The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-22 00:00:00

Devonport Election.

The nomination of candidates to fill the vacancy
in the representation of the borough caused by the
unseating of Mr. W. Ferrand and Mr. John Flem-
ing on petition took place yesterday at the hustings
erected in front of the Town-hall. Mr. R. C. SMITH,
the mayor, as returning officer, presided. The four
candidates were accompanied on the hustings by a
very large number of their friends. The crowd in
front of the hustings was very great. There was
much excitement, but order was maintained. Mr.
Ferrand, lately unseated for the borough, was pre-
sent.

Mr. J. BEER, the chairman of the Conservative
party, nominated the Hon. C. R. Abbott as a fit
and proper person to represent the borough in
Parliament.

This was seconded by Dr. Row.
Mr. J. C. TIIIERENS nominated Mr. Raikes, and
was seconded by Mr. JoLL.
Mr. J. W. W. RYDER, the chairman of the Libe-
ral party, nominated Lord Eliot as a fit and proper
person to represent the borough of D evonport in
Parliament. This was seconded by Mr. SNELL.
Mr. R. J. LAITY nominated Mr. Montague Cham-
bers, Q.C. ; and was seconded by Mr. JOSEPH MAY.
The Hon. Mr. REGINALD ABBOTT first addressed
the assembly: He first referred to the unseat-
int, of Messrs. Ferrand and Fleming for bribery,
after which he made some observations re-
specting the Reform Bill. He said the Govern-
ment had brought forward a Reform Bill founded
on statistics applying to constituencies at present
existing, and they had brought in a bill applied to
constituencies about to be created, and when it was
proposed that they should know what the new con-
stituencies were to be, and that they should know
what the Redistribution Bill was to be this was re-
fused, and the Government endeavoured to stand
out against the demands of the House of Commons.
The Government now felt that they had been de-
feated, censured, and condemned, and they had
been pleased to bring forward a Reform Bill
which they endeavoured to force upon the House of
Commons in the same way as it was endeavoured
to force a verdict out of a starved jury. He was
opposed to the Reform Bill of the Government, but
was in favour of an educational franchise. He
thought the uniform £7 franchise was objectionable,
because in some places it would admit too many
people to it, while in other places it would not admit
enough. The present bill seemed to him to be a re-
fusal on the part of the Government to recognise
intelligence, and therefore he was opposed to it.
He was also opposed to the Permissive Bill and to
the ballot, as he believed that the ballot would lead
to greater evils than at present existed, and he could
not support the Permissive Bill, for although he had
the greatest respect for men working in the tempe-
rance cause by moral influence, he thought that the
coercive system, such as the Permissive Bill was,
was violent, arbitrary, and contrary to our English
liberty. The Conservative party had always sup-
ported the public service, add had seen that the
navy and army were both properly treated, but that
could not be said of the Liberals, and he, therefore,
hoped that the electors would return him and his
honourable colleague to represent their interests in
Parliament by a triumphant majority.
Mr. CECIL RAISES asked what vas the liberal
idea of reform ? It was to disfranchise dockyard
labourers. What was the liberal idea of the public
services ? It was to deny the sailor's widow her
mite, and to haggle with the veteran for his small pen-
sion. What was their idea with regard to liberty of
conscience ? It was to use their pressure and their
influence contrary to the voice of the electors of any
borough. What was their idea of purity of election?
It was to introduce illegal practices into the borough,
and then to brand them as being corrupt. And in
the face of these facts he would ask them how could
they vote for the Liberals ? With regard to the Re-
form Bill introduced by Government, it was unjust,
and he should vote against it, and especially the 16th
clause. In answer to the Liberals, he said the Earl
of Derby passed the Catholic Emancipation Bill,
and the Tory Sir Robert Peel repealed the corn laws;
the Tories also repealed the property qualification
for members of Parliament. He should give a ge-
neral support to the Government of Earl Derby and
Mr. Disraeli.

Lord ELIOT'S address was brief, and consisted only
of a denial of the charge brought against him that
his father was a Conservative, and had neglected
his tenantry. He was prepared to give his support
to the Liberal Government, and although he was in
favour of the Reform Bill he should strenuously op-
pose the 16th clause of the Bill.
Mr. MONTAGU CHAMBERS denied that the Tories
had carried the Catholic Emancipation Bill. The
Liberals had carried it, and it was the Liberals who
introduced free-trade, the blessings of which they
now enjoyed. The Tories did not abolish the corn
laws, but they did in their Reform Bill of 1859 in-
troduce a clause disfranchising dockyards men.
Whilst M.P. for Greenwich he had opposed such a

proposition, and would oppose it in the present
Bill. He was a ballot man, and had been so for a
great number of years, and if elected to Parliament
would support the ballot.
The show of hands was in favour of the Conser-
vative candidates.