The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-09 00:00:00

GREAT REFORM MEETING AT
NORWICH.

NORWICH, MARCH 8.

One of the most crowded meetings ever held in
St. Andrew's Hall took place last evening for the
purpose of considering the provisions of the Minis.
terial scheme of reform. Mr. Osborn Springfield
(of the firm of Springfield, Son, and:Nephew), was
voted to the chair, and was supported on the plat-
form by all the leading Liberals of the city, and also
by Lord Bury, M.P., and Mr. Schneider, M.P.
The CHAIRMAN, in commencing the proceedings,
noticed the absence from the ministerial measure of
the various details of reform which had been agi-
tated since 1832.

Mr. J. SULTZER moved the first resolution, which
declared that the measure of reform proposed by
Ministers was far below the just wants and expec-
tations of the people, and recommended that a peti-
tion be presented against the bill.
Mr. J. J. COLMAN, in seconding the resolution,
said he attended the meeting with the view of help-
ing those present to get what. Lord Derby_refused
to give them. They were all agreed that the minis-
terial bill would not do. The present meeting, he
thought, was a sufficient answer to the assertion
that the people cared nothing about reform. With
regard to the savings bank franchise, Mr. Colman
called attention to the fact that the official returns
showed that the deposits of nearly 700,000 persons
were below £5O; and referring to the franchise to
be conferred on the holders of stock, he argued
that it would embrace very few working men. Mr.
Colman expressed his conviction that Mr. Bright
was deserving of all honour for the great exertions
he had made ; and stated that he himself had no
fear of the result of a large extension of the suffrage
—certainly not such an extension as was likely to
be conceded for some years to come.
The CHAIRMAN then introduced to the meeting
the members for the city.
Mr SCHNEIDER, M.P., who was received with
loud cheers, said he had felt it his duty to come down
to tell his constituents what he was prepared to do
onthe question. In two:words, it was his intention
unhesitatingly to vote against the second reading
of the Government bill. (Cheers.) It would be a
great consolation and support to him to know that
the citizens of Norwich, who had confided to him
the trust of representing them in Parliament, ap-
proved the conduct which he intended to pursue.
They must all feel that, while they were desirous
of having a Reform Bill, they would not accept the
Ministerial measure as even an instalment of that
which they were justly entitled to receive. The
present scheme was not a Reform Bill, but an anti-
Reform Bill ; a bill not to extend the suffrage but
to diminish it. The bill proposed a £lO franchise
in counties, and this he was willing to accept as
part of a larger and better measui.e ; but £lO for
counties alone would not do for him, especially
coupled as it was with the fact that all householders
who resided within the limits of boroughs were to
be disfranchised from voting for counties. These
latter, he maintained, infused vigour and vitality
into the county suffrage. (Cheers.) It was some-
what remarkable that while it was stated that the
county franchise would be increased from 150,000
to 200,000 votes, the disfranchisement of the 40s.
freeholders living in boroughs would reduce that
number by at least 180,000. Another and much
larger enfranchisement was going to take place at
the same time, as 'it was proposed that no man
should have votes for different places. The result
would be that many honest, earnest, and good re-
formers would be prevented from voting in the
various counties in which they had votes ; and this
would be a measure of large and substantial dis-
franehisement. No bill Qould be received by the
people of this country as a substantial measure of
reform if it disfranchised a single voter ; and the
only ground upon which he was willing to take a
£lO franchise for counties was, that it would enable
everywkan who lived in a Small borough which
must necessarily be disfranchised in any good
Reform Bill, at the same time at which he was
deprived of his vote for his borough to get a vote for
the county in which it was sittutted. In that way
there would be no disfranchisement as under the old
Reform Bill. What were the people likely to get by
a " fancy suffrage," as it was justly called ? It was
said that a savings bank franchise would create
130,000 votes ; but he would first ask how many of
the depositors were women ; and, secondly, how
many of the remainder had votes already? The
Government measure stopped at £6O, the very point
at which it was almost certain that a man would
otherwise have a vote; and therefore he contended
that a savings bank enfranchisement would be no
enfranchisement at all. It had nothing to do with
the working classes. How many of the working
men present had £6O in the savings bank ? (A
Voice—Not any.) Far be it from him to wish to
dissuade those present from putting money in a
savings bank, but when a man, having deposited a
tolerable sum, became anxious to push himself up-
ward life, and to be a small shopkeeper or some-
thing else, what enfranchisement would he have ?
Let a rating franchise be established by which
every man rated for the poor should have a vote
for the place in which he resided. That would be
a fair and true enfranchisement of the working
classes. He would venture to predict—and let his
words be marked—that the Government bill would
be thrown out by a majority of 150 votes. His
noble colleague could enter upon this branch of the
subject better than he could; but he would venture
to tell his constituents that the entire liberal party
had swamped all minor differences, and that Lord
John Russell, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Bright—
mark, Mr. Bright—would join together to kick out
the Government bill and have none of it. The
result was inevitable ; we should get rid of a Go-
vernment who had proved themselves unworthy of
the confidence of the country ; and it would then