The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-31 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

In reply to Mr. GOLDSMID,
Lord J. MANNERS said he could not take upcin him-
self to give directions for the preparation of fresh plans,
especially as a groat deal of work had been done. The
whole of the subject would be raised in discussion to-

morrow•

FEVER IN THE MAURITIUS.
Mr. J. A. SAIITII asked the Under-Secretary of State
for the Colonies, whether the statement which had ap-
peared in several of the papers in reference to the outbreak
of yellow fever in the Mauritius was well founded; and, if
so, whether the unusual rate of mortality reported had
occurred. And, whether any steps had been taken to draw
the attention of the Government to the possible extension
of the disease to India ?
Mr. ADDERLEY said no despatch had been re-
ceived. The intelligence came by private letter,
but he had reason to believe the report was too
true. The letter stated that 230 deaths had oc-
curred in Port Louis alone. Up to the date of the
letter ho believed 13,000 deaths had taken place in a popu-
lation of 300,000. Medicines had been sent and the troops
marched to a healthy situation. Yellow fever, until the
present outbreak, bad never before appeared east of the
Cape. The Government were in expectation of despatches

every hour.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he had telegraphed to India
directing every precaution to be taken to prevent the
fever spreading in that direction.
VICTORIA PARK.

In reply to Viscount ENFIELD,
Lord J. MANNERS said 45 acres had been appropriated
to building purposes, precisely in the same way as had
been done in Victoria and other parks.
THE VOLUNTEERS.
- ..

Mr. FINLAY asked the Secretary of State for War

he was aware that several volunteer corps had not yet
received any part of the capitation money voted to them
by the house for the years 1866 and 1865, and only a por-
tion of the money voted for the year 1861; and whether
he could state the cause of the delay, and when these corps
might expect to receive the sums duo to them.
Sir J. FAKINGTON said he was informed that all the
money due in 1864 had been paid. £!00 of that due
in 1865 was to be paid to-morrow, but with respect to that
for 1866 none had been paid, because none had been ap-
plied for. That was the cause of the delay.
THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.
Mr. MONK asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
whether ho had any information confirming the report
that was in circulation that Juarez had ordered the Em-
peror Maximilian to be shot ?
Lord STANLEY said he had no such information, and
with respect to the alleged capture of the Emperor all that
was known was what had appeared in the newspapers,
and in those reports there were two contradictory state

monts.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL,
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 8 (the disfranchising clause) being proposed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
proposed the postponement of the clause in order that he
might bring up an amended one.
Sir G. GREY objected to the postponement when it
was clearly stated when it was to be discussed.
Col. PAT TEN hoped it would be taken into considera-
tion before the house was called upon to consider the
schedules of the bill.
Mr. LIDDELL thought it was of the greatest import-
ance that the course to be adopted with respect to the dis-
franchisiug certain boroughs should be clearly known
before they came to consider the distribution of seats.
Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the bill should bo
divided into two parts. (No, no.) That with respect to
the franchise could ge forward to another place, and then
they would have time to deliberately discuss that relating
to the distribution of seats, which they had not yet done.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would read the addition he proposed to make to the clause.
The right hon. gentleman then read a kind of preamble,
which recited that, iu consequence of the reports of com-
missions appointed to investigate the charges of bribery
made against the electors of Totnes, Great Yarmouth,
Reigate, and Lancaster, he proposed to preface the
clause with that introduction.
The motion for postponement was withdrawn, and
Mr. BAXTER moved an amendment to the clause to
the effect that Lancaster and Great Yarmouth should
retain one member each.
Sir R. BOWYER said he had a motion on the paper
for the striking out of the clause altogether, as be con-
sidered it a great hardship that a number of persons who
wero not guilty of bribery should be punished for those
who had committed that offence.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the hon. member for Dun-
dalk (Sir G. Bowyer) perf3ctly right that the principle
of the clause is raised by the motion of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and not only as to the clause
in general, but as to each town severally. For each
town severally is named in the preamble, which the
right hon. gentleman most properly proposes, and
although it may be that the preamble would be satisfied
by enacting a portion of the clause and stopping short
of absolute disfranchisement, yet it implies that
something of the nature of penalty is to be inflicted.
He thought the arguments of the hon. member for Dun-
dalk are inadequate to sustain the conclusion at which ho
wishes us to arrive. (Hear.) lie says this is to bo con-
sidered a bill of pains and penalties. No doubt, as it ex-
cludes from the exorcise of a public trust persons who
have hitherto been in its possession, it is capable of being
so stated ; but it would be a false view if the house consi-
dered that that was the principal aspect in which it was to
bo regarded. What we have to provide for is the pure and
efficient exercise of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) We are
bound to take measures for that, and if so happens that in
the honest and deliberate adoption of those measures we
inflict inconvenience upon any one, that may be a misfor-
tune which we regret, but it is not to stand between us
and our principal duty. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman
contends that a bill of pains and penalties has always been
treated by itself. (Hear, hear.) No doubt whore particular
boroughs had been found guilty of :gross corruption, the
Government of the day has not waited to inflict a penalty
until the occasion of a Reform Bill—(laughter)—but when
a case arose they dealt with it. And it happens that the
case of these four towns arises at the very moment when
a Reform Bill is brought before us. Ile did not say that
that proved that this ought to be dealt with in this bill,
but it proves that the force of precedents against this is
very small. But this is no more a bill of pains and penal-
ties to disfranchise one of these towns than to disfranchise
any of the small boroughs that appeared in Schedule A of
the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) lie did not say that those
boroughs were of the same importance, but he was arguing
a question of principle. The hon. member says we are in-
flicting a great wrong on the new voters. The interests of
the new voters and the old voters must be considered as
second to the public and national interest. (Cheers.) Too
much has been said about these new voters. It is taken
for granted by many that these new voters will purify the
old ones. A s the right hon. member for Caine said last
year, "Yea seem to think that health is contagious as
well as disease." (Laughter.) And his honourable
friend seemed to think that the disease of these
old voters will be neutralised and cured, and their bad
morals destroyed by the introduction of the new voters.
lie WAS sorry that the capital town of the county in Par-
liament, of which he had the honour in part to represent,
is one of the towns embraced by the enactment; but he
c3nld not hesitate on that account. No doubt it would
have its champions, as Yarmouth has. That is quite right
under the circumstances. Every town in this position
ought to have its advocates who take a warm and highly-
celOure4 9J2 its behalf. (A. laugh.) HO inati from