The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-16 00:00:00

PUBLIC; BUSINESS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
propose that thore should be a morning sitting to-
morrow. On Wednesday the house would not
assemble. On Thursday and Friday he proposed the
house should sit at 12 until six, and then adjourn. On
Monday next he proposed to move the second reading of
the Scotch Reform Bill, and on Tuesday next he proposed
a morning sitting, so that the Tornado case might be
taken into consideration.

Mr. GLADSTONE asked if.the right hon. gentleman
would state which of the important measures on the paper
would be first taken into consideration, as it was evident
some must be deferred until next session.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would state the names of the measures on Monday next.
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of this bill.
Viscount CRANBORNE said ho did not, in the course he
intended to pursue, wish to press his objections against the
bill to a division, and he should, if there was a general
wish that tha bill should proceed, deprecate as much
as any one a division being taken on the third
reading. He was anxious, as that would be the
last opportunity that would present itself, to make a few
observations on the bill to which he so much objected. He
hack heard that the passing of the measure had been called a
Conservative triumph, and he was anxious to see what the
right hon. gentleman the member of South Lanca-
shire had had to do with the measure, because
if he had had a great deal to do with
it he did not see how it could be a Conservative
triumph at all. (Hoar, hear.) His object in taking the
course he was now adopting was to ascertain whether it
was so at all, because it was necessary that the paternity
of all the strange objects that come into the world should
be well established. The right hon. gentleman, the
member for South Lancashire, it appeared, had
had something to do with the measure. (Hear,
hear.) He had called for 10 important amendments
to the original bill, amongst which was tho lodger fran-
chise, the abolition of the dual vote, the rejection of the
savings' bank and educational franchise, the abolition
of voting papers, the redistribution of seats enlarged, and
all these and many others had been most unintentionally
yielded. He had never known a Government, and did not
think a Government of the sort ever existed before, that
having introduced a very important measure so obligingly
yielded every demand made to them, even to the extent of
altering all the ♦ital principles of the bill. (Loud cheers.)
The debates on the bill had not taken place in the
house, but bad been carried on in the lobbies
outside the house—(loud cheers)—and the amount of per-
suasion that had been carried on to ensure the success
of the bill was such as never before had been known.

Mr. LOWE once more presented himself to the house in
the character of a prophet of evil, and predicted that the
result of passing the bill would be to Americanise our in-
stitutions one by one, and plunge the country into one per-
petual whirl of change, innovation, and revolution. The
authorship of the bill was, in short, a disgrace to be
avoided, and not an honour to be sought.
Mr. BRIGHT—I am not about to answer the speech we
have just heard from the right hon. gentleman, nor should
I have taken part in this discussion but for a habit from
which he seems unable to free himself. It would appear
that all the acuteness with which he is gifted, and the
fairness by which ho is actuated on some questions, desert
him when he comes to treat any opinion of mine. I under-
stood him to toll the house that the Conservative party
had advanced to a point which I thought dangerous, and
to which I had not gone. The right hon. gentleman might
have known that for many years past I have supported
the principle that the permanent foundation of the fran-
chise ought to be in the householder. In the bill which I
proposed in 18;9, but which was not brought in because
the Government of Lord Derby, having lately come into
power, were going to bring in a measure of their own, it
included household suffrago, and in the course of the dis-
cussion of this question this session I expressed the opinion
that the Chancellor of the Excho per had taken my clause
and put it into his own bill. On the same question, in
1859, I said, in deference to the opinion of some, that the
lower class of householders wore so dependent, and some
so ignorant, that they were not likely to be independent
electors, and that it would be possible to draw a lino at
the rental of £4 or £3 per annum; but that was quite
consistent with all I bad said before. (Hear, hoar.) I
have said all along that the permanent foundation
should be iu the house. I do not, of course, regret
that we should have adopted this for tho permanent
foundation; but looking at the prevailing opinion of a
powerful class who regarded such a proposal with fear,
and the lamentable fact of the existence of a class to whom
the extension of the franchise would bo no advantage to
themselves or to the country, I should have been content
with some proposition that foil short of household suffrage
pure and simple. When we aro discussing questions of
this nature with public audiences who have something to
learn, ono must have some distinct and definite point to
submit as the end in view ; but when you come to this
house and have to consider the position of a Minister, it is