The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-26 00:00:00

THE COUNCIL OF INDIA.

Mr. V. SMITH asked the-lejetatiof State for India to
lay on the table any minutes or regulations he had made for
the transaction of business in the Council of India, under
the 20th section of the act 21 and 22 Vic., c. 106.
After some discussion on a point of order, •
Mr. V. SMITH contended that the regulations adopted
with reference to the transactions of the Council, instead of
light being admitted everything was rendered even more
obscure than previously, to the public at-large.
Lord STANLEY said he had no objection to lay the
minutes in questions, which were very brief, on the table.
The Council were divided into committees for the
transaction of business. He agreed in the sugges-
tion of the honourable member that there should
be it special announcement made with respect to
these secret despatches and that course would be adopted
in future. It was not the regular course to lay such docu-
ments as the despatch of the 3d of August, on the table,
but in the present instance he would have no objection
to do so. He had ordered the second despatch to be re
ferred to the secret committee, and it had been sent out from
the secret department by their recommendation. It was
not, therefore, brought before the council.
THE REFORM BILL.

On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate,
Mr. HORSMAN said he hoped he might be allowed to
correct an error into which the hon. member for Birming-
ham had fallen last night. The hon. member had stated that he
(Mr. Horsman) suggested that if the house should make
very important amendments on the bill in committee the
Government would dishonour themselves by accepting them.

He said no such thing. What he said was, that they ought
to exert their power to make `such amendments, and then
easton the Governmentthe responsibility of rejecting them.
They would then have two rival bills—the bill of the Go-
vernment and the bill as amended by the house, upon
which there would be a clear issue to appeal to the country.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE resumed the discussion by saying
that no one could listen to the debate without feelingaware
that the house had got into a situation of embari assment.
Why was the question embarrassed, and to what was that
to be attributed ? The question was complicated, in the
first place, because the measure was produced by a Govern-
ment who were in a minority in the house, from the fact
that it did not proceed altogether from the spontaneous de-
sire of the Government, but in answer to a call from the
country and the house for a measure of the kind. (Hear,
hear.) It was more embarrassing still because it was any-
thing but distinct as to the precise objects that a measure
of the kind should have in view. These were embarrass-

Jaunts naturally arising out of the question itself, and its
origin, but the question was rendered more embarrassing
and complicated from the mode in which the issue had been
raised by the resolution of the noble lord, because it was
not a fai,r fight on the second reading or an open council in
committee. The resolution was so general in its terms that
it raised no distinct issue, and the speech of the noble lord
did not supply what was wanting in the form of the resolu-
tion. (Hear.) It was therefore natural that those who de-
sired to know what it really meant should look to the bill
which the noble lord introduced in 1854, and to the measures
advocated by the hon. member for Birmingham. Yet upon
ono or either the noble lord declined to commit himself. The
question was still more embarrassing and complicated on
account of the position taken by his two right hon. friends
behind him who left the Cabinet, and this was more parti-
cularly the case when it was known that the particular point
on whichthey left their colleagues was that which caused so
much discussion—the principle of uniformity of franchise.
It was suggested that the Government should take back the
bill with a view of altering in it the sense suggested by their
former colleagues. But that was a course which the Govern-
ment could not take without placing themselves in a false
position, and even raising a question as to their personal
ho lour. (Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to tho question of
identity of suffrage he wished to say a few words. 1%1 any ques-
tions had been put to the Government whether they would
consider any interference with the principle of identity as
being fatal to the bill. He thought it was most unfair to seek
to bind the Government in any way to particular promises as
to what they would or would not do in the event of certain
contingencies taking place. (Hear, hear.) The principle of
identity, no doubt, formed an important portion of the bill,
but it contained many other principles besides that of the
identity of the suffrage. Objection was taken to this iden -
tity in the first place because it was new, then because it
stopped at £lO, because it was mixed up with what was
called the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, because
it had a tendency to produce electoral districts, and a
system of fagot votes. These objections divided them-
selves into two kinds—objections to the essence of the
bill and objections to the awidents with which the intro-
duction of the bill was accompanied. The objection to the
£lO was an objection not to the principle of uniformity,
but to the mode in which it happened to be applied, be -
cause there might be identity between the borough and
county franchise at any point than a £lO occupation. So
again with regard to the lowering of the borough franchise

below £lO, and the transference of the 40s. freeholders in
boroughs—these were not objections to the principle, but to
the mode of application, which might be discussed in com-
mittee, but which it was impossible to discuss at that stage
of the bill at which they had arrived. (Hear, hear.) He did
not understand anything which had fallen from his noble
friend (Lord Stanley) or from any. member of the Govern-
ment as implying that any principle of the bill was not
fairly open for consideration in eommitteo, or as pledg-
ing themselves against any amendment that might be
made. (Hear, hear.) But to call on the Government
to say that they would accept any particular decision of
the house was a thing which no one had a right to ex-
pect. Ho saw much force in the objection that the prin-
ciple of uniformity would lead to the creation of faggot
votes, because the property qualification in boroughs
would give peculiar facilities for their creation within the

narrow area of borsughs. (Hear, hear.) He stated the
objection fairly. The Government saw the danger, for they
proposed a clause to prevent the evil apprehended. They
were told that the clause was insufficient. That was a

matter, however, for discussion in committee. (Hear.) The
principle of uniformity was not exhibited, he apprehended,
as a kind of universal medicine, like Morison's pills.
(Laughter.) It was no divinity or idol to be set up for
worship and adored at all hazards and costs. Let them go
into committee, consider the question, and see if they
could not get rid of it ono way or the other. (Laughter.)
The noble lord took the course he did because if he voted

directly against the second reading he was afraid his motives
might be misunderstood. Considering the high position of
the noble lord, and his connection with the question of Re-
form, there was little fear of that, especially as the noble
lord could explain his motives in his speech. With regard
to the extension of the franchise given by this bill, a good
deal had been said of what (with a view to discredit the mea-
sure) were called the fancy franchises ; if this bill passed
even in its present shape, two g,reat resultswould be at-
tained—an addition of one. third to the existing constitu-
ency, and a door opened by which further additions could
frequently take place. The present number of electors was
about 900,000, the reduction of the county franchise to £lO
would add about 200,000—(no, no, and hear, hear)—that
at least was the result of the best information the Govern-
ment could obtain. There wore some alleged disfranchise-
ments to set off against that, but it would be easy in com-
mittee to remove all those. He believed that the savings-
bank franchise would add 50,000, and the other new
franchises about 50,000 more. It was difficult to get
correct information with regard to the savings banks, but
he had applied to the Comptroller of the National Debt
Office on the subject, and he was informed they could
give no information with regard to the depositors above
£6O, but thoy could as regarded those above £5O. In
1858 the number of depositors above that amount was
185,000. (Hear, hear.) Of these a certain number repre-
sentedtrust_accounts. A return presented to the House of
Lords in 1852 enabled him to approximate to that number,
and if they excluded such accounts the numberof depositors
above £5O would be 153,000. Of course a large number of
these were females. The proportion was not quite one-half;
it would be about 75,400 females, and 77,600 males. Of
these some already possessed the franchise ; but he thought
they might reasonably expect an addition to the constituen-
cies of 50,000. They might add considerably to this number
by an extension to this principle, either in lowering the
maximum or including other modes of investment. The
lodging franchise would add a considerable number also.
In London, the number of lodgers was very great in some
districts •; in the borough of Marylebone, for example, it ex-
ceeded the number of householders. In that district the
number of houses below £lO value was very small—not one
per cent. of the entire ; a reduction of the household
limit, therefore, would add scarcely anything to the con-
stituency, whilst the admission of lodgers must in-
, crease it by several hundreds. He had made some in-
quiries, and found that furnished lodgings at 7s. a week
were almost equivalent to a rent of £lO for an unfurnished
house. It would be in the power of the committee to re-
duce the Bs. limit if they thought fit. A number of the
working classes now took houses which they let off in lodg-
ings to their fellow-workmen, and by the new qualification
all these would be admitted to the franchise. As the bill
stood, therefore, it increased the Constituency very cousi-

derably. He would ask these who said It was not enough
to consider what the position of the Government was; they
had to bring forward a measure which they thought they
could pass. (Hear, and laughter.) They could not have
receded from anything they had once offered. If the mea-
sure now fell short of what was desired it was in the power
of the house to carry it as much further as they 'pleased.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But to ask the Government
on the second reading, to give a pledge as to amendments
of which they knew nothing was to call upon them
to abdicate their functions. The Government only
invited the house to deal with the measure in a
practical manner, to go into committee, and the; e
give counsel and put on paper any definite proposal they
had to make. They had heard the speech of the noble lord
the member for London, and that of the hon. member for
Birmingham, in which he had declared his intention to
unite with the noble lord in attempting to throw out the
bill. They had heard them talk of the necessity of settling
the question, and then speak of the prospect of autumn
meetings and winter agitation. He must say he thought
hon. gentlemen under such circumstance would incur a
very grave responsibility—(hear)—if without indicating
what they did want, or what proposal they would niche,
they refused to go into committee. There was nothing in
the terms of the bill, nothing in the declaration of the Go-
vernment, to preclude them from making any changes they
thought fit. He believed the bill did furnish the elements
of a satisfactory settlement, and that it would be possible
in committee, without any great difficulty, to remove all
the objectionable points. If they went into committee
the bill could be carried further. (Hear, hear.) Of course
he only spoke for himself. In his position he had no
',:nowledge of the intentions of the Cabinet, but there was
nothing to prevent him from forming his own judgment and
drawing- his conclusions from what passed in the house. It
was perfectly possible in committee to propose any exten-
sion that might be thought necessary, if the Government
saw no objection; but until they got into committee the
Government could not be called on to pronounce an opinion
on any of these details. The bill as it stood was one on
which a Conservative Government might take its stand,
and if the house rejected it there was no chance of their
bringing the question to a satisfactory solution this session.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
When the hon. baronet resumed his seat a number of
members rose. Amongst them was Mr. Cardwell and Mr.
Beaumont. There were loud calls for the latter, with min-
gled cries of " New member !" The Speaker, however,
called on Mr. Cardwell. The uproar was still continuing,
when—
Mr. BENTINCK rose to order. He had always under-
stood that it was usual to give way to a new member.
Lord PALMERSTON said that when once the Speaker
had named a member it was not usual or respectful to in-
terfere with his decision. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL said he had no wish to interfere with
a new member, and would have given way if he had been
mare that one had risen. He had hoped that when his
hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury rose, his speech
would have contained some counsel to aid them in escaping
From the embarrassments in which this question was in-
volved, or that at least he would have given them a dis-
irlotion between principle on one hand and what might be
altered in committee, and that the house would have knell=

what in his idea was the principle to be approved of on the
second reading, and what was matter of detail to which the
Government were not to be considered as pledged. When
he listened to the speech, however, ho was reminded of the
lescription of Chaos, where the water was too thick to sail
in, and the land too liquid to walk on ; or that of the
olar Soft, where the navigator found the ice was
aot strong enough to bear, but the sea too much en-
cumbered by blocks of ice for him to sail through it. The
only conclusion to be derived from the speech was, that the
bill did not contain any single proposition which could be
galled a principle. (Hear, hear.) It was frained, not to carry

into effect any sincere conviction, not to accomplish any
practical result,.not to confer on the people any great or
substantialbenefit—the bill was merely made to pass—(hear,
hear)—if it passed, the object of the Government was at-
tained. (Hear, hear.) This was a matter which it would
become the House of Commons carefully and temperately to
consider before it embarked in the dangerous progress of a
bill of this nature in committee. The present had been
called a great opportunity ; ho believed it was, if they
rightly embraced it, for the performance of a great duty.
The bill of 1832 was an alteration adapted to the cir-
cumstances of the case, by a calm and scientific considera-
tion, such as they might apply in the present case, if they
made proper use of their opportunities. It had a na-

Lure and character still more marked ; it was a great
struggle for the transfer of power from the great
agricultural interest to the great monied, commercial, and
manufacturing interests which had sprung up during the
years preceding. The struggle ended happily; but it left
behind it other reforms which required to be accomplished
oefore the measure would hare full effect. Since then a
great advance had taken place in the industry, education,
intelligence, and well-being of the lower classes, whose case
they were again called on to consider. The present was a
great opportunity for the accomplishment of a reform of this
nature, without again entering on an angry struggle between
classes. (Hear, hear.) Ho had listened with admiration to
the able speech of the Secretaryfor the Colonies, but he could
not help feeling apprehensive that, if doctrines such as he
held were to be accepted by the house, and animated appeals
to be made to-the middle classes to retain the privileges and
power they possessed, and guard with jealousy thefranchise
from the attack of the class who did not yet participate in it,
the next Reform Bill would be carried by an angry and ex-
asperating struggle for power between classes. What
object ought they to have in view in dealing with a Reform
Bill ? Their object ought to be to diminish what was called
influence in elections, to increase the power of public
opinion, to enable industry and education, associated with
wealth and numbers, to return members for places where
influence had before prevailed ; but this bill had a tendency
to increase influence and diminish the power of public opi-
nion. There were three ways in which they could deal with
:his question : the first was by a redistribution of the seats
d• the small boroughs amongst theelarger and increasing
communities. For his own part, he confessed he agreed
with all writers of authority on this subject, that of all
means of increasing the influence of public opinion, this
was one of the most efficacious. The noble lord the Secre-
tary for India had admitted this was right in theory, but
said was impossible to be accomplished, and that they must
be satisfied without it. He took this for granted, and would,
therefore, consider the other two modes—the alteration of
the county and borough franchise. This belonged to what
the Secretary to the Treasury called matters of detail, but
it appeard to him that the whole controversy was involved
in the great question of what was called uniformity. This
had been put forward as the principle, but really he did not
know now whether the Government considered it to be a
principle' or a matter of detail. There was one principle
which had been laid down by all writers, and never altered
from the earliest times of the House of Commons, and
which could not be altered without laying the axe to the
root of all their liberties. That principle was not uniformity
of franchise, but propriety of franchise. That diversity of
character and interest formed the cement and groundwork
on which the great interests of the country were built up,
and they could not for a moment interfere with that variety
without altering the whole scope and character of their
institutions; (Hear, hear.) It had been said that the
county franchise turned upon property, and the borough
franchise upon occupation, and the Solicitor-General had
contended that since the • passing of the Reform Bill of
1832 that distinction had no longer existed. The his-
tory of the county franchise was this :—ln the earliest
times all the freeholders of the county were invited to exer-
cise the franchise. In the reign of Henry VI. the freeholds
were for the first time limited to those of the value of 40s.
At that period only freeholders exercised the franchise; be-
neficial leaseholds being thenunknown, and tenure by copy-
holds being a very different thing from what it was at pre-
sent. As beneficial leaseholds grew up, and copyholds in-
• creased in importance, the franchise was attached to them ;
and, lastly, by the Reform Bill, it was also extended to oc-
cupations in counties of the yearly value of L. 50. As regarded
the borough franchise in the year 1624, there sat in that
house a committee, of which Mr. Hallam said that it was
composed of the most eminent men that ever were as3oci-
ated in a body of that kind, and they laid it down that the
common law right of voting in boroughs extended to all
householders in boroughs who paid taxes and local rates,
and Mr. Hallam remarked that the nearer they approached
to that franchise the more consonant would the electoral
system be, notwith new theories of modern liberty, but wtth
the ancient spirit of the law. He would not trouble the house
with authorities ; but he believed there was no text-look on
the British constitution where variety of suffra go was not laid
down as a great distinguishing principle of that constitu-
tion.. If they imported any great principle, into the British
constitution, they might depend upon it that principle
would not be dead and inert, but would be a vital animat-
ing principle spreadiug to all parts of the constitution.
(Hear, hear.) At present the House of Lords appeared not
only to have suffered no diminution of authority as time
had rolled on, but to have been constantly gaining 'in pub-
lic estimation. But what would be the effect if they esta-
blished the principle that the franchise of every elector
should be exactly the same—that equality should be the
rule ? (Hear, hear.) He believed it would be found on
examining the history of this country that the people had
never desired equality, but what they had desired was free-
dom ; and he also believed that in England free-
dom would never exhibit itself under the aspect
of equality. (Loud cheers.) Considering this a great con-
stitutional principle, he could not understand the argu-
ment of the Treasury bench that the bill should be allowed
to go into committee, and thatit should then be determined
what course should be taken with regard to it. What the
authors of the bill termed " identity of franchise': was a
principle wholly unknown to the fritish constitution, and
one, the adoption of which would, in his opinion, lead to
the most dangerous consequences; and, whether he con-
sidered that objection, or whether he had regard to the fact
that, instead of extending popular election, the bill would,
both in counties and in boroughs, tend to diminish it, he was
led to the conclusion that he ought not to vote for the se-
cond reading. He was told that it would be incompatible
with the honour of the Government to adopt the principles
of the resolution. What he had to do byhis votewassimply
to perform his duty as a representative—(hear, hear)—and
the honour of theGovernm,t was not with him an irre-
sistible motive against opposing the second reading. if the
honour of the Government was involved, so also were the
honour and independence of every member of that house.
(Hear, hear.) He had listened with great attention to the
reasoning of the noble lord the Secretary for India on that
point, but there was one thing to which he paid more atten-
tion than even the noble lord's reasoning, and that was the
example ho gave them by his conduct; and he had observed
that when a bill was proposed by a Goy er anent, to t'seprin-
ciple of which the noble lord could not honestly assent, he did
not hesitate to vote against the second reading. Believing
this question to be one of principle, and believing also that
it was only as a question of principle that it could be dealt
with, he intended to vote for a resolution which exactly ex-
pressed the views ho entertained. (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman behind him (Mr. Horsman) had told the opposition
that they were so powerful that they could do anything they
liked with the bill in committee, and yet he went on to say
that they were so powerless that if they could maintain their
unanimity for fourand twenty hours it would be as much as
they could do. (Laughter.) If the latter statement wore
correct what chance would there be if the bill went into
committee of arriving at a satisfactoryconclusion ? (Hear,
hear.) The responsibility of defeat would rest upon those
who in the name of reform had brought forward a mea-
sure which was not one of reform. (Hear, hear.) There
was a policy which had been called Liberal-conservatism--
a policy which was liberal because it was conservative;
conservative because it was liberal. When an exigency had
arisen such a policy dealt with it, so as to remove the cause.
of dissatisfaction from the public mind and afford security
against ulterior demands. But there was a policy which
was neither liberal nor conservative. (Cheers.) That was
a policy which when a public exigency had arisen affected
to deal with it and did not deal with it, which dissatisfied
the reasonable expectations of temperate people, and thereby
tended to create demands which would otherwise never