The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-03 00:00:00

do well not to forget, for it is through this approach that
the enemy will penetrate the fortress." (Loud cheers.)
Mr. LOWE considered that the question before the
house had been much magnified beyond its proper propor-
tions by hon. members on both sides, and was not a ques-
tion of public policy at all. He considered that the will
which was to be made for a man failing to do so for him-
self was such as what they might suppose a good and up-
right man would execute ; but, according to the present
law, they made for him such a will as a man certainly
would not make except under peculiar circumstances. He
concluded by voting for the second reading of the bill.
Lord H. VANE said if they determined on making wills
in a particular way, they would startle the landed proprie-
tary interest, and any legislation an the subject would not
come into operation for some years, so far as the great body
of landed proprietors were concerned. He admitted that
there might be some hardships under the existing law, but
they were not to legislate for particular cases, and were to
proceed on considerations of general policy. He would
therefore oppose the second reading of the bill.
Mr. A. B. HOPE supported the amendment. The effect
of the proposed alteration would be to reduce the descend-
ants of landed proprietors to the state of an Irish " squireen"
or 8440 freeholder, with a right to vote, and starvation
staring him in the face. On the ground of economy
he objected to the measure of the honourable mem-
ber for the subdivision of land to which it would
necessarily lead. Nobody required, asked for, or
dreamt of it, and it was a mere crotchet or theory of the
hon. member for Surrey.
General THOMPSON said he believed there was an
erroneous impression on the part of hon. members on the
opposite side as to the state of public feeling on this sub-
ject, but he could assure them that he had heard the sub-
ject frequently discussed at popular assemblies under the
title of the law of primogeniture. It was with some diffi-
culty that he could, on some occasions, calm those present,
by assuring the gi that they could dispose of their property,
they being and 6t a conviction that they would be obliged
to leave their property to their eldest sons. It was sup-
posed that the present law was maintained by influential
families in order that they might have a substantial head,
who would provide for the younger sons by getting them
situations in public offices. (Laughter.)
Mr. EWART supported the second reading of the bill,
and asserted that both public feeling and public reason had
gradually become in favour of the principle of the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE denied that the public feeling was
in favour of the bill, and condemned the practice that pre-
vailed in France. The present law was founded on the
good sense of their forefathers, and with respect to any fear
of wives being left unprovided for, they well knew the
desire that prevailed on the part of husbands not to leave
their wives without necessary provision.
Mr. WALTER opposed, and Air. GREER supported the
second reading.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, with reference to
the effect of the law in France, that no sooner was the law
of primogeniture abolished, than that country was con-
vulsed with anarchy, and if the legislature were to pass a
bill like the present, the same result might, before many
years had elapsed, be realised in this country. The effect
of the bill would be to impose on the family of a poor man
the task and expense of administering to effects that per-
haps were not worth £2O.
Lord PALMERSTON said he objected to the bill on
every possible ground. (Laughter.) The proposition of
the hon. member for Surrey was against the feelings of the
people, and entirely incompatible with the maintenance of a
constitutional monarchy. It was opposed to the habits of
the people of this country, because, as every one knew,
there was a disposition generally among landed proprietors
to make what was called an eldest son. There was also a pride
on the part of some small proprietors to have retained in their
families the land which they inherited ; there was one man
who possessed only a few acres in the New Forest, which
descended to him from his ancestor, who carried the body
of Rufus to Winchester, and who was as proud of his pos-
session as if it was of considerable value. How could it be
expected that a man with a few pounds would go to the ex-
pense of making a will ? He held that the existence of a
constitutional monarchy required a landed aristocracy, by
which he meant a landed gentry, whether titled or not.
(Hear, hear.) The moment that that intermediate body
ceased to interpose between the Crown and the people,. the
constitution would undergo an alteration, for its continu-
ance was essential to the present system. (Hear, hear.)
In those countries where the law of primogeniture was
abolished it was found that the aristocracy were impo-
verished, and quite unfitted to exercise such functions as
would be necessary.
Mr, LOCKE KING having replied,
The house divided,
For the second reading..
Against it

Majority against
NEWSPAPERS, &c., BILL.
Mr. AYRTON, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said there was no need to occupy the attention of the
house, as the details of the bill would be fully discussed in
committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not in-
tend to oppose the bill, but he reserved to himself the
right of moving certain amendments in committee.
The bill was then read a second time.
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS BILL.

Mr. COLLIER moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate, as the
whole subject must necessarily be discussed when the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
bill was under discussion.
Mr. HEA_DLAM strongly objected to postponement.
Mr. COLLIER said the present bill was to prevent the
continuance of a bill which would expire in July. It had been
said that the present bill should not be proceeded with, because
the subject would be dealt with in another bill. But the
reason he wished the present bill to be proceeded with was,
that he believed that bill would not pass. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON thought the bill ought to be pro-
ceeded with.
The motion for the adjournment was then withdrawn,
and the discussion on the bill proceeded.
Mr. EDWIN JAMES thought that the expenses at pre-
sent entailed upon candidates for metropolitan boroughs
prevented men of eminence and talent from coming forward
to contest these boroughs. The cab hire was enormous.
At the late elections for Finsbury and Lambeth there was a
phalanx of cabs, and every description of vehicularity—
(laughter)—engaged in conveying voters to the poll, and if
these proceedings continued to be legal, the ultimate result
would be that the successful candidate in any case would be
the one who had the longest purse. He thought members
of Parliament should be returned free of all expense. (Hear.)
During a contest that he had lately taken part in in allu-
sion to the great expense of cab hire, some of his most in-
fluential supporters had said that they were sorry to put
him to such an outlay for cab hire ; but the other side did
the same. The practice had been legalised by Act of Par-
liament, and without he did the same he would stand no
chance. He again said electioneering expenses were a
scandal and a disgrace. In a contest he had
had in Marylebone he had paid about £4OO for
the erection of polling booths, yet in all the booths erected
there was not one which would not have been a disgrace to
a gingerbread stall. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN opposed the bill.
Mr. STEWART thought sufficient reason had not been
shown for repealing a measure which had been passed after
considerable discussion.
Mr. WHITE thought the bill had been introduced into
Parliament merely to secure the omnibus and cab interest
in elections. He hoped the hon. gentleman would be suc-
cessful in his endeavour to repeal the law.
Mr. DEEDES said he opposed the bill last session, and
he should now give his vote in favour of its repeal.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill, as he considered
it one of disfranchisement to the poorer out voters of all
the county constituencies of England
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that last year he was of
opinion that the house had no right to disfrancise those
poorer voters who could not convey themselves to the poll.
The bill of last year was merely a temporary measure, and it
was open to repeal immediately more polling-booths were
erected. By his bill his hon. friend had removed this ob-
jection, as he found he had largely increased the number
of polling places, and he did not see why the practice of
conveying voters to the poll should continue, as it was nearly
akin to bribery. He should, therefore, seeing that the bill
increased the number of polling places at no great distance
from the residence of the voters, give his vote for the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. HUNT thought the bill highly objectionable. He
thought a voter whose residence was eleven miles from a
polling place had a right to a conveyance to the poll. An
infirm voter had also the same right ; he should therefore
move that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the present a very
inconvenient time to proceed with the bill, although
at the same time ho had no strong feeling on the matter
one way or the other. He thought the present law ought
not to be repealed before extra polling places had been pro-
vided. The new Reform Bill did this, and he therefore
should vote against the bill.
Mr. AYRTON said, when the bill of last session
was passed, the Government said the bill could be fully
discussed during the present session, and now, when it was
proposed to remedy the effect of hasty legislation, his hon.
friend was met with strong opposition. He thought he
had a right to insist that the bill should be allowed to go
into committee.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 172
Against it 153
Majority l9
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day week.
The Recreation Grounds Bill was read a second time.
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
METROPOLITAN GAS.

Mr. BYNG nominated the select committee on the supply
of gas, as follows :—Mr. Byng, Sir John Shelley, Mr.
Ayrton, Mr. John Locke, Mr. John Abel Smith, the Judge
Advocate, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Mr. Adams, Mr. Barrow,
Sir William Dunbar, Sir William Hayter, Mr. F. Russell,
Mr. Jackson, Mr. Thomas Mills, and Mr. Whitbread.

SCOTCH COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS.
Mr. BLACKBTfRN moved for a return of the number
of proprietors on the valuation roll of each county or burgh,
or Parliamentary combination of counties or burghs, in
Scotland, having property under £lO but not under £5 of
annual value.—Agreed to.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

Mr. T. copies of all informa-
tions, summonses, and convictions, with the amount of fine
and costs paid in each case, under the Act 29 Charles 11.,
intituled, 'An Act for the better Observation of the Lords'
Day, commonly called Sunday," before her Majesty's jus-
tices of the peace for the county of Southampton, from 25th
day of December, 1858, to the Ist day of March, 1859 ; to-
gether with a copy of a memorial recently presented by the
inhabitants of the district to the magistrates, complaining
of the conduct of the police, with their reply thereto.—
Agreed to.
The house then adjourned.

A sharp urchin derided the dignity of the sun,
because the latter is only a day labourer.—.Kelly's Railway
Guide.
TRIAL BY JURY IN SCOTLAND.—A Bill of Mr.
Dunlop, M.P., and Mr. Moncrieff, M.P., proposes to enact
that if, after three hours' deliberation, nine of a jury in
Scotland agree, a verdict may be returned by these nine.
This bill amends an act now on the statute-book, which
requires a prior deliberation of six, instead of three, hours.
[ADvrieristmmNz.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Rheumatism and Gout.—No diseases affecting mankind
harass more than these ; none excite less pity, none exceed
them in severity of suffering. In-the blood lies the poi-
sonous cause of both distempers, which fortunately may be
constitutional and locally expelled by Holloway's soothing
Ointment and Purifying 'Pills the former speedily re-
lieves the pungent shooting pain and acute inflammation
of the affected joint ; these Pills cast out from the whole
system all noxious substances with which gout; rheuma-
tism, and disease disappear, and for a long time remain
absent. Holloway's preparations purify and cleanse by
filtering out the elements of all disorders whereby present
comfort is ensured, happiness and cheerfulness are secured,
and lasting benefit is conferred.