The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-13 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented against the abolition of church
rates ; for an alteration in the present mode of charging
the duties on wine; for an amendment in the mode of
taking the corn returns, &c.

NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Lord C. PAGET laid on the table the Naval Estimates,

RAILWAYS.

On the motion of Mr. M. GIBSON, returns by each
railway company of their authorised share and loan capital,
and of the sums received in respect of their ordinary capi-
tal and preferential capital, and debenture stock and funded
debt, en the 31st day of December, 1860, were ordered.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
On the mction of the JUDGE- ADVOCATE, leave of absence
fora fortnight was granted to Mr. S. Beaumont on account
of ill-health.

BANKRUP TCY.
On the motion of Mr. MURRAY, a number of returns
from the several assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy were
ordered.

TRAMWAYS.
Sir T. COLEBROOKE gave notice that he would move
for leave to bring in a bill for the formationof tramways.
CHINA.
Colonel SYKES gave notice that he would ask for the
production of certain papers in reference to Chine.
CAVALRY VACANCIES.

Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Under Secretary for War
how tniAny vacancies of cornets of cavalry were now exist-
ing in tho cavalry of the line, and also in the cavalry of the
household troops, respectively ?
Mr. BARING said that there were eight vacancies in
the household troops, and 24 in the troops of the line; but
as there were several persons prepared to undergo exami-
nation, no doubt the vacancies would be shortly filled.
WARRANT OFFICES.
Sir M. SEYMOUR asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty, whether he had received a memorial from the war-
rant officers of the Devonport division seeking an improve-
ment in their position as officers in the Royal Navy, and
whether their case had been taken into consideration by
the Admiralty Board ?

Lord C. PA-GET said that some of the demands in the
memorial could not be entertained, but others would reoeive
consideration.
ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY.

Mts
BENTINCK asked the Under Secretary:of State for
"lit Whether the ages of the candidates for admission
into the }Loyal Military Academy at Woolwich would be
PuLlishett in the next report.
Mr. BARING stiswerenhe question in the affirmative.
MEXICO—SAN 'JUAN AND THE FUGITIVE

Mr
_ •A. MILLS as
Affairs whether ANDERSON.
thedked the Secretary of State for Foreign
of Great Britain and America
concerning the respective rights
de Fuca, unde,
America in the Straits of San Juan
susted ;
also, the
whether
esiahburten Treaty, had been ad-
-003; correspondence had passed be-
tween her Majesty's ment and that of the United
States, on the case of thefugitive slave Anderson, as
affected by the provisions of th same treaty.
Mr. BRISTOW asked the Secretaryof State for Foreign
Affairs what measures had been t
inen, or were in contem-
plation, to protect British interests
sic Me
state of
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the Present
c:
Mexico there were many difficulties to be c"ountered, but
steps were adopted for the purpose of ob
British subjects. A communication had been Zji:itoce
the
American Government by her Majesty's, which.iaire
fair and reasonable that he believed it would have beel
accepted but for the unfortunate dissensions that at pre-:
sent prevailed in the United States. There was, no addi-
tional correspondence respecting the fugitive slave An-
derson.

THE INFIDEL WITNESS.
The SPEAKER &lid, with respect to the motion of the

hon. member for Tavistock relative to the refusal to receive
the testimony of a witness on the ground of her disbelief
in the scriptures, that he had taken the liber y to make
some verbal alterations in accordance with the ti: ms of the
house.

Sir J. TRELAWNY then asked the Seer if cry of State
for the Home Department, whether he had ' een informed
of a recent decision in the County Court Rochdale by
the Judge, Mr. C. Temple, who was alleged to have non-
ts
ou iat
ffie d a prm hl ao irnbt ieffl
eofni
naccountnoafp
et ho
uel
ainabilityo
poofs
thi
()en: witness
aw, so uu yid p
deemt o n
iht a
necessary
e thece a Judgeary
to rua r
al e do
dp rt oh pe e
lawrl y,
the
e Gt hoevr
e, r nmt
ohne t
applicable to such cases.
Sir G. C. LEWIS having stated the case at Rochester,
as stated in the newspaper, which he said was correct, said
that he did not propose to introduce a bill to alter the law
on this subject.
On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, that the house
should net meet to-morrow (being Ash Wednesday) until
two o'clock,
Sir J. TRELAWNY expressed his dissatisfaction with
the statement of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of
State.
Mr. CONINGHAM also objected to the present state
of the law.
The motion was then agreed to.
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS.
Mr. COLLIER, in moving for leave to bring in a
bill to prohibit the payment of the expenses
of conveying voters to the poll in boroughs, said that he
did not consider the noble lord (the Foreign Secretary)
was open to censure for not having reintroduced his Reform
Bill this session, but if the grounds for the non-necessity of
such measure previously expressed were correct, the same
prevailed at present, for there was no demonstration of any
kind out of doors on this subject. He believed, however,
that state of things was not owing to any indifference
on the subject amongst the reflecting portion of
the community who saw the necessity of reform,
but from the fact that public attention was
absorbed by foreign affairs. He contended that a
strong .feeling in favour of reform existed, and though it
had not yet come to the surface, it would before long fully
develope itself. The change that had taken place with re-
spect to the agitation of this question was attributed to the
alteration in the manner of the people in regard to public
demonstrations, and he did not consider that a hurricane
was necessary to induce this house to adopt a reform bill,
but that a breeze would be quite sufficient for this purpose.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
Sir G. C. LEWIS did not intend to follow the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Ply Mouth (Mr. Collier)
into the general subject of reform. The hon. and learned
gentleman seemed to consider the bill which he asked leave
to introduce a small reform bill ; but, according to the
manner in which the word "reform" was generally under-
stood in that house, a bill which merely related to the con-
duct of elections—to the manner in which votes were to be
taken—was not a measure of Parliamentary reform. It was
his (Sir G. Lewis's) intention, within a short period, to ask
the house for leave to bring in a bill to amend the present
law relating to corrupt practices at elections ; but if he ima-
gined that such a measure would be open to all the objec-
tions which might at the present time be taken to a general
measure of reform, he certainly should not press it on the
attention of hon. members. They already had a comprehen-
sive enactment on the subject of corrupt practices at elec-
tions ; and a committee was last session appointed to con-
sider its provisions. It was his intention to bring forward a
bill framed on the recommendations of that committee ; and
one part of It would deal with the subject to which his hon.
and learned friend's bill was directed. Indeed, he believed
they had taken their respective plans from the same source
—the recommendations ofthecommittee of last session. He
should not, therefore, enter into the question of travelling
expenses when the motion before the house was merely for
leave to introduce the bill; but in answer to the observation
of an hon. gentleman that nothing could be more inconsis-
tent than to allow payment of these expenses in counties,
and not to allow such payment in boroughs he (Sir G. C.
Lewis) would observe that counties were in general much
larger than boroughs. In the next place, no one was
qualified to vote in a borough who was not resident within
seven miles of the borough in which the vote was to be re-
corded, while a person might have a vote for a county and
yet reside in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, there were reasons for those payments in the
case of counties which did not exist in the case of boroughs.
Whether they were sufficient to induce the house to make
a difference was a question which had yet to some under
discussion. If the house wished this fragment to be laid
upon the table, ho had no objection to make to the motion of
his hon. and learned friend. (Hear.)
Mr. GRIFFITH would suggest to the hon. and learned
gentleman (Mr. Collier) that there would not be much use
in making the payment illegal if he did not make it penal,
by treating it as bribery.

Mr. ♦. SCULLY said that under the present system it
was a serious thing to contest a county in which some 2,000
or 3,000 would have to be conveyed to the poll at an ex-
pense of perhaps £1 a-head. There would be closer voting
if it were understood that there were no vehicles.

Mr. STEUART wished to guard himself against being
supposed to concur in the proposition of the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Plymouth. Had a nega-
tive been proposed he should have voted against him. His
experience of Cambridge had led him to conclude that the
payment did not lead to any illegal expenditure in the
borough. The hon. and learned -gentleman said that the
bill of Lord Derby's Government contained a similar pro-
position. That was true, but in that bill the proposal was
accompanied by another, affording a new mode of voting—
namely, by voting papers. (Hear.) The measure of Lord
Derby's Government would. have led to a great increase
in the franchise, but some of the bills brought in by hon.
gentlemen on the Liberal side of the house were for its re-
duction.

Mr. JAMES said that when Alexander died his lieute-
nants struggled for his empire. A somewhat similar strug-
gle alspeared to be going on among the lieutenants of the
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for the bill which had been
supposed to be in his charge. (A. laugh.) His hon. and
learned friend the member for Plymouth said that his mea-
sure was the first small modicum of reform. Now, that
seemed to place the question of reform in an awkward posi-
tion. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman the Home
Secretary that the proposal could not be called a measure of
reform, because it was ono to carry out an existing fran-
chise rather than to confer a new one. The introduction of
reform bills by private members of that house only relieved
the Government from the responsibility they had under-
taken. In 1859, when Lord Derby's Government was in
office, the noble lord the member for the city of London said
Lord Derby was pledged to bring i a reform and ought to
do so. The noble lord now at the iread of the Government
twitted the Derby Government with having taken office
with all its engagements, a sporting phrase which Lord
Derby would well understand. He told them they were
bound to go on with a reform bill, and went so far as to say
that the Government of Lord Derby " could not in honour
resign and should not resign," but must proceed with a
measure of reform. (Hear.) He would apply the same prin-
ciple to the present Government, and say that the proper
course was to leave the responsibility of introducing a mea-
sure with them, seeing that they also took office and re-
ceived the support of the Liberal party under a solemn en-
gagement to take up the question of reform. (Hear.) No
doubt the Government would rejoice at seeing small mea-
sares of reform brought in by private members, as it shifted
the responsibility from their own shoulders—a responsibi-
lity they incurred when they removed the Government of
Lord Derby from office. (Hear.) What had they now before
the house? A motion for one kind of reform, and no doubt
a very proper measure. The hon. member for Southamp-
ton had given notice of a bill for a V> franchise, and the
hon. member for Leeds had a resolution on the paper for a
£G-borough franchise. The hon. member for East Surrey
had a notice for a £lO-franchise in counties. The right
hen. gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department
had a species of bit by bit Reform Bill, by which he in-
tended to give the vacant seats of St. Albans and Sudbury
to two other places. The hon. member for Salford had like-
wise a motion to appropriate one of the vacant seats ; and
mgt
ivege
hh
to
representation
gentleman
rettphoeercmhbeeillmlsseb,aebruatnfodthr
their introduction
sought to
y
hs
iabdi
litthye
that effecrt
eosft
erde lui epv io gt
ht
ehme
aonv .tnhr ne
ye nil slat
referredftirornogmdt otcnht to.ei orrnele s:oprnoomslnyels
n
d
which the Retie lord at the head of the Government and the
notbroledulocreddtbhyethFeorGerneoigvnSemereenttaorf yhad both said ought to be
the country. (Hear, hear.)
There was a very extraordinary motion of which notice had
been given by the hon. member for Norwich ; it was to refer
the whole question of reform to a select committee. (A laugh.)
To:send the question of the representation of the people of
England to a select committee ! (Hear, hear.) Had the
hon. member for Norwich thought for a moment what
would take place before that committee ? Who were the
parties whose business it would be to be present? There
would be the advocates of universal suffrage, ballot-men, old
freemen, and all persons struggling for an extension of the
nesses ? They would be so numerous, and the proceedings
suffrage, to whatever extent; and who would be the wit-
nesses
would be necessarily so prolonged that long before the end
of the session the committee would become wonderfully
select, and but few would remain to take part in the inquirf.
Among the witnesses would be all the advocates and all the
opponents of reform wlio chose to attend. Perhaps the
Chancellar of the Exchequer would be there to tell them that
close boroughs were the salvation of the country, while the
right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gib-
son) and the right hon. member for Wolverhampton (Mr.
Villiers) would be called to say that close boroughs were the
disgrace and degradation of our political system. (A laugh.)
In short, they would have before that committee every-
thing that was contradictory, not to say absurd. (Hear,
hear.) He did not wish to blame the noble lord the Foreign
Secretary for withdrawing the bill of last session. On the
hustings the noble lord said he would introduce a reform
bill and submit it to the criticism of the Nouse of Commons.
The bill was introduced, criticism was bestowed upon it,
and under that criticism the bill withered. (Hear, hear.)
lirethe Government were not on that account absolved
from the responsibility of introducing another bill. They
ere responsible to the country for not having done so, and
were peated that the introduction of measures by private
members only served to shift the responsibility from their
shoulders. (Hear, hear.)
Mr, I), SEYMOUR observed that the abseuce of all re-