The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

he said that, in his opinion, the Government were exer-
cising a wise discretion in not brineing forward measures
which it would be difficult for them to carry to a success-
ful issue. (Laughter.) The Government were in a state I
of great difficulty with regard to the finances of the coun-
try. (Hear, hoar.) The position of the Government '
weighed very considerably with him. Lie did not wish
to place them in greater difficulties. (Laughter.) He bad
no wish, by an accumulation of difficulties, to see their
hands weakened when they were about to grapple with
questions of great difficulty, to the termination of which
eco man could clearly see his way. (Hear, hear.) Guard-
ing himself as to the opinion which he entertained—hav-
ing abated not a jot the confidence which he had in the
people of this country, in their growing intelligence and
independence, which must entitle them to an extension
of the franchise from some Government or other--but
objecting to the measure in the shape in which it had
been produced, and on the grounds which be had stated,
he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. (Hear )
Mr. ROEBUCK said be was sorry to trespass on
the attention of the house, but he must express his per-
fect "astonishment" at the speech of the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. S. Herbert). The right hon. gentleman said
he opposed the motion on two grounds. The first was,
that it tended to uniformity. The right hon. gentleman
supported the bill of the noble lord in 1854, but he said,
although that bill contained this precise measure, it con-
tained something else which took away uniformity.
What did it contain 1 It lowered the borough franchise.
Therefore, if the proposition of the hon. member for East
Surrey had also been to lower the borough franchise, the
uniformity would have been done away, and the right
hon. gentleman would have supported it. Tho anomalies
of our representation were so numerous that anybody
who chose to dwell upon them might make a case
against any system of franchise, but the fact remained
that there were a body of men of intelligence, probity,
and wealth in this country who were not represented.
The hon. member for East Surrey proposed to give them
the franchise. They were an instructed race ; they were
a race endued with probity • and they possessed wealth.
He wanted to know whether those three qualifications
in constituents would endanger the character of the
house. But the right hon. gentleman had another reason.
He objected to weaken the Administration. The house
might anticipate that the right hon. gentleman would
to-morrow vote with the Government and against the
motion of his right hon. colleague the member for the
University of Oxford. If the Government were wrong,
*en he said to the right hon. gentleman " Vote against
them." If they were right, " Tote with them." Were
they right on the present proposition (An Hon. Mem-
ber, "No !") An hon. member answered "No," and
he said the argument of the right hon. gentleman did
not prove the Government to be right, because he said
distinctly he had such faith in the intelligence and
probity of his fellow•countrymen that some Govern-
ment or other, some day or other, must bring in a Re-
form Bill. They might suppose that it the right hon.
gentleman were a member of that Government he would
support another Reform Bid, as he supported the Re-
form Bill of 1854. The right hon. gentleman seemed
determined to falsify the statement of the hon. member
for West Norfolk, that gentlemen out of office voted
sometimes for clap-trap motions. The right hon. gen-
tleman would show that he did not vote for clap-trap
motions—that he was determined to vote for the non-
enfranchisement of the people of England, because it
would really render the franchise equal to all, and be-
cause it would weaken the Government. (Cheers.)
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —l3 •
Leave to introduce the bill was therefore refused.
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheering.

MINISTERS' MONEY, (IRELAND).
Mr. FAGAN moved for leave to bring in a bill to
abolish the ministers' money now imposed on eight
corporate towns in Ireland.
Mr. HORSMAN said when his hon. friend list year
asked leave to bring in his bill, he, on tit) part of the
Government, assented to the motion, but he did not, as
the hon. member said, express an opinion that the tax
ought to be abolished, or intimate such an opinion on
the part of the Government, but he stated distinctly
that the present act was acknowledged to be defective.
After a short discussion, leave was then given to
bring in the bill.