The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-03 00:00:00

SURREY CONSUMERS' GAS.

The directors' report states that the net profit for
the half-year was £9,762, out of which it was pro-
posed to recommend the payment of a dividend at
the rate of 9 per cent. per annum, free of income-
tax. The diminished profits were said to be caused
by a reduction in price of 6d. per thousand cubic
feet of gas ; by the increased price of coals ; ad-
vance in the rate of wages, and a diminution in
the value of coke and other residual products. Re-
ference was made to the Metropolis Gas Bill, and
it was added that a full investigation of the sub-
ject would be obtained if the bill should pass the
second reading, and gas shareholders had their
consolation in the fact that the measure of justice
which was denied them by the local authorities
would certainly be secured through the Legislature,
if a thoroughly impartial committee were constituted.

Deputation of iteformers to the

Government.

Yesterday a deputation waited on the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and Lord Stanley, M.P., at the
official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury,
in Downing-street, on the subject of the Reform
Bill which is now before the Ilouse of Commons. It
had been arranged that the deputation should be
received by the Earl of Derby and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, but his lordship was not well enough
to attend.

Between 200 and 300 persons, representing various
trades, were present, headed by Mr. Beales, Capt.
Dresser Rogers, Mr. J. Baxter Langley, Col. Dick-
son, and other gentlemen who took an active part
in the movement.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
sorry that the temporary but severe illness of Lord
Derby prevented him from being present. He had
therefore asked his colleague, Lord Stanley, to at-
tend, and they would now listen with the utmost
attention to any representation the members of the
deputation had to make.
Mr. BEALES said they had solicited the interview
in consequence of a statement made last Tuesday
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—according to
the printed report of his speech—that the members
of her Majesty's Government were prepared in all
sincerity to bring the question of Parliamentary Re-
form to an end; that they had a duty to fulfil, which
was to pass a bill for the amendment of the repre-
sentation of the people. The right hon. gentleman
was reported to have said that it was not for the
weal of England that that settlement should be de-
layed, and that a deep responsibility rested not only
on the Government, but upon the whole House of
Commons with respect to this question. It had also
been reported that the right hon. gentleman was still
anxious to co-operate with the house in bring-
ing this question to a speedy and satisfactory
settlement. Entirely participating in these
sentiments, and confiding in the sincerity
thus expressed, the members of the Reform
League felt it to be their duty, as representing a
very large portion, and as they considered the great
majority, of the working classes and of the people
both in the metropolitan districts and throughout
the country, to wait upon the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the noble earl at the head of the Govern-
ment, and it was with sincere regret they heard that
he was unable to be present. They deemed it their
duty to seek an interview in order that they might
state frankly in what respect they considered the hill
now before the House of Commons for the represen-
tion of the people was not calculated to secure the
settlement so much desired, and which was so neces-
sary for the peace and welfare of the country. It was
also reported that the right hon. gentleman stated on
the same occasion that the ratepaying and residen-
tial conditions attached to the household suffrage
proposed by the present bill had met with the entire
approbation of the great majority of the people, and
that he had received scores of communications from
working men of all classes representing that those
classes entertained but one opinion as to the question
of residence, and that they gladly and cheerfully
accepted the term of municipal residence, even more
than the long two years' residence proposed by the
present bill as the new qualification for the exercise
of the franchise. The members of the League had
read those statements with the greatest possible
astonishment. They did not for a moment question
the fact that the right hon. gentleman had received
those communications ; they did not for a moment
doubt the veracity of his statement, but they most
positively denied that such communications repre-
sented the true feelings and opinions of the great
majority of the people, or that they represented any
thing more than the opinions of the individuals and
the select coteries from whom they emanated.
([fear, hear.) More than that, they declared
that they grossly misrepresented the true feelings
and judgment of the great majority of the people,

and they openly challenged all the authors of those
communications, be they whom they may, to
meet the members of the League at any public
meeting in any part of the country and substantiate
the allegations that the residential and ratepaying

clauses were generally approved of. On the part of
the League he asserted that they were largely and
generally condemned. The members of the League
head from its very establishment proposed residence
and registration ler Dafiapod bufirage, which they

claimed, and still insisted upon, as the only consti-
tutional suffrage, and as the only suffrage calculated
to be acceptable. But they looked upon two years'
residence as a means of disfranchisement, especially
for working men in metropolitan districts. They
were constantly obliged to change their residence
from one metropolitandistrict to another, according
to the amount of work and building going on, and
were not unfrequently forced to removal by the de-
struction of whole streets. They also objected tothe
ratepaying clauses generally. They objected that in
addition to the ordinary and legal means of recover-
ing arrears of rates a man should be subject to the
loss of his franchise by not paying those rates at a
certain time; and especially they objected to what
they considered the invidious distinction between the
wealthier householders and compound householders.
They looked upon all these proposals as fetters upon
the full and free exercise of household suffrage, upon
which the Government bill professed to be based ;
and upon all the fancy franchises, including the 20s.
direct taxation, in the light of so many invidious
class distinctions, as injurious reflections upon the
position and character of the workingclasses, and as
the result of that altogether groundless fear and
suspicion of the working classes which was too pre-
valent, of what was called swamping education and
wealth by numbers, which would imply that the
working classes were living in a state of constant
conspiracy against those above them. They could
not accept those fancy franchises as a substitute for
that which would render them unnecessary, and
which would alone satisfy the inhabitants of the
metropolitan districts, namely, the larger franchise,
to be unfettered by any rental limit, and to be
protected only by residence and registration. With-
out such a franchise the Government bill could not
be a settlement of the great question of reform ; on
the contrary, it must prove a fruitful source of ill
will between the different classes of the community.
(Hear.) They desired a large, frank, and broad ex-
tension of the suffrage, so extensive as to evidence a
manly and generous confidence in the great body of
their fellow-men—an extension that would enlarge
the representation correspondingly with the area of
indirect taxation, and which should prove thereby
to the working classes that whilst, through that
direct taxation they were obliged to contribute very
largely, if not mainly, to the support of the State ;
whilst they were invited to fight the battles of their
country, and whilst by their labour they contributed
so largely to the enjoyments and luxuries of society,
it should be shown to them that there was no wish
to deprive them of their due share, by their own
representation in the government of the country.
He believed it would be neither politic nor safe to
leave this important question any longer unsettled.
(Cheers.)
Mr. MANTLE said the deputation were anxious
about two things—one, that they should not misun-
derstand her Majesty's Government, and one that
her Majesty'y Government should not misunder-
stand them. All present were manhood suffrage
men, and if they did not maintain that principle
they would be repudiated by their constituents.
As the Government bill now stood they could not
support it. It was not satisfactory ; indeed, it was
utterly obnoxious, for while it professed to give
deserving citizens the franchise in principle, it
rendered it almost impossible for them to avail
themselves of it. Ile contended that it was con-
trary to public policy to deprive a man of his
vote because his rates remained unpaid, and it was
as undignified a thing for the Government to inter-
fere in a man's relations with his parish as it would
be to iuterefere in his transactions with his cat's-
meat man. (Laughter.) Ile assured the right hon.
gentleman that if the bill were passed as it now stood
the working men of England would look upon the
signing of that bill as the signal for renewed
agitation, and the members of the League would
continue to impress upon the minds of the people
that the Government of the country was the Go-
vernment of the few, while it disregarded the claims
of the great body of the nation. (Cheers.)
Mr. ODGERS, shoemaker, adduced many argu-
ments in support of the lodger franchise, contending
that in many cases lodgers were more intelligent
than persons who made their living out of letting
lodgings. He did not wish, of course, that house-
holders should be deprived of their votes, but he
held that lodgers should be placed on the s une level
with them with regard to the franchise.
Mr. HOWELL, bricklayer, spoke on the question
of residence. lie considered a six months' residence
sufficient both in counties and boroughs.
Mr. CREMER urged the principle of manhood suf-
rage. He disputed the policy of the fancy fran-
chises, especially that of having £5O in the savings
bank. A man might save up £5O by neglecting the
education of his children. Such a man could not
be so praiseworthy a character as one who spent his
money in bringing up his family respectably.
Mr. BEALES said there were two gentlemen who
had come from long distances who were anxious to
speak.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—We are
neglecting our duties in the House of Commons,
but we do so cheerfully, and we will therefore hear

your friends.
Alderman Baldwin, of Birmingham, and Alder-
man Carter, of Leeds then spoke; the former ad-
vocating a liberal measure ; while the latter assured
the Ministers that the men of Yorkshire would
combine with the men of London in continuing the
agitation until the reform question was settled.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcnEguEn said that he
and his colleagues•had much pleasure in listening to
the remarks of the respective speakers. That their
views had been put forward with much ability no
one could question, and they had been listened to
with the patience they deserved. Now, he might be
allowed to say, withoutoffence, that he gathered from
the observations the gentlemen present had made
that they were professors of what might be called
extreme opinions. He might, too, be permitted to
observe that there were in this country extreme
opinions of a different character from theirs. They
were very powerful and perhaps very numerous.
They were very numerous. They were very in-
fluential, and those who held them were of opinion
that there was no necessity to improve the represen-
tation of the people in Parliament. Upon all the
questions which had been advocated by the deputa-
tion, such persons came to conclusions entirely
different from those just adopted. The moral he

drew from this was, that if anything were to be
done there was great necessity for mutual forbear-
ance, mutual concession, and mutual compromise.
Lord Derby had introduced a bill into Parliament
for the representation of the people, of which, al-
though some very hard words had been used in that
room, he believed impartial persons, even if they did
not approve of it altogether, must admit that it was
based upon very popular principles. (Shouts of No,
no.) Those who now said "No, no," were gentle-
men of extreme opinions, but he durst say that if he
was receiving a deputation of gentlemen of extreme
opinions of another school they would say " Yes,
yes." If they wished to arrive at any solution of a
political difficulty they would not settle it by saying
"No, no." It was only by mutual concession,
mutual conversation, and conference between diffe-

rent parties that a settlement on this question could
be arrived at—a settlement of which, though upon
the whole they might not entirely and completely
approve of it, yet might be advantageous for the
country, and assist in the progressive development
of its resources. He recurred, then, to the remark
that, upon the whole, it was admitted by impartial
persons that the Government bill was one which was
base lon popular principles. No one who under-
took to introduce any great measure into Parliament
supposed that he introduced a perfect measure, or
that it would pass through the ordeal of Parliamen-
tary criticism without alteration or improvement.
He might be allowed to say, because he knew there
were some of those before him who had indulged in
different observations ou that assembly, that he
had been a member of the House of Commons
30 years, and now had the honour of being its
leader ; the House of Commons had not always sup-
ported him, and be might therefore be considered an
impartial witness, but he believed that there was no

assembly in the world which was animated by purer
or more patriotic sympathies. (" Oh.") He durst
_ _

say they would be very much annoyed if in the
House of Commons the Reform League were spoken
of in taw of clepreciAtiort, and the Ibtln of Com