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

PERSIA.

Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know the date when
the first instructions were sent to the Indian Govern-
ment, under which the military expedition proceeded to
Persia, and that the correspondence relative to the ex-
penses with the Indian Government should be laid on
the table of the house.

Mr. V. SMITH said that there wool I be no objec.
tion to produce the paper asked far, which would show
it was the same a 9 that that had been stated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. G LA.DS COTE—The date ?

Mr. V. SMlTH—September 26.
Mr. H. BAILLIE asked if it was not in July last,
and that proceedings took place on them in India in
August last ?
Mr. V. SMITH said that provisional instructions
were sent out to the Indian Government to make the
necessary arrangements in the event of there being re-
quired ; but the final instructions were not sent out
before the date he had named.
COUNTY. FRANCHISE.

Mr. L. KING rose to move for leave to bring in a bill
to make the franchise in counties in England and Wales
the same as that in boroughs, by giving the right of
voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value
of ton pounds. He observed that this was a question
which had been often before the house, and had fre-
quently elicited promises from the Government ; but
unfortunately, those promises had never been realised ;
for, though several bills had been brought in upen the
subject, none of them had succeeded. The hon. gentleman
proceeded to urge that the only way to treat this great
question of the franchise was to make all clas-es of voters
equal ; and not make any difference between inhabitants
of different localities. It was often found that in large
provincial towns, which were not directly represented,
which had literary and scientific institutions, and the in-
habitants of which were every way calculated for the en-
joyment of the franchise, there were not oters but the
occupiers of 501. a-year houses ; and in agricultural towns
with few inhabitants and of a less cultivated class, 101.
householders were entitled to votes. The case was
stronger in some of the rural districts, where the occu-
pier of a house of 201. a-year had no vote, while persons
in towns who occupied houses of a much humbler clai s
did possess the franchise. The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to quote sonic statistical table 3, by which to
showed that in 1841 the number of voters in counties
and boroughs was only 1 in 18, but now, while the pro-
portion was the same in boroughs, the number in coun-
ties was reduced to lin 21. He then gave the numbsr
of voters in counties and boroughs as compared with the
population and 'with the amount of property, pointing
out that the proportion was greatly in favour of the bc-
roughs. He mentioned the case of an agricultural parish
in his own county where there were only 60 voters, or
1 in 29 of the population ; but if the franchise were ex-
tended to 101. householders, the number would be ire
creased to 80. He pointed out that the county of Bucks
was over-represented, as compared with Lancashire, in
the fernier there being 125, 000 electors and 11 members,
while in the latter there was a population of over two
millions and only 23 members. He then urged that
there bad been no real objection made to this bill on for-
mer occasions. Certainly the noble lord the member for
London had said that it was well to keep up the differ-
ence in tenure of the right of voting which existed be-
tween counties and boroughs, but the noble lord had
nevertheless, in one of the reform bills he had recently
introduced, proposed to extend the franchise in counties
to 201. householders. He hoped that the Government
would allow him to bring in his bill, which he brought
forward with no party view, but as a simple matter of
justice.

- Lord PALMERSTON hoped his hon. friend would
not think that he was acting with discourtesy towards
him, if he stated that he was not disposed to concur in
the introduction of the present bill. Independently of
objections to the measure itself, looking to the business
before the house for the present session, he thought
there was little probability of such a bill passing in the
present year, and he was of opinion that it was better
not to enter on the consideration of a measure of great
magnitude and importance without a chant e of passing
it. He owned, moreover, that he could not agree with
his hon. friend in the principle he had laid down of
identifying the rights of voting in boroughs and coun-
ties. (Hear.) He concurred in an opinion expressed by
his noble friend (L rd J. Russell), and which had been
quoted by his hon. friend, that there had always been a
distinction, and one which it was desirable to retain, be-
tween the right of voting in counties and boroughs. It
was useless to disguise from oneself that there were cer-
tain classes of voters which represented diff,lent classes
of the community, and that the rights of voting were of
opposite characters. But what would be the logical cot-
sequence of following ont the principle laid down by his
hon, friend, and adopting the same right of voting in
counties and boroughs ? The logical consequence would
be the sweeping away of all the boroughs ; for, if the
right of voting in counties sad boroughs was identical,
on what ground would it be necessary to preserve the
boundaries of boroughs ? and you would in fact go
the length of dividing the country into electoral dis-
tricts. He (Lord Palmerston) objected to the principle
itself of the bill, and also to the consequences which it
would entail. In stating this, he begged his hon. friend
to understand that he did not mean to express an opinion
that no extension of the franchise in counties ought under
any circumstances to be made. He should at all times be
ready to consider measures of a modified kind for the
extension of the franchise in counties. His noble friend
the member for London had laid down the principle
that in counties the qualification should be the same as
that which entitled a man to be a juryman, viz., the oc-
cupation of a house of the annual value of 201., and to
that he (Lord Palmerston) did net object His hon. friend,
in introducing this measure, might have it said by manybe
that he was seeking to introduce a bit by bitrefw be
reform of the
representation, and that the question oughtu dealt
with by a great and comprehennsivaedmvoe
casare.He
(Lord
to for great and
Palmerston) himself was not
r ehe nsi
existt' e
a necessity
m e a ••sn r e c i
fo
of
ra great
a reform
and comprehensive
of this kind. In 1831
'
theremc oeru
p sure, did
in
did not DOR exist. The system of our constitution bad gra-
dually consequence of the manifest abuses which
prevailed in our representation. The same state of things
dually grown up to its present state, and he thought it
wiser and safer, in dealing with questions of reform, to see
your way clearly, and to take one step at a time—to take
up a defect and meet it by one measure, and see whether it
was efficient for the purpose ; but not to go beyond deal-
ing with that particular matter which you wished to set
right. He hoped his hon. friend would not consider, be-
ttehhn,
the
epi
nawrht
ouri oho Isi
lreaetrp
rhmei
sseeanfstauacrteei
yaw( li, thosi
yge
she
tt
ehhmei rs.
cause he could not concur in the introduction of this bill,
tnaligai
asti
hon.
nothshrtjei
eelnwtayi was one
inwopnareos vo
proposed,tef
on
and also to the introduction of any
such measure, which in the present session of Parliament,
and in the present state of public affairs, could lead to to
satisfactory result. As the measures before the
ohou
would sufficiently occupy the present Beesley, be would
advise the house not to assent to theintroductiont a
o .
bill which he thought was objectionable in itelf a
oaf
which, if it was introduced, there was little chance
passing this session.
ported the proposal of his hon. friend, Mr. H.EA.DLAM was one of tllsaeuwd
buietnh; could not find in it
to the speech of the noble lord,
to alter hisopinion with
sufficient reason to induce him
re-
gard to it. As regarded the
the state of the business
that he scarcely recollected
lee Ibusinws befo
princip
h votere.
the bill, Srst objection of the noble lord
bile haalwdalyisstesnuePd.
before the house, he must say
steel a session in which there was
use. Then with ieference to the
the noble lord said that there was
the
i;qualificationtory
,00ff 0 countur owny
con-
borough appear that the county franchise was
stitution,
t
it 'Lore liberal one than that of the boroughs,
originally 3 oe no
k rihge t o
the 40s. freehold was the original franchise.
„s,gmuch as -
—there anyobjection to the class of persons whom
But was 10/.
sought to admit to the franchise—namely,
it was ....._
a century ago
householders in counties 1 A. quarter of
abodriOutig-ul:tio:n
of that course
and surel
101. householders in boroughs were admitted to the fran.
chise, and all the objections to the danger
had been found to be without any grounds ; y
less applicable. 13 a
that
to the class of persons who were 101. householders in
counties the same objection was
thought that it was desirable
d there could be no proposal
i f d
r less 0 auger, than that
which contained less of evil, o a
our-
selves of every opportunity which we should avail
occurred of extending
the franchise, and he believed