The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-20 00:00:00

PRUSSIA AND SAXON Y.

Sir H. VERNEY asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether the British Government had gua-
ranteed to Prussia the portion of Saxony united to her
dominions by the treaty of Vienna ; and whether, in case
Prussia should now engage in war, that guarantee would
be upheld ?
Mr. LAYARD said it was well known by the 17th
article of the Treaty of Vienna that this country did
guarantee that portion of Saxony to Prussia. In the event.
of war it would be the duty of the Government of her Ma-
jesty to consult the co-guarantees, which was to be done if
war occurred. Of course he could not at that moment say
what would be done.
THE TREATY WITH FRANCE.

Mr. COWEN asked the President of the Board of Trade
what were the peculiar circumstances connected with the
treaty of commerce between this country and France which
disinclined her Majesty's Government to claim from the
French Government the same commercial privileges as
those which had been accorded to Monaco ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said there was nothing in the treaty
with France to disincline her Majesty's Government de-
manding the same privileges accorded to Monaco. It was
the cpinion of the Government that such a course w3uld
be an extreme assertion of our rights. As the matter was
of no importance, her Majesty's Government had not
thought it right to claim them.
THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.

Mr. CRAWFORD asked the President of the Board of
Trade if it had been proposed or was intended to carry the
Metropolitan District Railway along the whole or any part
of the Thames Embankment between Westminster and
Blackfriars-bridges, in an open cutting instead of a tunnel
or covered way underground.
Mr. GIBSON said a large portion of the railway would
certainly have to be constructed by tunnel ; but a letter
had appeared in the newspapers that day stating that about
one-eighth of a mile would have to be constructed in an
open cutting. Beyond that he could not give any further
information.
FICTITIOUS SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS.
Mr. FERRAND said it had come to his knowlege that a
great number of fraudulent signatures had been appended
to a petition presented to the house in favour of the Re-
form Bill from the village of Arden, in Yorkshire. He
contended that a gross breach of the privileges of the house
had been committed, and the petition therefore ought to
be referred to a select committee in order that the whole
matter might be there thoroughly inquired into.
A short discussion took place, whichiterminated by the
motion being withdrawn, on notice given to make the
motion on another occasion in conformity with the rules
of the house.
THE REFORM BILL—THE ADJOURNED
DEBATE.
The adjecurned discussion on the second reading of the
Reform Bill was resumed by
Mr. GRAHAM, who said ho was quite sensible of the
impatience of the hoes, to hear the opinions of persons of
. more weight than himself, but he could not lose the op-
portunity of expressing his views upon the matter without
. considering it a neglect of duty. He was of opinion that
the bill was just in principle, although he could not but
say there were some defects in it which he could but
wish had not been the case—he alluded to the disfran-
chisement of dockyard artisans and the savings bank quali-
fication. He bad said the bill was just in principle—
(hear,
hear)—he further thought it was moderate in scope,
and one calculated to confer a great and lasting benefit on
a great number of her Majesty's subjects. (Bear, hear.)
He was of opinion that the objections of the great
party who
occupied the opposite benches were alto-
"
' gether fallacious, and he could not at all agree with the
hon. and gallant member for Huntingdon. He had de-
' noutced the measure brought forward by the Govern-
ment as blind, precipitate. :and reckless; but instead
of that he thought it was wise, prudent, and
satisfactory. ITe could not agree with many ofthe right
hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, because
they differed from the opinion that had teen expressed by
the leader when he on the part of the Government of Lord
Derby introduced a bill for the amendment of the franchise.
When he brought forward the subject he declared that
the Government proposed by the vote they introduced to
confine the scope of the - measure to England and
Wales, leaving that for Scotland and that for
Ireland for another occasion. (Hear, hear.) And now
that her Majesty's Government proposed to do that they
were blamed for not introdecing a broad and comprehen-
sive measure for the United Kingdom. The numbers pro-

posed by the right hon. gentleman opposite to enfranchise
were extensive, yet he declared that supposing they were
twice as large, provided it was right and expedient, they ought
to be admitted to the suffrage, and now, forsooth, because
the measure of the Government proposed to enfranchise

400,000, they, the Opposition, thought the constitution
was in danger. He did not think that if some men of
-violent and extreme views obtained a seat in the house
it could be considered as a calamity ; on the contrary, he

though it would be a great good, because he would soon
find his views and feelings undergo a change. He did not
thinll that any danger was to be apprehended from
increasing the number entitled to the franchise conse-
quent upon the lowering of the qualification. He
did not think it was alarming, and it was only
those who struggled for vested interests who thought so.

He advised the house to accept the measure proposed by
the Government, because it was founded on justice. He
felt certain that on the house dividing the majority would

be found to be on the side of her Majesty's Government.
Lord ELCHO said, according to his notion, the Govern-
ment had treated the matter of reform with too much

haste ; he might almost say indecent haste. The right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told
theca that they had twelve days to pull the
bill to pieces and put it together again—(laugh-
ter) and six of those days had already gone.
He must say he saw with alarm the wild senti-
mentalisms with which the bill was supported. (Hear,

hear.) The hon. member for Southwark had said he was
an enemy to all reform—he denied it. (Hear, hear.)
Why he supported the measure of reform brought for-
ward by Lord Derby, when other persons who called
themselves consistent Liberals strongly opposed it. (Hear,

hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had twitted him
(Lord Elcho) before Easter with feeling strongly on this

question. He admitted that he did feel strongly, because
he dreaded the impulsive, fragmentary, and hasty way in
which the Government appeared inclined to deal with this
vital question. Above all was he alarmed at the wild seu:

timentality with which the bill was defended in default of
argument. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped the house would
not believe that it was a feeling of egotism which led him
to refer to his own position with reference to this ques-
tion. The tactics of the Government were to damage their
_ _

opponents by stating things which could not be maintained.
(Opposition cheers.) His course, though it might not have
been wise, had been consistent, and certainly it had been
dictated to him by his own conscience only. He sup-
ported the Reform Bill of Lord Derby when all the Libe-
rals opposed it. (Opposition cheers.) If the Reform ques-
tion was not settled in 1859, it was not the fault of himself
amongst others, but of the course of action taken by the
great majority of the Liberal party. On the hustings he
had advocated the settlement of the Reform question. In
his addresses he had advocated the settlement of this

question. During the past year he had opposed the bill of
the hon. member for Leeds because it would hare been a

--- ---- ---___ ___
fragmentary settlement, and he was happy to say that the
course of the Government since had justified what was

then done, as they were opposed to the £6 franchise, which
had been successfully resisted last year. He said then that
he was not opposed to Reform. All that he wanted was
that there should be an inquiry into the question, so that
they might be quite sure of the nature of the grothml on

which they were invited to tread. It was on that grUund
that he had moved for a commission of inquiry. Refer-

ring then to the allegation that the course adopted on the

subject of the amendment had been dictated by a feeling
of hostility to the Government, the noble lord said that
Earl Russell, at the recent meeting, had made a state-
ment which, when he read it, had astonished him not

a little. He said, " I inquired of a gentleman whom

I considered well informed Whether Lord Elcho intended

to propose, as last year, that there should be a commission
in order to obtain information with regard to all the per-

sons who might be in possession of the franchise, and the
answer given was No—that intention is given up because
_ _ _

it is believed the Government will be got rid of without

having recourse to that measure." Now, if there was any
_ _ _ .

meaning in words, the impression which the Prime Minister
meant to convey to the meeting was that he (Lord Elcho)
had brought forward the measure in a spirit of hostility to

the Government. Now what were the facts of the case?

,He came to London to attend Lord Palmerston's funeral,

and happening to meet a member of the Government, that
gentleman remarked that he thought a good deal of the
Royal Commission which he had suggested for inquiry
into the franchise, and asked him to put in writing his

reasons for the COmmission. He went home and spew

the best part of a night writing his- reasons.. He did so

not in any hostile spirit, but in the interest of the
country as much as of the Government. He heard that
Lord Russell had seen the paper he prepared, and the re-

suit was the electoral returns which had been laid on

the table, and a friend of his said, " I think these returns
will take the wind out of Elcho's sails." (Laughter.) He
had since made inquiry into the matter, and ascertained

that Lord Russell had seen the paper. As an humble mem

ber of Lord Aberdeen's Government he could never forget
that Lord Russell, the present Prime Minister, loft that
Government in the face of a threatened hostile motion by
an hon. member who sat opposite. He was ready to admit,
however, that Lord Russell was one of the most distin-
guished statesmen the country had ever seen, and that no
man had done more for liberty and the good government
of the empire. He would, therefore, only say upon this'
point that he was surprised that Lord Russell, with the
knowledge of the spirit in which he knew 'the paper was
written, should have expriefeed himself as he did at the
meeting in Downing-strtet, and still mordthat he should
have spoken of him in salt a manner in his absence. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing in this bill, laid
great stress upon the fact that the subject of reform had
been mentioned in many Queen's speeches, and that a
great many Governments had introduced a Reform Bill,
and the right hon. gentleman ended by saying that Par-
liament was pledged upon the question of reform. Many
people, he thought, might say that this argument about
the question having been agitated for 14 years rather cut
the other way, because if there had been any urgent
necessity for the measure, or any desire for it on the
part of the country, there would not have been fourteen
months' agitation for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said Parliament was pledged on the subject. On the
contrary, he maintained that Parliament was not
_pledged: (Opposition cheers.) What were his grounds
for denying that Parliament was pledged ? During the
debate on the bill of the hon. member for Leeds, the
Home Secretary (Sir G. Grey) distinctly asserted that the
Government of Lord Palmerston did not go to the country
upon the question of reform; or, in the words of the right
hon. gentleman, "We are not pledged, and do not intend
to ask the support of the country, as the advocates of a
great measure of Parliamentary Reform. We are not pre-
pared to go to the country as the advocates of a measure of
Parliamentary Reform, without reserving to ourselves the
discretion to act upon that matter as upon all others as the
interest of the country demands." - (Cheers and counter
cheers.) The right hon. gentleman, in his speech on the
hustings, justified the course taken by Lord Palmerston's
Government on the Reform question, on the ground of the
disinclination of Parliament and the apathy of the country
with regard to it. In the election address of the late Prime
Minister there was not one word, from beginning to end,
with reference to Reform ; and when the noble lord was
asked upon the hustings why he was not for Reform, his
answer, as given by his hon. friend, was, "Because we are
not geese." (A laugh.) He had seen an analysis of the
Liberal members in the present Parliament last September,
which showed that the Liberals who expressed themselves
in favour of Reform numbered 160—that the Liberals who
made no declaration on the subject amounted to 165—(a
laugh)—and that the supporters of Lord Palmerston were
42—making a total of 367 members. .Now his authority for
this statement was the Leeds Mercury. (Renewed laughter.)
All these things tended to show that, so long as Lord Pal-
merston was aline, there would be no Reform. Under
his judicious and calm leadership there was no chance
of Reform ; axd when the hon. member for Birmingham
was invited to go down to Glasgow to agitate the ques-
tion, his answer was that it was no use trying it on as
long as Lord Palmerston lived. (Hear, hear.) Unhappily
Lord Palmerston died, and peace appeared to die with
him. Lord Russell became Prime Minister, agitation
succeeded, and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the leader of the House of Commons,
went and stumped it in the provinces. (Opposition
cheers.) The eloquence of his right hon. friend was un-
rivalled in that house, and he would advise him to con-
fine it to that house instead of stumping it in the pro-
vinces, and following in the steps of a person he could
name. (O h, oh.) He had two objections to the bill, first
because it was a franchise bill ; and secondly, because
while it meant one thing he was confident it would do
another. (Hear, hear.) It professed to be a bill for en-
franchising working men. The working man had been
the stock argument of Reform agitators for many years past,
and was supposed to have no voice in the representation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Liverpool, last
autumn, that he did not know whether there were 50,000
or 100,000 working men on the register. The Prime Mini-
ster lately said the working man had no representation,
and the hon. member for Leeds said their number was so
small as to have no appreciable weight in the representa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) He had always doubted this, and now
they had it on the authority of the electoral returns, that
more than one-fourth of the working classes possessed
the franchise. He thought they should pause before they
made any change which would give a preponderance in
the constitution to one class of the people. He believed
there was danger in this, and that the electoral returns
showed there was necessity for caution. Lord Russell, in
the introduction to his work on the Constitution, did not
support the doctrine of the abstract right of individuals to
the franchise, but laid it down that the problem to be
solved was good government and best means of attaining
it. The hon. member for Westminster, in the retirement
of the study, had written forcibly on the evils which might
arise from giving a preponderance of power to the working
classes with regard to matters affecting wages and labour.
Reform,ln 1848 Mr. Cob
upon
the ground
advocated
grnundo the
Mr.great
yotifoonr foran
alteration of taxation, and said that the instinct of selfish-
ness on the part of the working classes would induce them
to place taxation upon realised property. The Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer said his object was to place the
working men in boroughs on an equality with the other
classes. That might be very well in 1866, but how would