The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

supplying the wants of the unrepresented towns ' • and if the
bill passed, no town with 20,000 inhabitants would be un •
represented. The second part of the resolution referred to
the further extension of the franchise. The noble lord
would not commit himself by using the words, "lowering
the franchise," but from his speech that appeared to be the
meaning of his resolution. Tne effect of the proposed re-
duction to £5 would be very small in the metropolis; at
present the £lO houses were 80 per cent. of the whole. In
Marylebone the change would only add 1 per cent. to the
constituency. In Westminster the proportion of houses at
£lO value was 90 per cent. ' • in Finsbury, 88 • in Lambeth,
75 ; in Southwark and the Tower Hamlets it was smaller,
being respectively only 59 and 52 ; but these were poor dis-
tricts. A good many meetings had been held in the metro-
polis, and a good many petitions presented from them. In •
every case the meetings went for manhood suffrage, and he
thought it was much to be regretted that, with the single
exception of the hon. and gallant admiral the member for
Southwark, not one of the members attending-
them had the manliness to stand up and protest against the
notion that they sanctioned such doctrines. In 1832 Mr.
Hunt opposed the bill because it would not admit the work-
ing classes to the franchise, upon which the Lord Chancel-
lor said these friends of the poor reminded him of a cele-
brated friend to the poor who asked why the ointment was
not sold for 300 pence, and given to the poor, not because.
he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief. That
was the way in which the then Lord Chancellor treated the
ridiculous objections. He told them that it was a mere
pretence, and he (Mr. Hardy) said that the regard for the
poor professed so much now was a mere pretence. He was
sorry that anything should have interposed to have pro-
vented their coming to a settlement on this question. The
Government had determined to settle it in a certain way.
They proposed to admit to the franchise those who by their
frugality and their intelligence were worthy of it. He had
shown that they could not admit them all by household suf-
frage. One means by which they had provided for it was
by the lodger franchise. But Sir J. Graham said he objected
to that. They had tried it by the savings bank franchise,
and Sir J, Graham said they had no more right to inquire
into a man's balance at the savings bank than they had to.
inquire into the balance of a member of that house at his,
banker's. Savings banks, however, were Government in-
stitutions, and he thought they had a perfect right to in-
quire into the circumstances of the depositors. Mr. S. Her-
bert told them that there was in that house a large number
of persons who were inclined to a moderate measure of re-
form. In private conversations with hon. members he found.
a tone of moderation, but he was sorry to say that he did,
not find it in public. Honourable members who had
pledged themselves to their constituents to vote for an ex-
tension of the franchise dare not face their constituents if
they voted against this resolution. Well, it extricated them
from a present difficulty, but did it extricate them from a
future difficulty ? He did not say that there was a com-
pact between Lord John Russell, Lord: Palmerston, and
Mr. Bright, but he did say that the supporters of the
motion brought forward by the noble fiord, supported
as it was by the honourable member for Birmingham,
had different objects in view. The hon. member for Bir-
mingham said the aristocracy of this country divided
£70,000,000 a year among them, but there was not a member
in that house who did not know that that statement could
not be supported. The hon. member for Birmingham op.
posed this bill on tangible grounds ; he wished to bide his
time. He had found abundance of auditors, but few ad-
herents. The hon. member's speech ought to be a warning
to the house, because when the hon. member was moderate
it was for some deep and earnest purpose. The hon. mem-
ber said five years hence they might be able to get a better
measure. Who knew what convulsions might take place
in five years ? The hon. member looked forward to a time
of distress, when he could agitate the country, and get up,
an excitement in favour of such a bill as he recommended.-
But to revert to the franchise. The right hon. member for
Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), in a sensible speech which he:
made in the recess to his constituents, told them that, how-
ever desirous he might be to admit the working classes to
the franchise, he saw no way by which he could do it. But
he was going by his vote to support the resolution. The
noble lord said he proposed the resolution with a view of ad-
mitting working men to the franchise, but he would not ad-
mit them to vote for boroughs in respect of freeholds. They
cared much more for votes in boroughs than in counties.
With regard to leasehold,which were reduced from £lO to £5,
but little had been said, but he believed they would make s
very large addition to the constituency. An objection was
made to uniformity of franchise in boroughs and counties„
but they had no right to say that was wrong in England
which they had established in Ireland, and which had long-
existed in Scotland. His learned friend the Solicitor-
General had been much attacked for having attributed mo -
tives to the noble lord the member for the city of London.
Now the noble lord had been at the head of a great party,
but from circumstances on which he need not dwell he had
become isolated, and now with a laudable ambition he was
trying to recover the position that he had formerly held,
and become once more the leader of a great and united
party. It was only in that spirit that his hon. and learned
friend made the observations he did on that occasion, not
that he- charged the noble lord that he was actuated by a
love of pelf, but simply that as a mare• of ambition he was
making use of those party weapons -which had been used
by members on both sides of the house. The noble lord
must be gratified that though he had been attacked he had
been defended, that if he had had the spear on the one side,
he had had the shield of disinterested patriotism held over
him by the hon. and learned member for Marylebone on the
other. (Cheers and laughter.) That hon. and learned
member said that whatever company he might go into, if
he heard the character and intellect of the noble lord im-
pugned he always stood forward to defend hiLu.. (Laughter.)
He (Mr. Hardy) did not know into what company the hon.
and learned member went--(laughter)—but it appeared
that when he went into the society of his Rad.ical friends
in Marylebone, they did not speak with great resvect of the
noble lord. Wherever he went he had• to defend him.
Like James Fitz James in the romance, the hon. and learned
gentleman said—
" Come one, come all, this rock will fly
From its firm base as soon as I."
(Laughter.) Perhaps when the noble lord had collected the
scattered fragments of his party, the hon. and learned gen-
tleman would continue to support him with his learning and
ability. (Laughter.) It had been assumed that the result
of that discussion would be that the Government would be
placed in a minority. Be that as it might, they had tried
to settle this great question, and it would be seen that they
would not accept a resolution which was as unjust to them
as it was unsatisfactory to the country. The right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle said he would not disguise
from the house that he had ahand in framing the resolution.
He must say he recognised the subtlety of the hand in the
resolution—(cheers and laughter)—and much as he re-
spected the candour of the disclosure, it was unnecessary.
(Laughter.) He trusted that the party to which the right
hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert)
belonged would consider carefully what they were about to
do. He hoped they would consider that if this bill were
rejected the house would hereafter have to consider another
bill having other authors, proposed under pressure, after ex-
citing appeals had been made to the passions of the people.
(Hear.) It might, perhaps, be said that hon. members on that
side of the house would by the introduction of this bill have
committed themselves to the support of a future one; but,
although they had shown a disposition to sacrifice as far as
possible their individual opinions, it did not follow from that
that they would be prepared to support the rating-suffrage
measure of the hon. member for Birmingham, or vote by
ballot when proposed by the hon. member for Finsbury.
The hon. and learned memlag for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor)
taunted hon. gentlemen oppdWte with inconsistency in hav-
ing voted for the resolution proposed at the time of the in-
troduction of the Conspiracy Bill last year, now objecting to
the resolution of the noble lord. The former resolution had
nothing to do with the bill; it was a resolution of cen-
sure ; as such they voted for it, and he would add that he,
for one, was prepared to consider the law relating to con--
spiracy whenever the subject might be properly brought
forward. The carrying of this resolution would be a pre-
cedent which might be followed on other occasions of a
similar nature ; and let that section of the house to which the
right hon. member for Wilts alluded recollect that by aiding
in it they would put a stop to one of the greatest enfran-
chisements ever offered to the country, and that the result
would probably be to drive them hereafter to take shelter
under the wings of those who now sat on the Treasury
bench, who would then be called upon to protect them from
the rocks and avalanches which were being hurled down
upon them by the radicals of that house. (Ministerial
cheers.)
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said if the Government were
not prepared to extend the franchise in boroughs, he was
prepared to vote for the resolution, even although the con-
sequence might be the defeat of the bill. But if the res.-
lution`sheuld be carried he did not see the necessity of an
absolute defeat of the meusure, and thought there would
be no difficulty in voting for a new bill containing the
proposition in the resolution, or going into committee
to make the necessary alterations in the present bill. If the
Government were determined to oppose the propositions
embodied in the resolution, he should consider it his duty to
vote against the bill. (Hear, hear.) There was one point
on which he trusted the Government would give some infor-
mation before the close of the debate, and that was as to
their intention with regard to the Reform Bill for Ireland.
(Cheers.) He should like to ask, first, whether they were to
have a Reform Bill at all ; and if so, was the occupation
county franchise to be reduced? He also desired to be in-
formed whether there was to be any alteration in the occu-
pation franchise in towns ? He did not press these questions
from any bitterness of feeling, but because without more de-
finite information on these points he did not see how hon.
members could come to any definite conclusion on the
course which they should pursue.
Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir D. NORREYS thought that the debate might be
continued to-morrow. (Cries of No, Go on, and Adjourn.)
Really, if this were not done, he did not see how
the debate was to close on Thursday.
Mr. LINDSAY said that there were many plain men like
himself who desired to speak. He thought that the debate
ought not to close on Thursday.
Sir J. PAK INGTON said that it would not be conve-
nient to adjourn the debate to Wednesday. In the absence
of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he could not give any understanding to bind his right hon.
friend. The house would do his right hon. friend the jus-
tice to admit that he had shown no disposition unduly to
cut short the debate. (Hear.) If on Thursday it appeared
that there were still many hon. members to speak, he had
no doubt his right hon. friend would endeavour, as he had
done, to meet the wishes of the house. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had showed a fair desire to meet the wishes of
the house. (Cheers.) When the right hon. gentleman
spoke of an arrangement to conclude on Thursday, there
seemed to be a general impression in favour of that arrange-
ment. But on Thursday there would be an opportunity of
judging as to the number of hon. members still desirous to
speak on this subject. It was, no doubt, an important one,
and one on which hon. members might naturally desire to
address the house. He thought that the matter might be
safely left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
)a
few words from Mr. P. O'Brien, Mr. Cox, and
Mr.(C he
Griffith,e
Afterr.
s the debate was adjourned to Thursday.
The Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War) Bill and
the Common Rights (War Department) Bill were read a
third time and passed.
The house adjourned at a quarter before 1 o'clock.

Mr. J. Norbury, senior, of the firm of Jas. Capel
and Co., has been elected chairman of the Stock Exchange,
and Mr. F. L. Slous deputy-chairman.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS OF WAR).
—A. bill, under the care of the present Attorney and Soh-
citor-Generals and General Peel, the present Secretary of
War, allows any inventor of any improvement in instru-
ments or munitions of war to assign the benefit of such in-
vention to the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary
may certify to the Commissioners of Patents that the in-
vention be kept secret.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county o
Middlesex, Wednesday, Marsh 30, 1849.