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

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

In reply to Mr. GOLDSMID,
Lord J. MANNERS said ho could not take upon him-
self to give directions for tho 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. SMITH asked tho 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 martality 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 250 deaths had oc-
curred in Port Louis alone. Up to the data of the
letter he 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, had 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 if
be 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 18J4; and whether
ho could state the cause of the delay, and when these corps
might expect to receive the sums due to them.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he was informed that all the
money due in 1864 had been paid. £2OO of that due
iu 1865 was to be paid to-morrow, but with respect to that
for 1866 none had been paid, bac .LIS3 none had been ap-
plied for. That was the cause of tha dklay.
THE EM VERGE: MAXIMILIAN.

Mr. MONK asked the Socr,tary for Foreign Affairs
whether he had any information confirming the report
that was iu circulation that Juarez had ordered the Em-
peror Maximilian to be shot ?
Lord STANLEY s►id he had no such information, and
with respect to the alleged capture of the. E:nwror all that
was known was what had appeared in the newspapers,
and in those reports there ►•ere two contradictory state-

meats.
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 ono.
Sir G. GREY objected to the postponement when it
was clearly stated when it was to be discussed.
Col. PATTEN 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-
franchising certain boroughs should be clearly known
before they came to consider the distribution of seats.
Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the bill should be
divided into two parts. (No, no.) That with respect to
the franchise could go 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 EXCaEQUER said he
would read the addition ho proposed to make to the clause.
The riTht hon. gentleman then read a kind of preamble,
which recited that, in consequence of the reports of com-
missions appointed to investigate the ch•xrges 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. BO WYER said he had a motion on the paper
for the striking out of the clause altogether, as he con-
sidered it a great hardship that a number of persons who
were 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) perfectly right that the principle
of the clause is raised by the motion of the Chan-
cellor of tho 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.
Ire thought the arguments of the hon. member for Dun-
dalk are inadequate to sustain the conclusion at which he
wishes us to arrive. (Hear.) He says this is to be con-
sidered
a bill of pains and penalties. No doubt, as it ex-
cludes from the exercise of a public trust persons who
have hitherto been in its possession, it is capable of being
so stated ; but it would bo a false view if the house consi-
dered that that was the principal aspect in which it was to
be regarded. What wo have to provide for is the pure and
efficient exercise of the franchise. ([fear, hear.) We are
bound to take measures for that, and if so happens that iu
the honest and deliberate adoption of those measures we
inflict inconvenience upon any ono, that may be a misfor-
tune which we regret, but it is not to stand between us
and our principal duty. ([;ear.) The hon. gentleman
contends that a bill of pains and penalties has always boon
treated by itsAf. (Hear, hoar) No doubt where particular
boroughs had ben found gulty of ;gross corruption, the
Government of the day has not waited to Inflict a penalty
until the occasion of a Reform Bill— (lztughter)—but whe

a case arose they dealt with it. Arid it happens that a

east) of these four towns arisys at the very monieut who

a Refirin Bill is brousht boloro us. 11.3 did not say that
that provd that this ought to be dealt with in this bill,
hat it proves that the force of precodebts agiiust this is

very small. But this is no inoro, a bill of pins and penal

ties to disfranchise on, of thes.. towns than to dlisf►auchis

any of tho small borciu;!is that a prared iu S,!iidulo A of
tho Reform B.:1. (l:he ,rs ) llu did not say that thost
boroughs were of the same importlnee, but he was a rgui4
. _ _

a question of priu Tit., hon. under says we are in-
flicting a great wrong on the now voters. Thu 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 thes;) new voters will purify the
old ones. As the right hon. member for adtie said last
year, "i'ou seem to think that heaith 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 th 3 introduction of the new voters.
He was sorry that the capital town of the county in Par-
liament, of which he had the honour in part to represent,
is ono of the towns embraced by the enactment; but he
cmld 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-
coloured view on its behalf. (A. laugh.) Ile found from