The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

THE ISLAND OF SAN JUAN.

Mr. FITZGERALD asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, whether he was prepared to give the house
any information as to the present position of the negocia-
tions between this country and the United States, with re-
ference to the Island of San Juan ; and, whether he had
any objection to lay the correspondence with. the United
States Government on that subject upon the table of the
house ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not determined as to
whether he should lay the correspondence on the table.
He had little else to add to the statement he had previously
made in reference to this matter. He considered it would
not be prudent then to enter into a full explanation on
the subject of the compromise proposed. The
Government made al-proposal last August, which
was not acceded to by the Government of America.
From the last intelligence received it appeared that General
Cass had received instructiona on which he had acted. It
appeared also that General Harney thought it necessary to
place 800 men and a battery of guns, but General Scott,
exercising his discretion, considered that neither party
should have exclusive jurisdiction, and the number of men
was reduced to 100. The Governor did not think it right
to enter into any compromise, and 100 soldiers were also
landed by him on the island.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.-

ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. MACAULAY, in resuming the adjourned debate
for the second reading of this bill, referred to the opinions
entertained by Sir James Macintosh in regard to the
subject of Parliamentary reform. He contended that
the present bill would not have the effect of extending
the franchise to the working classes in large and populous
towns. These classes were chiefly dependent on weekly
wages, and practically could not be included in the £6
franchise. He strongly objected to the principle of
an uniform and monotonous franchise; which, how-
ever, was merely transposed and presented in, a
more aggravated form in. the bill of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London. Referring to the details of the
bill, he said it did not contain the elements of stability,
and in practice would satisfy neither its opponents nor
its advocates. He deprecated most strongly the state-
ments made by some of the supporters of the bill,
and alluded in particular to the hon. member for
Birmingham (Mr. Bright). These gentlemen evidently
considered the bill merely as a commencement of more ex-
tensive alterations in the franchise of the country. The
hon. member for Birmingham at a meeting composed of the
advocates of universal suffrage and vote by ballot had asked
that meeting to go with him in the adoption of the bill, anti
that he would go with them afterwards for what they re-
quired. The same feeling was exhibited in the case of other
persons, and therefore they were placed in this position in
reference to this measure that a large number of its sup-
porters considered it only as a preliminary step to more
sweeping and more organic changes. and its opponents were
satisfied that it would not effect what the former antici-
pated—it would be productive of most injurious re ts.
The noble lord (Lord. J. Russell) was represented aw-
ing a paternal interest in the subject of reform,
and had redeemed his pledge in. bringing forward this mea-
sure ofjeform. He asked that noble lord if, with the feel-
ing that was exhibited in regard to this bill even amongst
the ordinary supporters of Government, he was justified in
pressing it forward. Having vindicated his position, he
should now act with wisdom, and withdraw a measure which
he contended was unusually unpopular. The hon. and learned
member then argued at some length in support of his views
and concluded with an earnest appeal to the Government
not to press the bill this session, but leave the question of
reform to the consideration of another Parliament.
Mr. GREGORY believed the convictions of 40 out of
every 60 members of that house were adverse to the
bill. He contended that the result of the bill would be
to transfer power from the hands of employers to operatives,
and would tend to a dangerous extension of democratic prin-
ciples. Referring to America, he asserted that the spread of
democratic principles in that republic so far from promot-
ing the happiness or prosperity of the people had an effect
directly the reverse. He based his statement on
personal experience recently acquired. He saw
much in that country that was deserving of adoption
here. Some of his friends at Washington expressed much
surprise that he should at the time have been favourable to
an extension of the franchise to the working classes after
having seen the operation of the democratic principle in
the United States. He then proceeded to quote a series of
anecdotes, much to the amusement of the house, illustrat-
ing the tyranny of the multitude in -Americathe intimi-
dation of the press and the governing. bodie's—the dissatis-
faction of all parties out of power—the corruption of all
parties in power. The evils thus produced in America would
be alarmingly magnified in an old and most artificial so-
ciety ; and it was from a deep conviction of the consequences
elsewhere—consequences which he had only lately per-
ceived from his experience of the United States—that he
viewed with terror and dismay the results of the present
measure. He was not opposed to the admission of the
working classes, if that could be done by some counter-
poise of wealth and intelligence. This he hoped miglefet
e effected in committee. He wished for a more raolarrate
extension of the franchise, and a further disfranchisement
of the small boroughs, but he objected to unwieldy consti-
tuencies handed over, as in America, to the management of
caucuses, combinations, and associations, and to the conse-
quent retirement from politics of the most eminent men of
the country, at a time when, of all others, England would
stand in need of her wisest, ablest, and most intelligent

statemen.
Mr. LONGFIELD dilated upon the mischief of mob
role, and of the influence of the multitude, even if it were a
multitude of Newtons. He protested against taking popu-
lation as the principle of representation. The multitude
must learn to govern themseh es before they attempted to
govern other people. He quoted a mass of facts to show
that the working classes had not increased either in know-
ledge or in morality.
An Hon. MEMBER moved that the house be counted.
After a few seconds a large number of members rushed
,in, and made a house.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR accused the last speaker of being
one of a party who, not having the boldness and political
honesty to meet the question, endeavoured to wear it out by
delay. Ms protested against introducing American argu-
ments into the debate, and replied to them by asserting that
the bill did not open the floodgates of democracy, or propose
universal suffrage—it was a simple extension of the prin-
ciples of the first Reform Bill. He defended the accuracy
of the returns on which the bill was founded, and reprobated
the masked batteries upon it from that side of the house,
equally with the open fire of the Opposition.
Mr. KENDALL denied that the Conservatives at-
tempted to delay the progress of the bill. Members on the
Liberal side seemed still more anxious to find an opportu-
nity of talking about it than the Conservatives. The chief
argument in favour of the measure seemed to be, that if
they did not accept it a worse measure would before long be
forced upon them.
Sir J. RAMSDEN declared that to pass a measure simply
because a measure was promised was simply cheating the
public, and he would be no party to any such proceeding.
Better delay further proceedings altogether than adopt
crude and unsatisfactory provisions.
Mr. WALPOLE said that they were all agreed that the
second reading of the bill alone should pass in order to get
into committee on the details of the bill, which would
require the most careful consideration. There were three
objects contemplated in this bill—a large reduction of the
borough franchise ; an extensive alteration in the county
franchise ; and a re-distribution of seats. As to the
first, the noble lord, who was the parent of the bill,
had told them the principles en which he intended to pro-
ceed. He said they were principles known to the constitu-
tion, and -that this bill was to be considered as a supplement
to the bill of 1832. He would join issue with the noble lord
on that point. Take the borough franchise. The noble lord
departed from the policy he had advocated within those
walls ten years ago. He then said the true policy was to
introduce variety into the borough franchise, but where was
the variety here ? From the result of that debate, they all
agreed that variety of the franchise was the only way in
which they could modify the town representation. All the
noble lord's former measures of Reform introduced to that
house tended to introduce variety. Some included the de-
positors in savings banks, others put personal property on a
level with real property, by admitting to the franchise per-
sons who had property in the funds. Others, again, insisted
that the franchise should accompany taxation, and that,
therefore, all who paid the income-tax should have a vote.
Then, again, there was the education afid other franchises.
The first remark he (Mr. Walpole) would snake was, that
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was deviating from the
policy he had himself laid down. The second remark he
would make wag, that in extending the franchise no guar-
antee was taken for the fitness and intelligence of those who
were to have it. At present the number of voters for Eng-
land and Wales, as calculated by the electoral roll, ‘,,,as
410,000; but if they acted upon the principle laid dwn
in the noble lord's bill, the number of voters would be
raised from 410,000 to 838,000, or, in other words, they

would be more than doubled. As they descended in.. the
scale, they increased the number and lowered the qrtality
of the electors. If they went down to a £9 franc thine,
they had 41,000 electors. If they went down to an £8
one, they would have 53,000; if to a £7, they would+. have
78,000; and if to £6, they would have 98,000 voters. Now,
the moment they did that, they would get a class of
electors subject to all the influences of poverty, to the in-
jury of those possessed of property. Thus, as they
lowered the scale of rental they lessened the character of
the constituency by the introduction of a class of persons
who were entirely dependent upon the influence of p roperty,
and be introducing an element which was entirely in oppo •
sition to the known principles of . the Constitutice, upon
which the former Reform Bill was founded. Awarding to
the constitution the borough franchise was founded upon
property and taxation; as, for instance, they gave the fran-
chise to those who were freemen, to those who. held by
burghage tenure. and to those who paid " scot t aid lot"
in
other words, they gave the franchise to those who con •
tributed to local burdens equally with their fellow citizens.
Now that franchise became limited because chow corpora-
tions had monopolised to themselves the greater :part of the
power of returning members to Parliament. The y knew by
returns to what enormous extent that encroach ment was
carried. But how did the noble lord profess to r emedy it ?
By the introduction of a£lo household qualification in 1832,
coupled with the payment of Imperial taxation. By that
. act every elector had to be assessed to the payment of the
house tax, and of the window tax. Well, they repealed the
house tax in 1834, and the window duty in 1851, and thus
dissevered taxation from representation, so far as Imperial
taxation was concerned, and by that arrangement they
threw upon a great mass of the constituents, who did not
contribute to that taxation, the power of returning mem •
bers to Parliament, and who thus kept the taxation all above
them. (Hear.) What did the present bill do? The noble
lord said that he did not intend to alter the law; but he
assured him that he altered it in a most material manner;
and he maintained that after they repealed the house tax
and the window duty, there was no connecting link between
that sort of taxation and the franchise. Under the noble
lord's present bill the franchise was not to be connected
with any kind of taxation, except one—namely, the poor.
rate, which the elector was required to pay. The hon.
member for Birmingham was by far the ablest exponent of
the views of those who were called " realßeforraers," either
in that house or in the country. (Hear, hear.) He was
not going to wake an attack upon that hon. member. He;
admired his honesty of purpose and the great abilities he
always displayed ; but he was prepared to meet him in fair
argument. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) Now, he
gathered that the whole gist of the hon. member's argu-
ment was, that they ought to have rating as a convenient
means of registration; but that they ought not to insist
' upon payment of rates. --
Mr. BRIGHT—Does the right hon. member refer to a
speech which I made in this house ?
Mr. WALPOLE—In this house.
Mr. BRIGHT was here understood to admit the accu-
racy of the right hon. gentleman's memory.
Mr: WALPOLE—That was a most important admission.
Rating was recommended as a system of registration, and
the payment of rates in connection with representation was
to be given up. (Hear.) The noble lord said he did not
alter the law, as, by the 3d . clause, it was provided that all
provisions•respecting rating and the payment of rates should
be applicable to the new £6 franchise. Prima facie, there-
fore, the noble lord thought he had accomplished his object,
namely, that rating and the payment of rates should be re-
quired if the bill passed. By the 14th and 15th of the
Queen the landlord of small tenements below £8 might
be rated, and yet the tenant or occupier would have a
vote. Then, by the 13th and 14th of the Queen, the land-
lord might compound for his tenant's rates at two-thirds
of the value, or if he compounded at the beginning of
the year, he could compound for the rates at one-half the
value. All those tenants, therefore, had a right to vote,
notwithstanding they had not contributed, like their fel-
low citizens, to the taxation of the country. Therefore,
the noble lord had immensely and materially altered the
law, and was doing that which would, if it went on much
further, prove absolute ruin to their representative
system—namely, extending the franchise to those who
were not subject to, but were entirely exempt from, the
burdens which their fellow-citizens were required to pay.
He believed they all agreed not to oppose the second reading
of the bill, and he entirely concurred in that course.
Pledges had been already given, and so repeatedly and so-
lemnly, by different parties in the house, by the Crown, and
by Parliament, that the question would be re-opened and
reconsidered.. Nothing could be more unwise or unjustifi-
able after that; as to dally with the question, or allow it to
be taken up by political demagogues. That was a reason
why he supported the reading before the Easter recess; but
he frankly owned that circumstances bad since occurred of
so startling a character that he hardly knew what he ought
to think or do. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches.)
Well, hon.. gentlemen may laugh, but did they see the
point ? They had been told on undoubted authority, that
the announced intention of re-opening the subject wasmade
by the First Minister of the Crown without the consent of
his colleagues.
Lord J. RUSSELL—That is not true.
Mr. WALPOLE continued—The point was so important
that he was extremely glad the noble lord interrupted him,
and hoped he would have the kindness to favour the house
with an explanation. The noble lord says it is not true,
and that being so, he implicitly believed him, but a colleague
made the statement, and since that he addressed the house
and gave no explanation, so that any hon. member was
warranted in believing it to be true. He also disapproved
of the conduct of the Government in dealing with the ques-
tion two different ways in each house of Parliament. In
the other house an inquiry was going on that concerned the
functions of this house, and the constituencies of the coun•
try, and if the bill be proceeded with and sent up to the
House of Lords before that inquiry was complete, what
then would be done ! In that case the measure would be laid
on the shelf, and that house placed in a most humiliating
position. The bill would, in that case, be sent back to them
as imperfect, and their appearance before the country would
be somewhat silly. (Hear, hear.) The task upon which
they had now entered, too, was one that should not be at-
tempted with a rough and hasty hand. The noble lord
the Foreign Secretary had stated to the house an anecdote
relating to the Reform Bill of 1832, which was not without
its lesson now. When the noble lord was about to intro-
duce that bill, he mentioned to the American Ambassador
his duabts and anxieties as to the changes he was about to
propose in the constitution which had continued so long.
The American Ambassador replied "So long, and so strong!"
The length and the strength of the original constitution
was matter of history ; it had benefited this country for
many a century. The length and the strength of the
second. constitution of 1832 was not much older than the
youngest man among them, and the man who gave life to
it was the man who was now putting the knife to its throat
previous to following it to its grave. (Hear, and laughter.)
The length of the new constitution must d wend upon the
accuracy of their information; and the only principles upon
which they could proceed with any chance of satisfactory
and permanent settlement of the question were those that
would not place a paramount influence in the hands of the
lowest, the poorest, and the most uneducated members of
the community, but that would give to intelligence, virtue,
and education their place in the constitution, maintain our
institutions in harmony with one another, and connect pro- I
perty with taxation, virtue, and intelligence. (Conscrva- I
tive cheers.) ,

The CHANCELLOR -4 the EXCHEQUER said that
whatever might be the difficulties which beset the course
of the house on the question before it,' ho confessed, after
listening to the speech of his right hon. friend who had
just sat down, he did not think serious weight was to be
attached to the two circumstances to which he had adverted
in terms so grave, and described as so perplexing his whole
judgment as to leave him considerably in doubt as to what
he ought to think, or what he ought to do. (Hear, and
laughter.) Now, the first of the circumstances, which had
so perplexed his right hon. friend was that his noble friend
the member for the City of London had originally an-
nounced his intention to introduce a Reform Bill without
any previous consultation with his colleagues. That difil-

culty, however, had been disposed of by the ieclaralion of
his noble friend that it had no existence whatever; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might bepermitted to say
that even if it had not been so disp6sed of, it would have
borne but slightly on the decision of this great constitu-

tional question ; because, what they had to consider was
not the secret communings of the noble lord and his col-

leagues, but the pledges by which the Government had con-
sented to become bound. Then, with respect to the second
of the circumstances stated by his right hon. friend, he
found a great difficulty in the fact that another branch of
the Legislature had thought fit, with the assent of the Go-

vernment, to institute an examination into the numeriea

effect which the bill would probably have in the several
constituencies of the country. The Government, in consent-
ing to that measure, subject to the express understandng that
it should not be used to postpone the progress of the bill,
had done what was not without precedent--though the fact
might be open to argument—that was to say, they had al-
lowed the anxiety of others for information to admit of a
particular kind of inquiry, though their own minds were
already fully made up on the subject. He confessed, then,'
that he was perplexed by the perplexities of the right hon.
gentleman—(laughter)—the more so that he felt the force

of what he urged before, that it was matter of clear and im-
perative duty to go forward with this bill in committee—
. _

(hear) —on the ground the question had assumed, and of
the pledges which had been given and taken by all parties,
from the mouth of the Sovereign, echoed back by the pro-
ceedings of the house. That to him (the Chancellor of the

Exchequer) was most satisfactory; but were they proceed-
ing to the practical consideration of the measure ? (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman said, " don't daily and play with
the subject." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But there were

more ways than one of playing and dallying with the
subject. (Hear.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
was speaking on the sixth, and he hoped the last night of
that debate, which had arrived at that term of days
which sufficed for the creation—(laughter)—without re-
sulting in any definite amount of progress. The right hon.
gentleman did not wish for delay, but he wanted discus-
sion. (Hear, and laughter.) The love of discussion might
be carried to excess, and one began to believe that there was

some danger of its being carried to excess under circum-
.

stances in which discussion, disconnected from any practi-