The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,

large number of county voters as compared with that
of borough voters. According to the census it appeared
that a gradual change was taking place in the occupation
of the people of this country, Every census since that of
1811 had shown a gradual decrease of the agricultural
population as compared with other parts of the popula-
tion. In 1811 the agricultural population was 85 per
cent., in 1821 it was 33 per cent., in 1831 it was 28 per
cent., and in 1841 only 22 per cent. The census com-
missioners stated that the town and country populations
were every year becoming more and more bound toge-
ther. He did not disguise the great addition which the
extension of the principle he advocated would have on
the county constituencies of that country. He believed
it would have the effect of doubling the constituency in
the neighbourhood of large towns ; but that he con-
tended was a great argument in its favour. In a moral
point of view the advantage of giving the Scotch people
an interest in the acquirement of small properties would
be very great. This system had been found to encou-
rage prudence, sobriety, and economy. In Scotland he
had no doubt the same effect would be produced. An
objection might be raised that no tenure like that of the
English 40s. freeholds existed in Scotland. There were
small properties in Scotland, and if the principle were
fully carried out the who!e property in Scotland would
Le disfranchised. Having stated the object which he had
in view, he would appeal with confidence to English
members to support his bill, and to give to the people of
Scotland a franchise similar to that which had been so
long sod so advantageously enjoyed in this country.
Mr. COWAN seconded the motion. He believed that
some persons had endeavoured to make political capital
out of this movement, and an attack had been made on
the Scotch members, who were charged with being tied
neck and heel to the late Lord Advocate ; and they had
made other charges against them which were entirely
false. There were only two objections urged to this bill.
One was, that the effect of it would be to swamp the
counties. He had no wish to swamp the counties, but
the 40s. franchise had not that effect in England. An-
other objection was, that it would be likely to lead to
the manufacture of fictitious votee. That was a matter
which would reqeire the consideration of the house. At
the time of the Anti-Corn Law agitation, be
purchased, a 40s. freehold in Carlisle in order to give
him a vote for East Cumberland. It was not a very
profitable investment. (Laughter.) Some time afterwards
he saw his name amongst others as that of a fagot voter
and he felt somewhat ashamed of it. He did not think
the obtaining a vote under those circumstances was jus-
tifiable, for he bad no connection with the county of
Cumberland. He regarded with satisfaction the great
improvement which had takes place in the condition and
conduct of the lower classes. He remembered when the

Luddites were banded together to destroy machinery.
There was ❑o such feeling now, and he thought the
loyalty and good conduct of the people showed they were
well deserving of the franchise. He did not pledge him-
-5311 to the details of the bill, but he t'- ought his hon.
friend ought to have leave to introduce the bill.

Mr. MbNCREIF El said he was anxious to state the
grounds on which he thought the proposition of the hon.
gentleman ought not to be adopted by the house. Tne
hop. member's motion was to assimilate the franchise of

Scotland to that of England. He listened with some no-

riosity to his hon. friend to learn how that was to be ac-
complished, but it seemed to him to savour much more of
agricultural statistics than the franchise. But if he un-
derstood what he meant it was that he sought to intro
duce into Scotland the 403. freehold franchise, with all
its incidences. Now, in the first place, that was impos-
sible. Let him explain the difference between the tenure
of land in the two countries. The freehold tenure in both
countries was original y the same. The freeholder was a
vassal of the Cris wn, bound to give attendance on his
lord, and bound, ther.fore, to give his attendance in Par-
liament. Before the reign of Edward I. the superior ♦as-
sal was entitled to give ell his property to sub-holders,
and that was the law in Scotland to this day ; but these
sub-vassals never were freeholders.. In E award I.'s reign
a statute was passed which enabled the superior vassals in
England to alienate the fee, and in that way small free-
holders beeline a large body. But the franchise was li-
mited to freeholders who,e holding was of the annual value
of 40s. The mass of property in Scotland was held by sub-
feuars, and thee msequence was that it was impossible to
introduce the 40s. franchise in Scotland. It was a mis-

take to suppose that the Reform 8.11 created the 403.
freehold franchise in England. The Reform B ll left that
franchise as it found it. The Reform Bill created a 101
copyhold and a leasehold franchise fur England and for
Scotland, and it we.; a mistake to suppose that the two
countries were dealt with differently in that respeot.
What would be the effect of the hon. gentleman's pro-
position ? In Edinburgh there were 4,524 houses of the
annual value of between 21. and 101., but it would be a
great mistake to suppose that these 4,500 houses repre-
sented 4,500 possible constituents, because, after deduct-
ing the land held by corporations and other parties who
could not vote, and those who were already on the list,
or were entitled t) be on the list of voters, there remained
only 290 to be added to the list, and even that would be
reduced in various ways by 46, leaving the net increase
of voters 244. Then his hon. friend said he woul assimi-
late the borough franchise to that of England. Why, in
two respects the advantage was on the side of Scotland.
In the first plat-, the smaller biroughs of Scotland were
put into groups, and they together elected a member.
That was not case in X gland. Another material die•
tinction was this—that whereas in England the o Neer of
property in a borough could only vote for the county in
respect of property which he did occupy; in Scotland the
owner could vote for property which he occupied, and
the cons,quence was, there was a large ownership
franchise in respect of tenements in Scotland abich
did not exist in England. But passing from that and
travelling into boroughs, they found extctly the same
results as in the counties. The result was this, that
there were no small tenements capable of receiving this
franchise. He found that in the city of Edinburgh
there were about 1,500 tenements, valued at 21. eacb,
but he found that these 1,500 tenements were owned by
29 persons and no more. Then the houses of the value
of between 21 and I'2/. were 22,000 in number, belong-
leg to about a thousand proprietors, the great mass of
whom were already entitled to vote by that property itself.
Then there were 13,000 tenements above the value of
12/., and if the English system were to be introduced
the result would be that they would have an addition
of 4,000 votes for the county of E linburgh. Now, he did
not wish for that result. He did not think it would im-
prove the constituency in Scotland. The agriculturists
bad interests distinct from the interests of Loroughs,and

he did not think it desirable that the county Members
should be chosen by town populations. They might de-
pend upon it the agriculturists would not submit without
a etruggle; and they would inevitably succeed, and they
would arrive at a state of things in which those who
were opposed to progress would be predominant. He be-
lieved that no greater calamity could happen to Scotland
than a system of creating—he would not call them ficti-
tious votes, because they would be real votes --but a sys-
tem which would give the victory in elections to the pose
Bassin of the longest purse. His hon. friend seemed to
think that the 40s. franchise would encourage the work-
ing classes to invest in 21. houses, but others would in
vest in them also, and he did not hesitate to say that the
acquiring of votes on that principle, whether by a society,
or by individuals, was foreign to the true spirit of repre-
sentative government. The franchise was given to per-
eons because they had an interest in the locality in whie
they voted, and he did not think a person living in Ed,n-
burgh or in London, simply because he bad 401 or 501
to spare, should be entitled to vote in a locality in which
he did not reside, and in which he lead no interest.
Mr. BAITER said the number of public meetings
that had been held and the petitions that had been pre-
sented indicated an amount of dissatisfaction with the
state of the franchise in Scotland which the house ought
to take into their serious consideration. At the same
right •
rented an-average time, he was not quite sure that Mr. C tird had hit the
principle.
county Scot Scotland, dv,o
t4e4r,sotooo ;t h andose of
fo
g I
populationi sh
of
2borough9::o() memberspersons t
hr
oe
spar eof
Ebtirginlgandu,l3 stehoetl
sproportiont
toof
have 83,000 county electors instead of 49,000. These
figures showed that the boroughs of Sc Aland were not
sufficiently represented, and the proportion of county
voters was much less than in England. The petitioners
alleged that this deficiency was caused by the absence
of the 40s. freehold franchise. He (the hon. member)
would suggest that the bill should be brought in, but
should not be pressed further; and that it should be re-
ferred to a select committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BRUCE was not at all unwilling to extend
the county franchise in Scotland ; for he considered that
such a measure would have rather a conservative effect
than otherwise upon the constituencies. But he should
oppose the present bill, because he thought it woul I have
a direct tendency to promote the creation of fictitious
votes, and that to an unlimited extent. He had lately
been looking into the debates on the abolition cf the 40s.
f,auchiee in Ireland ; and he found an anecdote narrated
by Mr. Brownlo er which was well worth the considera-
tion of the house. A. eentleman who had been compelled
to become the Lord-Lieutenaet of an Irish county took
over with him 3,600 leases upon his property ; and he
said, "Now, I will walk into the House of Commons with-
out asking a vote of this independent coneti.uency and I
will make the government repent sending me here." (A
laugh.) The late Lord Dunfermline, who was a lawyer of
sound constitutional principles, though of very liberal opi-
nions, was opposed to the 40e. franchise, because he said
it had the effect of altogether exela ling froin Parliament
persons belonging to the middleclisses. He (Ur. Bruce)
objected to bill on exactly the same grounds. (He sr.)
Was it possible that Sir W. Scott ha i foreseen the mo-
tionlof the bon. gentleman when he wrote his well-known
song—

" Donald Caird's come again ;
Tell the news in burgh and glen;
Lock the aumrie, steek the kist,
Lest the guidwife's gear he miss'd."
Mr. BOWYER wished to clear away a little of the
legal mystification which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mon -,
creifi) had talked about the vtatute of " Quia emptores,"
hnt he niight just as well have talked about the Statue
i f Limitations, or the SLa'ute ( f Frauds, for it really
had nothing whatever to do with the question. (Hear,
Lear.) The honourable gentlenitu said there were
no freeholds in Scotland ; and in a technical sense
Chet might be true. The old Scotch franchise
,lepended upon tenure. Those who held in capite of the
Crown, the greater and the I,sser barons, sat t,:getlier in
one chamber ; and there could be no doubt that the pro-
ceA of AiLinfeudation had had a tendency to diminish that
franchise. Practi ally speaking, however, freehold in
Scotland was a question not of tenure but of interest ;
und tha Scc,tch feu-holder was exactly equivalent to the
En glihee
611 freeholder ; but while tenure conferred the frau-
of i :e in Scotland, interest conferred it in England.
Mr. E E LLICE (St. Andrew's), said there was some-
h ambiguous in the expression of a 403. freehold in
s
it would be more honest to describe the
t ciontgi :ad ;
and
i-ii,l as an attempt to reduce the exiting 101. franchise to
ne of 2/. (EltN.r, Lear.)
The Si 5 ng of a measure of that 1
description was altogether although the house, ,
which had of atop i beenl ss,
in the littl) w
in advance of the country.,'
rebrm, had shown itself done in the way of.,

(Conservative cheers.) He thought that the adoption of a
moderate possession of property as the basis of a fran-
chise in the Scotch counties would ensure a very respect-
able cJnstituency. For his own part he was not afraid of
the creation of fictitious votes. That could easily be
guarded against both in England and Scotland by the
adoption of two measures—which, indeed, he thought
would be quite indispensable—namely, to forbid joint
occupancy and to insist upon actual residence. (Hear.)
As he did not wish to act in an offensive manner towards
the promoters of the bill, he should not oppose its intro-
duction, but he should propose some material alterations
in it at a future stage.

The LORD ADVOCATE could not understand the
apparently inconsistent course which Mr. Baxt?r and
the last speaker had announced their intention to pur-
sue ; for they had both suggested excellent reasons why
they should nut assent to the introduction of the bill.
The measure was founded upon an entire misconception,
and to allow the bill to be brought in would only tend
to keep alive the delusion under which its advocates
seemed to be labouring. The hon. gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. Bowyer) would have been far nearer the
truth if, instead of saying that the county franchise
depended upon tenure in Scotland and interest in
in England, be had stated just the reverse. (Hear.) In
both England and Scotland all the proprietors of land
who had an interest of 101. a year were entitled to vote ;
and that included not only freeholders, but c spyholders,
leaseholders, and, in Scotland, the feuars. But in Eng-
land there was losg before the Reform Billa qualification
which did not exist in Scotland—namely, a freehold
tenure with a 403. interest. Now that was a franchise
which it was impossible to create in Scotland, and wh eh
he would venture to say would not have been created in
England it it had not previously existed. It was, there-
fore, in reality a violation of the principles of the Reform
Act to attempt now to extend it over a new area of re-
preeentation. (Hear.) He (the learned lord) objected
to the bill on the ground stated by the hon. member for
St. Andrews—namely, that it was an attempt to reduce
the existing qualification ; and he opposed it also on a
ground which the hon. member made light of, namely,
on account cf the facilities it would give for the creation
of votes. He did not say "fictitious votes." for the
more real the votes which he was contemplating, the
greater would be the mischief. (Hear, hear.) But the
effect of the bill would be, as an hon. gentleman had
truly said, to place the representation in the hands of
those who had the longest purse. Until the fashion of
fabricating votes had been established, the bill would
have no practical operation at all ; but only think what
a power it would place in the bands of the 900 persons
who had been referred to as being the owners of 22,000
separate properties. (Hear.) Any rich man, by the
expenditure ••f a small sum in conveyances, might over-
power those who were the legitimate possessors of the
franchise. (Cheers.)
Sir E. COLE BROOKE admitted that be owed his
election for Lanarkshire to the good offices of the in-
habitants of Glasgow ; but he opposed the bill because
he thought it would too much tend to destroy the line
of demarcas ion b.,t ween two interests which were dis-
tinct. B sides, be did not think there was, after
all, much practical difference between the elective
privileges of Englishmen and Scotchmen. A person who
had a small property might make a very good voter ;
but if he had to borrow money to acquire the right
he was more dependent than one without property at
all. It the bill went into committee he should propose to
raise the amount of qualification.
Colonel SYKES should vote in favour of the bill in
the event of a division. This was a step towards a re-
form of the electoral franchise. The people of Scotland
felt it a grievance that they had not the same electoral
rights as the people of England. It was said there was
no freeholders in Scotland—they were all feuars. But
every one knew that in England wealthy men on both
sides of politics were purchasing estates, and-partition-
ing them out to create votes ; and why should nut they
do the same in Scotland? (Hear.)
Mr. PEASE said it was worthy of remark that all the
Scotch members admitted that the law required altera-
tion. Some said that the alteration now proposed was
not the one required, but it was at all events an exten-
sion of the franchise ; and Scotland ought not to rest
content until such extension was granted. (Hear, bear.)
Scotchmen were as loyal and intelligent as inhabitants
of other parts of the empire ; they had fought by our
side in all our wars, and bore an honourable part in the
labours of legislation. (Hear.) Ho hoped the house
would permit the bill to be laid on the table.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that if this confession were
granted to Scotland, it must he extended to Ireland.
(Hear.) Though an existing franchise ought not to be
destroyei, it by no means followed that an entirely new
franchise ought to be given. He had seen an election
in Ireland carried entirely by 40s. freeholders ; they
were shoeless, shirtless, and subject to the dictation of
the landlords and the priests. On that account the 40s.
franchise was taken away from Ireland by the Reform
Act. It was f >end that it had covered the land with
pauperism by the extension of mall farms. Yet it was
now proposed to extend that species of franchise by
giving it to Scetland. It was as injudicious and im-
politic a step as the advocate of liberal principles could
possibly. take. What did they mean by a voter I Surely
a person who hai some degree of intelligence and free-
dom of choice. Instead of supp, rting the proposal now
made, it would be better to go a sta.) lower, and give
universal suffrage at once. (Hew, hear.)
Mr. CALCOTP did not believe there was any danger
of Sc itch proprietors subdividing their property for the
sake of creating vote,.
Mr. CRA.UFIIRD said that the faot of this measure
te;ng proposed by a member for an English borough
was prima facie evidence that there was no great de-
mand for the change in Scotland. A party had taken up
the question,and tried to urge it at the last election. He
was asked at the hustings whether be wool] support the
40s. freehold franchise. He answered in the negative,
and in justification told his bearers what took place in
England with a 403. franchise. (Hear.) But, before
creating a freehold franchise, they must first get their
freeholders—for there was no such class at present. Still
he would not re-ist the introduction of the bill, but ado the question to be fully discussed, prepared to abandon
any erroneous opinion he might have formed. The real
way to assimilate the franchise of England and Scotland
was to extend the franchise of occupancy, and he should
move an amendment in the bill to that effect.
Mr. STEUART believed that the measure would be
injurious to Scotland, judging from the effect which a
40s. franchise produced in Ireland.
Lord ELCHO observed that many members had argued
against the bill, and yet would vote for its introduction.
(Hear.) It had been clearly shown by the Lord Advocate
and others that the bill would be a delusion, inasmuch
as it would not assimilate the two franchises. (Hear.)
This being so, it would be a waste of the time of the
house, and of the expense of printing, to allow the bill
to be brought in. As a county member he protested
against the measure, believing that it would have the
effect of swamping the county franchise.
Mr. BLACK would support the bill, though he did not
believe it would assimilate the franchise of Scotland to
that of England. (A. laugh.) He did not think that it
would be any advantage to Scotland to have the same
comity franchise as England had. It was desirable
that the amount of qualification should be lowered in the
Scotch counties ; fee there was no more desirable fran-
chise than that which rested upon property. If the bill
were allowed to go into committee some useful amend•
meats might be introduced ; at all events the discussion
would be of advantage.
Mr. BLACKBURN said it appeared that of those
members who would vote for the introduction of the bill
only three professed to approve of it. There were only
16 petitions it its favour signed by some 900 persons.
This showed ,he abortive character of the agitation that
had been carried on, through the press and public meet-
iag,,s, for thelast 12 months. The only argument urged
in favour of the measure was that it was demanded by
the people of Scotland ; but of this there was no proof.
Seeing the effect of the former 40s. franchise in Ireland,
end the eitensive manufacture tof votes in England, if
this precise were carried much further, it would lead to
the evinstion of the uls, franchise in England itself.
(" Oh. oa.") HN renarded this as an attempt to get in
the thin end of the wedge, with a view to the adoption of
universal suffrage.
Mr. 12A [RD, in reply, said that a petition from E lin-
binge led been presentee last session, signed by 10,000
persons, in favour of tbia measure. It had been admitted
that the Scotch franchise was not so good as that of this
country. In England a 40s. freehold gave the franceise ;
in Scotland it required a property of 101. Why should
there be this difference 1 Look at the great diff,renee in
the number of electors in the two countries. That was
the practical point for the house to consider. Objection
had been taken to the use of the word "assimilate," but
he found JohnsonLlefined the word to mean—" to bring
about a likeness, h produce a reeemblenoe." (Hear.)
Tue house then divided—

Ayes
Nouv ,

84
103

Majirity
......
WHITECROSS-STREET PRISON.
Mr. B. Sl' EII DAN moved au addrees for copy of any
correTuudeuca which qua i have been between the City
authoritiei antithe Home Secretary, with reference to the
pi esent bye-14vs and regulations of the Debtors' Prison
in Whi tecrossl. reet.
Njr. WALPOLE assented to the motion, with the ad •
dition cf nno,p) of any report., that might have been
male to the
a•mne Secretary respecting the prison.—
Motion agreed to.

FISHERIES.
Sir G. B. PECHELL moved an address for a copy of
the order in council of April 3, 1853, approving rertaiu
rules made by the Lords' Committee of Privy Council
for the mote effectual observance of the convention be-
tween her Majestyand
the Emperor of the French, con-
cernalg tie fisheries in the sees between the British
islands all Fiance. The object ~f !ifs motion was tl in-
duce the Gotornment to use its iefluence with the Go-
vi rnmeni of France to oLtlin permission of the latter for
English fishermen to dredge in mid channel for oysters
in the months of May and June. It was a vulgar error,
h 3 sari, to kuppi u that o3sti rs lost their flavour in those
months, especially those which were dr,(l,;ed for in deep
water. (A. iatieh.)
Mr. HENLEY agreed to the motion and suggested
tha', tie gi:lant adiinral eho' I I eubinit a few barrels of
the oysters to the judgment of the house.
(Lau‘hter.) Ile fared there was not much chance ref
obtaining the concession sought for from the French
Cr•werii meet.
Mr. it EEO W supp, d the motion, and also voucbe 1
for the II ivour of toe deep sea oysters, at Midsummer.
nese oysters, he said, spawned two months later than
itqFe bled in sbal!ow waters.—Motion agreed to.
O&SE OF 'COOPER v. SLADE.,,—TRAVELLING
EXPENSES OF ELECTORS.
Mr. PEA.'.;E r:oved frr a "Message to the Lords f a
eppy of the opinions
lee', in the case of the Judges on the 15th of Feb.
` Cooper v Slade.'" There w ere, he
.said, hu idreds f electors who. had to travel 15 or 20
tt ilea to tote, and thus great injustice was done, he