The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-18 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE ACT.

The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from
Harlowe praying for a repeal of the Divorce Act, and also
against any innovation in the Church service.
CATTLE, &C. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this
bill, and sxplained some of its provisions, which he said
were calculated to make it simple and expeditious in its
operation.
The bill was then read a second time.
CATTLE SHEDS IN BURGIIS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duko of ARGYLL moved the second reading of
this bill, which 'MRS agreed to.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third reading
of this bill, which was agreed to
ELECTION RETURNS.
Lord CAMPBELL moved that a select committee be
appointed to examine the electoral returns laid on the
table with a view to the changes they suggest as desirable
or necessary in the right of voting ; and to inquire into the
conditions upon which the occupation franchise might be
lowered with advantage •in counties or boroughs of
England or Wales. The noble lord, after some preliminary
observations, said that with regard to the desirableness of
an inquiry of this nature by the house, he thought it only
necessary to refer to the identity of circumstances that
existed at present as compared with those of 1860. The
suggestions that had been made in the latter year had
been canvassed then, as at present, as to the possibility of
a large constitutional change. At the present time, as in
1860, the house was called on to exercise its power
in altering or modifying a measure which proposed
to make alterations in the state of the franchise.
Having adverted to the policy pursued by Lord Palmer-
ston in reference to the previous reforms introduced, and
to his opposition to anything tending to effect a violent
democratic change, he contended that much benefit would
result from the inquiry of the committee he proposed. Mr.
Dudley Baxter had written a very interesting pamphlet on
the subject of electoral statistic; and it appeared
that some hallucination prevailed on the subject. The
effect which would be produced by the house
exercising its functions in reference to this matter would
be, that it would throw a light on the actual political
position in which the class to whom the franchise would
be extended would stand in regard to capitalists. It was
very important to ascertain whether the class in question
would be likely to be influenced by those who employed
them, and whether they were likely to act on their own
judgment, or to be operated upon by agitators. If the
latter were the case, the effect would be one not contem-
plated by many supporters of the extension of the franchise
because it would throw a large amount of political power
into the hands of employers and demagogues. He con-
tended that a largo extension of household suffrage was a
measure that required great consideration, and the inquiry
he proposed was calculated to secure for the subject that
consideration. No doubt those in favour of a large mea-
sure were desirous of securing a settlement of the question
and restoring tranquillity,buthe considered that no measure
however comprehensive would secure that result, because
popular disquietude arose from distress, the desire of the
democratic class to extend their power, and other causes
without the control of any act of Parliament. The noble
lord by his pledge of 1851 led to the bill of 1832, the bill
1852 led to the bill of 1834, that of 1854 to the bill of
1859, that of 1859 to the bill of 1860, and that of 1860
was the immediate cause of our present complication and
embarrassment. It was, therefore, by the error of a single
night, which the noble lord would not venture to defend,
that a long series of difficulties, of which no man saw the
end, had been brought on the country. By the course
which ho had taken in February, 1851, the noble lord had
invented that extraordinary system of pledges and en-
gagements, forestalling the deliberative power and action
of the Cabinet as to whether at a given time a given sub-
ject should be presented to the Legislature. In 1852 those
pledges forced him to introduce the subject of Rsform at a
time when the horizon of the land was clouded by recent
events in France, to which the revival of despotic power
in that country had given rise, and which seriously
threatened to compromise the interests of this country.
In 1854, again, those unhappy pledges compelled him to
bring forward the subject at what every person felt was
au inopportune season. Three times the noble lord had
appeared before the public as the author of an important
project, and the world had a right to judge him by those
projects, and a right to ascertain how far ho possessed
that which ought to belong to any man who took up the
reconstruction of the Constitution—namely, on the one
hand conviction, and capacity on the other. Take, for ex-
ample, his projects with regard to the borough franchise
After full deliberation the noble lord told the l'arliainenl
and the public in 1832 that £5 was the proper limit of the
borough franchise. In 1834 lie informed them, after the
same full deliberation, that Xi was the proper limit, and it
was well known that in the present year be had proposed
anotherlimit. If the noble lord had,seriously been of opinion
that the borough franchise should be extended to £5 why did
he repudiate that stun ; and if he was not clearly and de-
cidedly of opinion that the limit would be safe, why did he
present it to the country or to the house ? What security
had their lordships that in a few years the borough
franchise, now proposed to be £7, might not be fixed at £9
or £lO, or even raised to £l5 ? No inconsistency could
be more palpable. It would be a want of courage on his
part, he submitted, if he hesitated to say that the incon-
stancy, the inconsistency, the levity—(laughter)—with
which the noble lord during the last ten years and up-
wards had treated this momentous question ought to de-
prive him, as it had deprived him, of that confidence of the
Mends of representative reform. The noble lord, in the
years 1848, 1849, and 1850, had with all the power of the
Cabinet resisted the annual motion in favour of household
suffrage, introduced by Mr. Hume and supported by Mr.
Bright. But now the neble Lord did not hesitate to tell
the country, according to certain statements which had
appeared in the newspapers, that Mr. Bright was his ad-
viser.

Earl RUSSELL—No ; I never did.
Lord CAMPBELL.—The Press might have misled him
(Lord Campbell).—(Hear hear, from Earl Russell).—But
in the speech attributed to the noble earl it was distinctly
stated that, recognising the distinguished part which Mr.
Bright had taken in the cause of reform, he had thought
proper to consult hini. He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced that
the noble earl now repudiated the paisage absolutely, since
no climax could be more disastrous than when the noble
lord d
had gained immortality by resisting for three years
the
to emocratic party in the country he should at last con-
sentbe their pupil. He had referred to these transac-
tions to show that, however great the noble lord's titles to
support and confidence on other questions, on the question
of Reform his authorityr andonithe inquiry
credit were not such as to
debar their lordships
which he asked
them to grant. If their lordships agreed to his motion he
ehruld be happy to transfer the conduct of the inquiry to
his noble friend on the cross benches (Earl G whose
capacity was so eminently shown in 1860,wherney)directing
a similar committee.- The noble lord concluded by sub-
mitting his motion.
Earl RUSSELL said that the precedent of 1860,bY which
his noble friend supported his motion, didnot apply. When
the Reform Bill of Lord Palmerston's Government was
proposed, it was admitted that the returns upon which the
bill was founded were inaccurate, and it was stated that
the estimate of the numbers who had been admitted would
be found larger than was calculated. It was stated, audit
was undoubtedly true, that the valuations and assessments
under the poor-law were exceedingly loose and variable.
Those grounds for inquiry appeared to him to be valid,
and a Committee was appoi:Aed, which took a great deal
of
lie did
dable evidence, although it did not think fit to report.
noble triuoeta re
quiteunderstand the precise meaning of his
electoral returns did not
Certainly he imagined that these
in the right of not of themselves suggest any change
the right of voting,votiug,°r give any opinion with regard to
commission should noble lord went on to say that the
nire into the conditions upon which
the occupation franchise Wright be lowered with advantage
in counties or berougm
know that their lordshi Now
wohe (Earl Russell) did not
had as yet agreed that
there were conditions on house had
franchise, might be
lowered. He had no objection toll house taking it for
granted that the occupation franchitsile be lowered, but
he did not think their lordships should
were
t.
take
a committee
on the assumption that they
for Granted
improve-
granted that
which was matter of opinion. Since 18660
snouts had been made in assessments and vafariations under
the Poor-law, and their returns were now
more
rate than those which had been presented inlB6o
to
committee. What was called gross estimated rental far
more
accurately represented the actual state of the facts, though
there were no doubt certain boroughs in which this int-
provement had not been introduced, and with regard to
which it would be a matter of argument how many electors
would be added to the several boroughs if a certain franchise
were adopted. However, if any bill re:eived the assent of
the House of commons for effecting what his noble friend
called organic changes, but which he (Earl Russell) did
not consider to bo such, be was quite sure that their lord-
ships would listen with attention and decorum to the argu-
ments of her Majestv'y Government and to those of other
noble lords on both -sides of the house, and there would be
a discussion befitting the dignity of the house and the im-
Torta.nee of the question ; but the inquiry moved for would
not tend in any degree to the public advantage. (Flear,
hear.) With regard to the personal attack of the noble
lord it was quite unnecessary for him (Earl Russell) to
offer any reply.
The motion
was negatived without a division.
EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY rose to ask the First Lord