The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-02 00:00:00

NOTTINGHAM.

On Monday evening a requisition, containing
nearly 1,800 signatures of electors, was presented to
Lord Amberley and Mr. H. Cossham at a crowded
meeting of Liberals in the Exchange-rooms, Not-
tingham, soliciting them to become candidates.
Lord AMBERLEY, who was received with much
applause, after some preliminary remarks, said—
The present Government considered that the question
of Reform was one which absolutely demanded their
attention, and that, having a large Liberal majority,
as they expected, in Parliament, it was their duty
to introduce a bill for the settlement of the question.
But when that bill was introduced, being founded
upon statistics which had been carefully collected,
the Government was reproached with having made
a great mistake. It was said they introduced the bill
in order to enfranchise the labouring class under the
impression that only a very small, infinitesimal frac-
tion of that class was at present in possession of the
franchise, whereas it was said it had been found that
26 per cent. of the constituencies consisted of labour-
ing men. Well, that was so far true, but, instead of
being an argument against the bill, it appears to me
an argument of great weight in its favour ; because
if none of the evils which have been predicted as a
consequence of the admission of working men had
happened, and if no injurious result had occurred to
the Constitution from the fact that 26 per cent. of
the constituencies was composed of that class,
then there was really nothing to be afraid of in the
small measure of enfranchisement proposed by the
Government. There was another fault found with
the proceedings of the Government, and that is that
their bill relates onlyto the extension of the suffrage,
and not to another important branch of the reform
question—the distribution of seats. Before 1832 the
question of greatest urgency was the distribution of
seats, but now the state of the matter is entirely
altered, and the first and most important object
among reformers is to extend the suffrage. The Go-
vernment determined to introduce a bill relating only
to the franchise. They thought—whether rightly or
wrongly I do not know—that it would be easier to
pass that measure than a measure which treated of
the whole subject of reform. Many of us may have
wished that they had been able to combine the two
branches of reform in one single bill; but if they
thought they hada better chance of carrying a single
measure than a double one, I cannot see why they
are to be blamed for the course they thought proper
to take. However, that course gave an opportunity
to those gentlemen who were opposed to reform of
proposing an amendment which censured the Go-
vernment for expecting the House of Commons to
come to a decision on the question of the franchise
without deciding at the same time upon the other
question of the seats. They failed in the course of
the debate to justify the language of the amendment.
There was one argument of Mr. Disraeli which was
very elaborate and very able, and it was to prove the
inconvenience that might result in some cases by add-
ing a number of voters to the counties who ought
properly, from their position and interests, to belong
to the boroughs. No doubt something of that sort
might have happened, but if it did happen it would
be in the power of the House of Commons to remedy
the evil by passing a boundaries bill, and the evil, if
acknowledged, need only exist for a short time. So,
also, I cannot see that members of the House of Com-
mons could complain that they were called upon to
vote in the dark—to vote upon one part of the bill
without knowing the rest ; because, when the
Distribution Bill came before them they would know
what they had done in regard to the franchise, and
they would be able to consider the distribution with
reference to the suffrage which had been settled be-
fore. Referring to Mr. Lowe's question as to what
was the principle of the bill, Lord Amberley said
his theory is, that the sole object at which we ought
to aim is good government, and that anything
which secures it is right. Now, to a great extent
this is true, but I do not believe that is the whole
truth, because it appears to me that the theory
might be pushed further than any of us would like
to push it. It might be said that a despotic mo-
narch would govern better than a representative as-
sembly, or it might be said that an aristocratic oli-
garchy would govern better than a House of Com-
mons. I say it is impossible to maintairrthese views,
because there are, no doubt, some points, in which
despotic Governments are superior, and there are,
no doubt, some points in which our form of govern-
ment is inconvenient. But, notwithstanding, we
are all attached to representative institutions, be-
cause,
not only do they give us, as we think, the best
government on the whole, but because by represen-
tative institutions we feel that we have some share
in the government. We feel that we are not go-
verned from without by people acting and thinking
for us, but are governed from within, acting and
thin'ing for ourselves. And it is better that we
should sometimes decide wrongly by thinking for
ourselves than that the Government, indepen-
dent of us, should decide rightly by thinking for us.
(Applause.) Therefore there is another ground
upon which I would recommend the extension of
the franchise—one not contemplated in the argu-
ment of Mr. Lowe—namely, that you ought to ex-
tend it as far as you safely can, and that you ought
to include as voters as many as you believe can be I
included without danger to the safety of the State. I
And if you think there are some who are not
sufficiently educated to be put in possession of
votes, and who do not know how to use them
rightly and for the good of their country,
then it should be your object to educate them.
Lord Amberley then referred to the statement that
the labouring class were liable to err, and asked if
the same argument could not be used against other
classes. Mr. Lowe said the bill would increase
election expenses, but measures might be taken to
remedy that evil. He ridiculed the idea suggested
by the opponents of the bill that the Radicals
wished to assimilate our institutions to those of
America. He would himself support the bill be-
cause he believed it would settle the ques-
tion of the franchise for some time. In con-
clusion, Lord Amberley expressed a desire to see all
religious disabilities removed, and concurred in the
views expressed by Mr. Bright in regard to Ireland
in his recent speech.
311 r. UANDEL COSSHAM, in the course of a lengthy
address (in which he also accepted the invitation of
the Liberal
electors) proclaimed himself a more
advanced Liberal than his colleague.
A unanimous shoe
of hands then declared in
favour of the two candidates
afterwards separated. and the meeting soon

WINDSOR
Yesterday Sir Henry Drummond_ Colonel Wolff, of 15,
oa Richardson-.
Rutland-gate, London, and u
Gardner, of 46, Sussex-
garden
addresses
two Conservative candidates for t' ilyde-park, the
he representation
of the Royal borough, issued their d
electors. Sir 11. D. Wolff observes :--
reBßea to the
"At the request of a large and influential meeting
electors I venture to offer myself as a candidate for Y
of
our
suffrages. Illy principles are Conservative, a term which
combines a full appreciation of the growing exigenciesiot
the age with the preservation of the ancient Constitutional
landmarks. I should oppose any measure for the aboli-
tion of church-rates which did not guarantee the Church
an ample equivalent for the revenues she has hitherto en-
joyed. I am in favour of any measure which would extend
in the widest manner the privileges of education to all
classes of the community. I am prepared to consider and
to support any project of reform which, while admitting a
large portion of the working classes to the enjoyment of
the franchise, will maintain the just balance of the Con-
stitution ; but I cordially concur with the recent mino-
rity in the House of Commons in condemning the crude
and incomplete proposals lately brought forward by
the Government. In foreign affairs I adhere strictly to
the policy of non-intervention, and, though the conduct
of the Foreign-office has lately fallen into more tempe-
rate hands, I dread the influence which must still be ex-

ercised by the Prune Minister in ourrelations with foreign
States."

Colonel Gardner remarks :
" My principles are essentially Liber.):-Conservative,
and my political creed may be summed up in the concise
and definite term of a 'constitutional:-t.' Such creed, in
the words of one of our greatest statesmen, consists of two
things—' A desire to improve based upon a disposition to
conserve.' I am a sincere advocate of peace and also of
non-intervention in the affairs of foreign States when the
material interests and honour of England are not con-
cerned. As a means for insuring peace I would have the
army and navy maintained upon its peace establishment
in the highest state of efficiency, and I would also uphold
the militia, yeomanry, and volunteer forces, which I re-
gard as being most important auxiliaries to the army and
navy in the defence of the country. I consider that the
utmost economy consistent with the interest of the public
service should be exercised over the national expenditure,
with a view to retrenchment and the consequent reduction
of taxation. lam a firm and consistent supporter of the
established religion of the country, and an upholder of
civil and religious liberty. At the same time, any satisfac-
tory measure in the form of compromise for the settlement
of the vexed question of church rates would receive my
best attention. I should support any well-considered and
well-digested measure of Reform which may be brought
forward consistent with t!te increasing intelligence and
requirements of the country."

The Conservative candidates commenced their
canvass immediately after their addresses had been
circulated. Mr. R. Eykyn and Mr. C. Edwards, the
Liberal candidates, were also actively employed in
the same work, each party appearing sanguine of
success. Judging from appearances, there is likely
to be a rather smart contest, but at present it is im-
possible to give an idea of what the result will be.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

DUBLIN TRUNK CONNECTING.

A special general meeting of this company was
held yesterday at the London Tavern ; Mr. F. W•
Russell, M.P., in the chair.
The Secretary read the report, which stated that
' in consequence of the damaging representations
which had been freely circulated in reference to the
position and prospects of the company, the directors
had considered it necessary to convene the present
meeting. In the year 1863 no less than five distinct
schemes for connecting the various systems of rail-
way converging in Dublin with each other and with
the ports of Dublin and Kingstown were brought
before Parliament. The gross capital estimated for
those five schemes was £2,080,000, the Parliamen-
tary deposit on which amounted to £166,400, a
strong proof, it was thought, of the necessity felt for
the construction of a connecting railway in Dublin.
To consider the merits of those five competing
schemes a committee of the House of Commons
commenced proceedings on the 2d of May, 1864,
and continued their investigations until the Bth of
June. The result was that the committee unani-
mously passed the preamble of the Dublin Trunk
Connecting Railway Bill, rejecting all the others.
The opposition in every stage was most determined.
Similar tactics were followed in the House of Lords,
but Lord Redesdale, observing the nature of the op-
position to the bill, the standing orders were suspended
in its favour, and the act received the Royal assent
on the 29th of July, 1864. The London and North
Western Railway Company looked upon the un-
dertaking as one of the greatest possible utility, and
were very anxious to see it carried out. When
giving his evidence before the Royal Commis-
sion on railways now sitting Mr. Cawkwell, the
general manager to that company, testified as to the
necessity and value of the Dublin Trunk Connect-
ing line. On a comparison of the cost of Parlia-
mentary
contests on Acts obtained under analogous
circumstances it would be found that the preliminary
expenses of the company were in every respect
moderate. The sum of £2,000 voted at the first
half-yearly meeting of the company was a remunera-
tion to the original directors for their services from
1863 to May, 1865. To the Board as at present
constituted no sum had been voted or paid. Objec-
tion had been taken that, whereas the expenditure
had amounted to upwards of £50,000, the only re-
sult accomplished had been " two shafts partially
sunk," but the whole of the Parliamentary and pre-
liminary expenses were included in this outlay. The
purchase of land and plant and other expenses in-
cident to the earlier stages of the undertaking, and
which would not again recur. A contrast had been
, entered into with a responsible contractor to com-
plete the railway for a fixed sum, within the existing
balance of the authorised capital ; and the directors
thought that was a most conclusive reply to the
assertion that the railway could not be made. The
preliminary agreement for the construction of the
line had enabled the directors to enter upon negotia-
tions for immediately placing the residue of the
shares. The authorised line being semi-circular, and
similar to the North London Railway in design, did
not approach the centre of the city, and, therefore,
it was necessary to make the proposed short exten-
sion to Sackville-street, opposite the General Post-
office, by means of which the whole traffic derived
from one half of the city on the north side of the
river Liffey would be shared with the Dublin and
i Kingstown Railway, the £lOO shares of which ranked
in price at £2OO on an average, and paid 9 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN said he regretted that they had
been brought together on that occasion to defend
their undertaking, which had been selected by
Parliament out of five schemes proposed for a
similar object. They got rid of the compensation
in the House of Commons by paying £31,000, the
expenses of the five companies. They had also got
through the difficulties of sinking the shafts down
I to the level of the tunnel, which would pass through
the blue clay under the bed of the river, and they
were confident that the work would be successful.
The tunnel would be constructed at a depth of 30
feet, under the bed of the River Liffey, passing
through a compact strata of clay. Ile hoped they
had all met as men of business, desirous of carrying
on the undertaking, which there was every proba-
bility would be a profitable one. They had made
an arrangement with the firm of Sir C. Fox and
Sons for the engineering department, who had re-
commended them a responsible contractor to carry
out the works for a fixed sum, and a conditional
contract had been made with him. The cost of the
Dublin and Kingstown line had been at the rate of
£70,000 a mile, while the company's line would be
made for £60,000 a mile, which was a moderate
price for a city railway upon which the traffic would
no doubt be very large.
.... _

Sir C. Fox, at the request of the chairman, ex-
plained the nature of the opposition the company
had met with in Parliament, and the successful
manner in which the act had been obtained. There
could be no doubt of the practicability of construct-
ing the railway as designed within the estimates ;
and from his knowledge of the locality the traffic
on the railway when made could not fail to be very
heavy, especially when the extension to Sackville-
street, in the heart of the city, was completed. He
believed that the coal traffic alone would amount to
at least 1,000,000 tons per annum, and that the pas-
senger traffic would be extensive and remunerative.
A very long discussion then ensued, in the course
of which great complaints were made by some of
the shareholders as to the way in which the business
hofldtbheeen madecompany
was conducted ; that heavy calls
without consulting the convenience
of the shareholders, especiallysares
whiletthey were at ase who
whaedb:en
induced to subscribe for shares
prei‘rarri.umwii.
L a r k e t .
contended that the market had
been rigged to induce persons to subscribe for shares,
1 the
TA
operations until the whole of the shares authorised
,
and that the directors had no right to commence
by Parliament were taken up. He concluded by
t
movinge
da rbeys ot
hu
et i odni r
et o e t o ther
ssusseffect u
nt hs
aa
tt
st
fha ec
ts
ot
ra
yt ne n i
par-
tial, and insufficient, and that a committee of five
i shareholders be appointed, with full powers, to n-
-I'th:etre% to an adjourned meeting.
ante the affairs of the company, and to report
Mr. 'MILLER seconded the motion.
Mr. CLOTHIER said he had paid up £4OO out of
£l,OOO, and would at once
pay- up th recent call if
the directors could satisfy him'. that things were all
right ; but he had be,eonoo
9,000 and 10 informedsharatitant
nthaeuroe weretted be-
tween
.
A SCRIPHOLDER insisted on being heard as re-
presenting a number of scrip and share holders in
Dublin. Ile thought that some middle course might
be adopted, by which the shares held by those he
represented might be purchased, thus relieving them

from further calls. Ile contenflecl that a committee
should be appointed to investigate the affairs of the
company.

Other shareholders complained that law proceed-
ings had been taken by the executive against them
to enforce the payment of calls.

The CHAIR3f-A explained that the directors were
now in treaty with financial persons for placing the
remainder of the shares of the company, and when
that was concluded a general meeting would be held
to consider any question that might arise. He de-
clined to put the motion for the appointment of a
committee on the ground that the present was a
special meeting for another purpose, and the pro-
ceedings terminated.

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLN-
SHIRE.

The total expenses of this company's railways and
canals, including rents, tolls, duty, &c., from Jan. 1
to April 22, amounted to £156,913, as against
£137,713 for the corresponding period of 1865.
The proportion of the South Junction receipts ac-
cruing to this company from January 1 to April 22,
amounted to £12,025, as against £10,980 for the
corresponding period of 1865, and the expenses to
£7,105, as against £6,014.