The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-08 00:00:00

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.

Sir A. AGNEW asked the Vice-President of the Com-
mittee of Privy Council if it was true that rinderpest
had broken out in tho Isle of Man, appearing there
last week in five places almost simultaneously ;
and if the information he bad received led to the belief
that these outbreaks can be traced to distinct sources of
infection, or whether it would appear that the disease had
taken an epidemic form, or that all or any of these cases
had originated spontaneously?

Mr. BRUCE said an inspector had been sent to the Isle
of Man, and he had received a communication from
dated the 4th inst. It was to the effect that, althoughhim,
the disease had the appearance of rinderpest, yet e
was
not in a position to state positively that it was se.
SUPPLY.—PROVY
ISION FOR THE PRINCESS
MAR OF CAMBRIDGE.
The house then went into committee of supply, Mr,
DODSON in the chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose
in pursuance of order to move for a further provision for
the Princess Mary on the occasion of her marriage with his
Royal Highness Prince Teck. The character of the
Princess was most favourably known in this country, and
the anl
toe impression existed with respect to the illustrious
person whom she was about to be united. Her Royal
Highness enjoyed at present £3,000 per annum, but that
was thought to bitiinadequate for the marriage state, with-
out her
person of Royallarge resources.
righness united herself in marriage to a
were called upon to The members of the royal family
not so fortnnate,7ePlupa certain position, and they were
Majesty, because, placed as other subjects of her
be
easily met,
of their expenses becom-
ing more than could ily met, they could not easily re-
duce their expenditure.
reseidnet in
would still remain a Theresident
Princess, after her marriage Prince Teck would also England,
where the,
make was that in addition to the she proposal he had to
the princess already received, an annuity of .£3,000 which
annum should be made, making it
in the
of £2OOO per
The proposal was such a moderate and t 11:
whole £5,000.
the house he felt would readily agree to just Prposal that
Re therefore proposed the resolution that a
f(arltehar, hear.)
£2,000 per annum be granted to her Majesty, as as sum of
annuity
to be settled on the Princess Mary of Camridge,
Mr, DODSON having formally read theseslution,
Mr. DISRAELI said he bad the honour to second the
prnposnl, and he at the same time took the opportunity of
wishing her Royal Highness the greates happiness from
her auspicious union.
The resolution was then agr.:-..'d to, and the house re.
slimed

THE REFORM BILL.
The house then went into committee on the Represen-
tation of the People and Redistribution of Seats Bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 were postponed.
On clause 4 being read, -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said an
amendment was to -be moved to this clause which in-
volved one of the vital principles of the bill. The
amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman oppo-
pits (Sir. Walpole) was to strike out the word fourteen,

and insert instead thereof the word twenty, to make that
the amount of the qualification for the county franchise,
and to that, proposal he couldnot give his assent. The great
object of the Government in fixing £l4 as the county
franchise was to settle, if possible, for some time the sub-
ject of reform.
(Hear, hear.) The Government proposal
had been frankly accepted by the reforming party in the
country, and he could not consent to the alteration. If the
bill passed as the Government proposed, he felt there would
be a practical settlement of the question of Parliamentary
reform, but the adoption of a .£2O franchise would entirely in
the opinion of the Government, frustrate that much desired
end. The object of the clause was to complete the enfran-
chisement of the middle classes, while at the same time the
power of the working class in counties was by the Govern-
ment proposal reduced, and he trusted the house would re-
collect that when they came to the consideration of the
borough franchise. He did not believe that there would
be a great manufacture of £l4 qualifications if the
proposal of the Government was accepted by the house.
One important argument in favour of the £l4 franchise
for counties was that it was, in fact, the county franchise
in Ireland, where it had worked well for the last 15 years,
a circumstance the importance of which could not
be over estimated. (Hear, hear.) The addition that
would be made in the county franchise if the
Government proposal was adopted would be 171,000 per-
sons, whilst the number to be added by the £2O qualifica-
tion would be 115,000, or a reduction of 56,000 persons
from the number sought to be enfranchised by the Go-
vernment. He, therefore, should feel it his duty to resist
the amendment.

Lord STANLEY said he did not rise to answer the
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to ask for
the postponement of this clause, in order that the portion
of the bill for the redistribution of seats might be first
taken into consideration. (Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion, and laughter from the Ministerialists.) His motive,
he explained, was to obtain a guarantee that all the branches
of the subject should be settled together and as a whole,
and he feared that at this period of the Session of Govern-
ment, when they got through the franchise clauses, might
revert to their original position, and drop the Redistribu-
tion BM altogether. The franchise was a simple matter
comparatively, which might be settled in a couple of
nights' debate, and it would be wiser to deal with the more
complex part of the scheme while the House was fresh. He
contended, moreover, that the House could not decide
satisfactorily on the franchise until they had settled what
the constituencies should be, and by proceeding with the
franchise first they would be working in the dark.
Mr. E. EGERTON seconded the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT—I am a little surprised at the observa-
tions of the hon. member for Macclesfield, when blaming
the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in what he
calls a scanty measure of redistribution. I understand
that the bill disturbs or rearranges 49 seats. The bill of
Lord Derby dealt with only 15 seats. The hon. member
is very much surprised that this great blot of the unre-
presented towns has not been dealt with, but it was not
dealt with by the bill of Lord Derby. (Tory cries of
e Question.") The bill of the Government deals with just
about the same number of new boroughs as the bill of Lord
Derby dealt with, but the hon. member has, I presume,
forgotten the bill of his leader. (" We are not discussing
Lord Derby's bill.") If these changes, which are now found
fault with, were in Lord Derby's bill, the hon. member is
I hardly justified in blaming them when brought forward by
the present Government. He says that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer has shownno consideration for the feelings
of the Opposition, but he might add, that the Opposition
has not shown much consideration for our feelings.
(Laughter.) But surely no member can be unaware of the
fact that from the beginning of this discussion the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in everything whichldid not sacri-
fice a principle, has made important concessions to the
feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, the fact is that
his having made one groat concession is the cause Df the
dilemma in which the noble Signor now finds himself.
(Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord says to-night exactly
what I said in the first speech I made on the bill, namely,
that the franchise clauses were simple, easy to be under-
stood, and easily disposed of, and he said further that two
or three nights' debate would be sufficient to get the fran-
chise clauses through the house. But if that be so, and if
the hon. member for Macclesfield will follow the moderate
leading of the noble lord in respect to the franchise clauses,
and will let us go through them in the course of next week,
there can be no kind of difficulty in proceeding with
the clauses for the redistribution of seats. (Cheers and
laughter.) It seems to me that the answer which the noble
lord gives to his own proposition is complete, and does not
require that I should add anything to it. He says there is
great danger in reverting to the orginal proposition in en-
deavouring to pass a franchise without a seats bill. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) The noble lord, I think, begins
to have doubts as to the prudence of his original course in
this discussion. In my opinion the arguments he now
uses are conclusive in support of the course taken by-the
Government at tho beginning of the session. The theory
of the noble lord and of the seconder of his amendment is,
that NTa should try to get eight or ten omnibuses abreast
through Temple-bar, and that we, if we chanced
to be on the Fleet-street side of that monumental
archway, should never get to the Strand. We preferred the
means which the noble lord probably felt then, and cer-
tainly feels now, were the right ones, and the honest course
for the Government to take, if they intended to pass any
bill this session. But the noble lord offered a reason of an
extraordinary character for interfering with the motion of
the light hon. member for Cambridge University. He says
he is afraid the Seats Bill will be dropped by the house
after the franchise clauses have been passed, and that there-
fore wo shall revert to the original proposition of the Go-
vernment. One of hisreasons for alarm which I could not
comprehend was, that the £l4 franchise in counties would
raise the county constituencies, which are now so cum-
brous, to a much larger size, and that thus the expense of
county elections would be increased, so that nobody could
contest a county unless his friends had a heavy sum to
back him with. But does the noble lord suppose that the
great body of the people of this country.are to be excluded
from the franchise—because the same argument will apply
to £2O as to £l4—does he suppose the people are to re-
main excluded from the franchise until he has devised some
mode of conducting county elections in an inexpensive
manner? \Ve know perfectly well that county elections
are more or less expensive according to the wisdom of their
management and the violence of the party strife which
arises. The noble lord said it was a question whether it
would not be wise to divide the counties still further. I
have never expressed any opinion in opposition to that di-
vision. Hon. gentlemen opposite are proceeding by all
the arguments they use to the plan of electoral districts.
(Hear.) Of course all our divisions are electoral, but I
mean electoral districts that are mathematically equal. I
have never argued for electoral districts, but I find myself
driven in these discussions to that conclusion by the argu-
ments and speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.)
I could point to a member of this house—l do not know
what his colleague on the other side paid—but he, in a
county where I never heard of any manufacturing popula-
tion or any of these great towns (for it is a county strictly
agricultural), and yet every vote he polled cost him £l. I
think there wore about 2,000 voters, and they cost him or
his friends about £B,OOO. For anything I know, about the
same number polled for some gentleman on the other side
of the house, and may have cost him the same ; but I don't
think that in South Lancashire, where the electors number
217;000, the cost bore any proportion to the amount which
I have described. If there be boroughs in which the cost
runs up to several thousand pounds at every election, there
are other boroughs of equal population and number of elec-
tors where a contest costs not more than a fourth of that
sum. I maintain that the cost of elections does depend, and
after all your legislation will depend, to a large extent, on
the good sense of those powerful persons in boroughs or
counties by whom the elections are generally controlled—
I mean in the selection of candidates and the working of
the contest, and by their determination to do nothing that
law or morals can in any degree find fault with. (Cheers.)
shouldll:oliuiln dg
dpo awaylliakee to ask whether it is not a fact that by law at
present the county magistrates cannot open as many
as
wtththe y
thelik e
great
ea(tHeexapr,e
expense
a rw. )h
oThhtast
entailed
all
leasted
by the conveyance of voters
have had several letters fr?m...ve(teCrsheinersleancdouNntoy,
onfow..)
ar-
wick, asking Parliament,largerin this or some other bill, to in-
sist on having a muche housenumber of polling-places.
The question now before
noble lord (Stanley) asked the v
ieh I
Government to bring for-
ward their seats bill on grounds his simply this : the
thought
wholly
insufficient, and upon grounds Which I must say
expected
fair, ungenerous, and such aslsho
of suspicion
should
not have were un-
from him, because they were grounds
the Chancellor of the hichequer and his colleagues againstss
'don which I never felt— (ironical cheers) —with regard
to the noble lord and his colleagues when they wore in
office. (Cheers) Well, having prevailed upon a large sec-
tion of the house to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to adopt that course—having seen the bill, and known that
the Government only proposed to deal with 49 seats—
having known the worst that the Government could do,
either in this session or the next—the noble lord turns
round on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says,
i which I have foed
16 Don't go on with your own bill respecting the franchise
this session,
let its
pass the rc
la
you to adopt."but go on with the bll
The noble lord says,
which is ten times more difficult to carry—(cheers) —and
let us throw aside for the time the bill which he says can
be got through in two or three nights' debate. (Cheers.) I
shall describe this no further. I leave it to all those in the
house who have any honest feeling in favour of doing any-
thing, whatever with this question this session. lam satis-
rtt.hoei
pa
a house
amth perfectly
can p
session satisfied—that
npl,
aedh
t thereis no member of
who really wishes n.ll or any portion of this bill
gross to be made are egrmeoatitopnoorftiotn of the noble
house
public outside this e
lord. I believe that as far as
the
who are looking for some pro-
they will add this to those
other propositions thaton pro-
concerned,
are
intended only for delay—
(cheers)—and they will come to the conclusion which I
have come to long since, thatdetnot mithstanding your fair
and plausible words, you are
in
that no measure of reform whatevererm sheadli passi f i t
tbheispsoessssiibolne,.
(Loudr. w
cheers.)
e r sp.
MEGA TE was of opinion that the refistribu-
tion of seats was a far more important portion o
than the readjustment of the franchise. He opposedref°