might they
not have an imaginary conversation with a liberal elector of
Droitwich, whom they could easily imagine saying that he
never interfered with the elections of Droitwich, because
Sir John Pakington returned the member for Droitwich, and
that it was no use fighting against him ? They might mul-
tiply instances of this kind, and they might take counties,
and ask what chance had a liberal elector in North Essex ?
He would now make one or two observations on the defects
of the measure. He thought the bill was defective on ac-
count of its non-disfranchisement, and on account of its non-
enfranchisement, which was in consequence of the non-
disfranchisement. He thought also the bill was defective
in its not giving a lodger franchise, by which they lost a
great deal of the intellect of the country, which would, to a
certain degree, be a safeguard and balance of the vessel of the
state against what appeared to be too democratic an element.
He thought the bill was defective in hampering the fran-
chise by exacting the payment of rates. The bill, which
pretended to be an adjustment of a great question, was a
mere skeleton bill, because it contained no amended system
of revision and registration, which was essential. A great
deal had been said as to the extent to which the bill would
increase the franchise. The noble lord had stated that the
increase of voters in boroughs by admitting £6 householders
would be somewhere between 157,000 and 160,000, and that
he could give them no notion of the increase that would be
made in the county constituencies. He believed that the
noble lord's statement was entirely fallacious, and that
Government was not in possession of the means of affording
to the house and the country anything like a calculation of
the extent of the measure. (Opposition cheers.) Those
cheers came from the opposition side of the house, who of
course would argue from the fact he bad stated that the
measure was of a dangerous character. He derived no such
argument from it, because he had no fear of the extension
of the franchise. He thought, however, it was absolutely.
essential in any measure of reform which was to adjust this
great question for a quarter of a century—and he was not
one of those who thought they should be continually having
amended suffrage bills—that they should know the num-
bers they are going to admit to the franchise. The fallacy
of these returns arose from the fact that Government took
the numbers from a return of all male persons assessed to
the poor's rate in parliamentary boroughs, but in conse-
quence of the effects of the compounding act, there were
many thousands of persons in boroughs occupying houses
of £6 a year and upwards who were not assessed to the poor
rate, the owner who paid the rate being the person who was
assessed. There was a return which would have given the
noble lord a nearer approximation of the effect of his bill.
That return was moved for by the hon. member for Lam-
beth in August, 1857, and it gave the number of houses
rated in six metropolitan boroughs. Those houses must o
course be occupied in order to their being rated, and making
the necessary deductions from them they got at the num-
ber of occupiers who would be enfranchised. Take St.
Pancras, where the noble lord said he would merely add 500
to the constituency. In St. Pancras 3,765 £6 tenants would
have the franchise. He was delighted at it. The noble lor,
he believed would be startled at it, though he would profess
to be pleased with it. He would now take Finsbury. Thera
were 39,621 houses ratedto the relief of the poor in Finsbur3
How many of those were under £6 houses ? Not one. The
total number of electors at present was 20,951 ; and accord-
ing to the returns of the Government the estimated increase
would be just 558. (Hear, hear.) Why the idea was ridi-
culous. (Cheers.) Take, again, the Tower Hamlets. The
number of voters now on the register was 28,843 ; and the
increase was estimated at 5,488 ; but the number of £6
houses rated to the poor was no less than 88,327. (Hear.)
The present number of voters in Marylebone was 21,031,
and the number which it was stated would be added to them
by the bill was 406; but the number of rated houses was