The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 16, 1859.

HE LONDON.—The attention of Clergymen,
-I- Officers, and Professional Gentlemen, is especially
'drawn to the advantages offered in these elegant and spa-
cious Saloons, which fulfil all the requirements of a West-
end club of the most aristocratic and exclusive character.

F. SAWYER, Proprietor, 191, Fleet-street.

THE LONDON.—S AWYE R'S farhoug
LONDON DINNER, consisting of two soups, two
fish, two entrees, joints, two sweets, cheese, and salad, at a
fixed charge of 2s. 6d. (attendance, 3d.), is served from Two
till Eight in the spacious Saloon.
In the Coffee-room, Dinners from the j oint, with vegetables,
cheese, and salad, is. 6d. (attendance 3d.), and soup, fish, en-
trées, &c., a la carte, are served from One till Nine o'clock.
Ladies' Private Rooms and Dining Saloons. Spacious and
well-ventilated Wine, Coffee, and Smoking Saloon.
An extensive and carefully selected stock of Rhenish, Mo-
selle, and other Wines, imported expressly for the London
Dinner. Open on Sundays from Four till Nine.
F. SAWYER, Proprietor, 191, Fleet-street.

THE PATRICIAN. This Establishment is
now Open for first-class DINNERS, LUNCHEONS,
&c. The PATRICIAN DINNER, in the large Dining-room,
at 2s. 6d., comprising Soup, Fish, Entrées, Joints, Pastry,
Cheese, &c. The Wines with corresponding* economy. In
the Coffee-room, Dinners and Refreshments ala carte. Spe-
cial attention is invited to the numerous Private Apartments
for the Patrician Dinner, at 55.. The Smoking and Chess-
room combines comfort and elegance. The lavatories, vesti-
bules, and spacious entrance, with the general unique arrange-
ments, ensure an acknowledgment that this noble Mansion is
worthy of its title—THE PATRICIAN. Open at Five on
Sundays.
Orders, addressed to J. HOLMES and CO., The Patrician,
New Coventry-street, will have the best attention.
N.B.—Wedding Breakfasts and Ball Suppers, with first-
class attendance.

EVANS'S • MAGNIFICENT MUSIC and
SUPPER ROOMS, COVENT-GARDEN.—Gentlemen
visiting London will find their evening enjoyment largely
provided for at the above establishment.

THIRTY VOCALISTS. Short and interesting interludes
between the musical portion of the entertainment, embracing
an amount of singular ability never before presented to the
public.
The performances considerably increased. Books of Words,
&c. Admission, Sixpence, commencing at Eight o'clock pre-
cisely. Suppers after the theatres for gentlemen.
The DRAMATIC GALLERY, now the finest in the world,
alone worth a visit. One hundred and sixty portraits, the
greater number first class in art, and original paintings.

METROPOLITAN, COUNTIES, AND
GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,
27, Regent-street, Waterloo-place, London, S.W.
Life Assurance, Annuities, and Endowments. •
Loans on real and personal security.
F. FERGUSON CAMROUX, Manager.

might be that a considerable landholder had in one
of these boroughs a considerable quantity of land;
to which he was entitled as owner. But it might
also happen that the £lO voters in the town, who
had a right, might have some independence and
spirit among them, and either decline to name
the person agreeable to the landholder, or affix
such conditions to their selection that none but a
person professing Liberal opinions, or in conformity
with the majority, of the electors, could have any
chance of securing the seat. If any such sense of
independence had appeared, according to the bill of
the Government three or four, or even five hundred
votes might have been created in the borough at no
great expense—not near so much expense as the
great landholders used to incur to obtain power. over
a borough before the passing of the last Reform
Bill—and these votes might all have been given
to the dependants on the landholders 200 miles or
more away from the borough for which they were
to vote, who never saw the place at all. Nor was
this all ; the bill was so contrived that by means of
voting papers an agent of this landholder might
write to the returning officer and ask to have these
500 papers sent to him. It WilS not necessary that
the voter himself; the gamekeeper, gardener, or
whoever he should be, should receive it. The agent
might have received it, have got it signed, and
without any of those men going near, these voting
papers would have been used at the elections as
good votes, while overpowering the voice of all the
resident inhabitants. Now was this, I ask, fairly
to be called a Reform Bill. (No, no.) To my own
mind it was the reverse; it was a repeal of the bill
which I had the honour to introduce in 1831, and
which proposed to give to the inhabitants of the
places to which the eboice of members were given
—to give to the residents of those places the power
to select the members they•thought fit to represent
them. By this the freeholders who lived in Man-
chester, Leeds, York—there were upwards of 9,000
in the West Riding—were deprived of their votes
for the county, except during their own lives. Such
was one part of the bill. There was another. The
term which I applied to it has been called a mis-
nomer, and by some a bull—l called it a provision
" conspicuous by its absence ;" but I may be per-
mitted to acknowledge that the phrase was not ori-
ginal, but was taken from one of the greatest his-
torians of antiquity. This provision, " conspicuous
by its absence,' was leaving the borough franchise
without any reduction other than the savings bank
provision, which might have affected a certain
number. It appeared to me—and certainly it was
the basis on which seven or eight years ago I wished
some amendments to be made in the last Reform
Bill =it did appear to me that the working
classes of this country having become during the
last twenty-five years far better informed, more
enlightened, more capable of understanding the
duties incumbent on electors for members of Par.
liament—a great proportion ought to be permitted
to vote for members of Parliament in boroughs.
(Cheers.) I say nothing of the proportion. There
has been much discussion on that point ' • whether
it should be an £8 rental, a £1 rental, or a £6
rating and leasehold franchise, while others have
thought it would be necessary to impose conditions
of long residence. But I do not purpose on this
occasion to enter into these questions ; but what I
do maintain is that, besides the £lO householders,
you ought to admit a great portion of the working
classes of Britain to vote for members of Parliament.
Now ministers maintained in the course of the dis-
cussion not only that such a provision was not
necessary, but that it would be exceedingly hurtful.
The Colonial Secretary, in a speech of great elo-
quence, placed before our eyes the horrors of a
French revolution, together with all the results
which followed from the very unwise conduct of
the leaders of that revolution. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke with much more moderation,
and undoubtedly made the best speech in defence
of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He said in
substance, " I don't expect from the working classes
of England massacre or robbery. I do not expect
this, but I do anticipate that there will be a vast
increase of expenditure, and that there will be a
diminished and diminishing taxation, so that the
finances of the country will be exposed almost to
ruin. I expect there will be war rashly entered
into and ignominiously concluded." These were
the things the Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
pected. I must say I expect nothing of the sort.
(Cheers.) I expect that if these provisions are made
with due consideration—if we admit those who are
worthy to exercise the vote -according to the consti-
tution of England, I do not believe these men
will vote either for extra expenditure, diminished
taxation, or anything, in fact, which would reduce
the power, or impair the good faith of the country.
Nor do I expect they will enter into rash wars. I
believe the people of this country wish for peace
with all the world. (Cheers.) lam sure it is their
interest to do so, and I believe while they would
resent any attack on the national honour, or any
attack on the national territory, that they have as
enlightened views as any class in the country with
respect to the blessings of peace and the benefits
which flow from it to liberty, to commerce, and to
the happiness of man. (Cheers.) Such were two
of the many objections which I took to this bill.
The question occurred whether to propose to throw
out the bill on the second reading, or to agree to it,
and go into committee, would best point out its
defects. Of those to whom I spoke, and I spoke to
people of all kinds, to some of the most liberal, to
Liberal Conservatives, and to others who would be
considered extreme Radicals (for I spoke to them
all, that I might guide my own opinion), I found
several of these gentlemen said that to throw out
the bill on the second reading would be a violent
course—that it would prevent any further proceed-
ings in any case with the bill even if the Govern-
ment consented to alter it. Then there came the
question of discussing the bill in committee. When
a bill is objectionable in principle, the usual way is
to oppose it on the second reading ; but there are
other considerations affecting this question, and the
two objections I mentioned are vital to that mea-
sure. The question was, how far we could get it
altered in committee. Now, if the Government had
said, with respect to the objection, "We are ready
to alter our bill ; we are ready to leave the free-
holders in counties; and to give no power
to create freehold votes in boroughs; we are
ready to propose what we think a reasonable
reduction of the franchise in towns," there would
have been a great majority in favour of
the second reading of the bill, and the Ministry
would have been allowed to change its provisions.
But they gave no such assent to the principles that
were laid down. They said--and it was fair
ground for them to take, believing their bill to be
a sound and good measure—" Go into committee
with us ; prove your case, and see if you can obtain
a majority for your proposition." They said, also,
through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, "If you do get a majority against any
provisions of the bill, or in favour of introducing
new provisions, we shall hold ourselves at liberty
to go on with the bill or to drop it—to assent to
such alterations or to refuse our assent." That was
perfectly fair ground for a Government to take,
but a most unsafe ground for an Opposition to
accept ; for allow me to tell you something of the
House of Commons which, I think my hon. col-
leagues who are present will hardly contradict.
The House of Commons is an august body. It was
called by Sir J. Graham, "the noblest assembly of
free men in the world," but it has certain habits,
habits which are not sometimes conducive to satis-
factory decisions upon the details of a bill. It is
the custom of the members of that " noblest as-
sembly of free men" to disappear from the house
about seven o'clock—(a laugh)—and one has very
little chance of seeing them in numbers again until
about half-past ten in the evening. (Renewed
laughter.) Uwe had gone into committee upon the
Reform Bill of the Government there would have
been every chance that many Liberal members
would have said, " Well, there is no probability
that such a clause, which is very important, will
come on before ten o'clock; I will pair till that
time." Other hon. gentlemen might have said,
" I can't get a pair, but I dare say I shall be back
in time for the division ;" and then a division
might take place upon some very important point,
although involving an alteration of only two or
three words, at nine or ten o'clock. The Govern-
ment would be present in strength, because any
Government has the means of keeping its members
and its nearest adherents together—(a laugh)—
and about eleven o'clock there would have been a
great muster of Liberal members, who would
have said, "Why they have decided this im-
portant clause ! Who would have thought
it ? It is a very great pity." (A laugh.) Here is a
right admitted which is very fatal to freedom of
election, or persons have been excluded from the
franchise who ought to have possessed it. If we
had deemed such a thing possible, we would have
been here at nine o'clock, but we could not believe
that while we were at dinner such important pro-
visions would have been carried. Why did not
members speak longer ?" (Laughter.) In this
way it is very likely the Liberal majority might
have been lost ; whereas if it is known that there
is to be a debate upon a great principle, and that
on a certain night at 11 or 12 o'clock, there is sure

to be a division, members assemble and attend, and
you are sure to have a fair division representing
the -opinion of the House of Commons. (Hear.)
Now, this is a matter of practice to which I have
been long used, -and my opinion was confirmed by
an hon. member who held an official position in a
late.Governinent; and who said—" For my own
part, whenever I have charge of a bill for the Go-
vernment, if I carried the second reading I thought
it was entirely safe, and I never found that any
opposition could make much effect upon the clauses
in committee." But there is something further to
be said with regard to changes in committee. As
one of my colleagues has truly observed—" Sup-
posing the Liberal party had been in force, and
attending to the 'opinions of their constituents had
carried by great majorities improvements in the
bill, it was impossible to say at what time the Go-
vernment might have said that the bill was totally
changed, - and that they would not proceed with
it any further." But there was a further danger.
The Government might have said, " We do not ap-
prove of all the provisions you have introduced, or
of the rejection of some of the clauses you have
thrown out ; but, we will send the bill to the House
of Lords, and let them form a judgment upon it."
I have no doubt that,' such a case, my Lord
Derby would have said, " This is hardly my bill
—(a laugh)—l cannot acknowledge the child—it
has been so changed ; but I will restore all
the provisions of which, in the Cabinet, I approved
and will render it as I think a good measure."
Then, some time in the end of June, it would have
been sent back to the House of Commons, and we
should have had to iollect members from all parts of
the country to see how we shoulddeal with the amend-
ments which had been made in the House of Lords.
These, gentlemen, were, therefore, the reasons upon
which I determined to proceed with the resolution,
not without the advice and concurrence of those for
whose opinions I have the highest respect. I con-
sulted my old friend Sir James Graham. I con-
sulted Mr. Sidney Herbert, and I consulted Mr.
Bright. Well, I thought it was right in my posi-
tion, as I have already said, to get as much
concurrence of opinion as possible. It had been
called by hard names, but I think that concert
amongst men for great public objects, having nothing
in view but that which is for the public good, is
honourable to all who are concerned. (Hear, hear.)
Well, gentlemen, the resolution was carried by a
great majority. Now, the ministers had various
courses to pursue. (Laughter.) They might have
introduced a new bill more in conformity with the
wishes of the Reuse of Commons. It was not diffi•
cult in the present House of Commons to frame a
bill which a great majority of that house would
have supported, and which would only have been
exposed to differences of opinion when it had passed
into committee. That would have ensured the
passing of a Reform Bill in the present year; and
mind, when I say a Reform Bill, I am not speaking
of a bill which would last four years or hardly so
long, but that we should pass one which should be
worthy the wisdom of parliament to offer—worthy
the generosity and patriotism of the people of Eng-
land to accept. (Hear.) Well, gentlemen, I can
only say that ministers not having chosen to bring
in a bill, and having thought it their duty to their
Sovereign and their country not to resign their
offices, there only remained the other course—viz.,
to dissolve parliament and to appeal to the con-
stituent body at large to declare what that Reform
should be. If I complain of them, it is not for
taking that course, but it is for not stating clearly
the issue that is to be tried. They have none of
them in their addresses ventured to say " You shall
decide upon our bill, whether it is a good or bad
one." They have not ventured to say, "We have
another Reform Bill in preparation, and we
ask you to confide to us the management of that
great question." They have made it a personal
matter—they have complained of the - divisions
among their opponents—they urged that there are
sections amongst the Liberals holding different
opinions, and that upon these grounds they must
continue to hold office. I think that it is an un-
worthy way of putting the question to the electors
of the United Kingdom. The question is this—
whether the new Parliament can have submitted to
it a bill answering the requirements of the present
time, and which is likely to meet with acceptance.
I have given my opinions—others have given their
opinions. All I ask for is to trust me as a sincere
reformer—(loud cheering)—and one who has long
been engaged in this cause. (Renewed applause.)
Gentlemen, in asking you to confide in my hands,
as one of the four members for the city of London,
the important trust of deciding what shall be the
Reform Bill which is worthy of being passed, I re-
fuse to bind myself to any details either that I or
others may propose. I have given in my place in
the House of Commons what I think would be a
fair outline. It may be found upon consideration
that that outline may be changed or altered with
advantage to the country. I ask for a free exercise
of my opinion on this subject. I ask you to trust
me upon this important question, and no less upon
that than upon another important question, which
some persons wish to make a connecting part of
reform—l mean the question of the ballot. I have
always been ready to give my opinions in the
House of Commons upon that subject, and I will
not bind or tie my discretion in any way whatever.
I tell you I am against the ballot. (Cheers, and
cries of "No, no.") But, gentlemen, if I were an ad-
vocate for the ballot, I should not think that the
mode of tying down every member of Parliament, or
of taking an account of his votes simply on that sub-
ject, was the way to procure a majority in Parlia-
ment on that subject, because honourable men, even
though in favour of the ballot, will shrink from
conditions which they think degrading to their per-
sonal honour. I think, likewise, that that question,
like all other questions, if it has right in its favour,
will best be decided by a free expression of opinion.
(Hear.) It is not by cabinets being formed on the
sole ground of the ballot—which is not very likely
to happen very soon—not by excluding men who
are against the ballot from any Government, but it
is by free admission into places in the Government,
into seats in the Legislature, of men who take dif-
ferent views on this subject. It is by such a course
that the ballot, if it is well founded in truth and
reason, if it is required for freedom of vote—it is in
that manner, I say, that the ballot is most likely to
be carried, if it is ever to be carried at all. I say, let
the question be fairly and freely discussed. Do not
proscribe men because they are against the ballot
—do not adopt men who have no other merit
bemuse they are in favour of it. (Hear.) Now, gen-
tlemen, having spoken to you, perhaps at too great
length, on domestic luestions—(A Voice—" How
about the future P We want to know what you are
going to do.") Now, I tell that gentleman fairly,
that if he expects me to expound to this meeting
a new Reform Bill, to go through all the clauses
and provisions of that bill, to say exactly what is
to be done, I am unable to make that proposition.
I have stated in my place in the House of Commons
what some think an indiscreet avowal of my opi- ,
nions. To go further into detail I decline. But
what I was going to speak about does not refer to
domestic questions. It refers to a question, at this
moment, of very great importance—namely, the
question with regard to our foreign relations.
And upon this question, gentlemen, let me say at
first that, while I repent that Parliament should
be dissolved at a moment when, as Lord Palmer-
stun observes, your Foreign Minister cannot say
that he is supported by the confidence of the House
of Commons, I must say, on the other hand, that,
for my part, I have no reason for distrust of the
present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If
his position is difficult, it is rendered more so by
the difficulties of the Ministry, which has never had
a majority in the House of Commons, than by his
own want either of inclination or ability. (Hear,
hear.) But it appears to me that the Foreign
Minister will have two questions to consider, when
he is either called to attend congress or to speak on
the part of England to foreign powers. The one
question is that of peace, and upon this question
there can be no doubt that he should advise every-
thing which is most conducive to the peace of
Europe. (Cheers.) But there is another position
he must hold. and that is a position not unbecom-
ing the Minister of a free country. (Hear, hear.)
My belief is that the present complications in Italy
have arisen, not, as alleged, from the conduct of
Sardinia. (Hear, hear.) They have arisen from
an abuse of military power by one of the great
powers of Europe from 1815 to the present time.
Hence the uneasiness in Italy. Hence the tempta-
tion perhaps to the ambition of those powers who
seek their pacification in this moment of difficulty
and crisis. (Cheers.) For my part, I entirely ap-
prove that we should ask that these powers should
be at peace among themselves, and that we should
likewise ask that the territorial arrangements of
1815 should not be disturbed. But this I must say
for the States of Italy, that I think these States—
independent States as they were engaged to be by
the treaty of Vienna—ought to have free power to
amend and reform their own institutions. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot think it would be right to say—
As Naples has adopted a free constitution let the
Austrian army be marched to Naples ; that be-
cause Tuscany has her institutions, and the Sove-
reign 'wishes to depart from them, let an