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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--(YESTERDAY.)

THE SUPPLY OF GUANO.
Lord POLWARTH gave notice that on Monday next
he would move for any papers or correspondence relative
Ito the cession of the islands of Ila,ski Giblen, and Obit-
(
ragonl by the Imaum of Muscat. to 'her Majesty, and
their erection into a Colony; and also to call the atten-
tion of the house to a licence granted on the 20th Feb.,
1856, by the Commissioners of Emigration.to John Ord
and others, giving them the sole and exclusive right to
raise and take away guano from these islands during five
years.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in ;
lengthened
speech, called attention to the evils
arising out of the
double government of our Indian possessions, and con-
cluded by moving that the system under Which the go-
vernment of her Majesty's territories is administered in
India is no longer suitable to the condition and prospects
of that vast empire, or the development of its resources
and the improvement and welfare of its inhabitants.
The Duke of ARGYLL defended the existing system
of Indian government, and asserted that discussions on
Indian affairs ought to be taken on substantive propo-
sitions, and not on abstract resolutionr, such as that
proposed by Lord Clanricarde, which were not calcu-
lated to produce any practical good.
The motion was then withdrawn, and their Lordships
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
SAVINGS BANKS DEFERRED ANNUITY

TALES.
Mr. W. MICHELL B
asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether Mr. Tidd Pratt bad certified the
Savings Banks Deferred Annuity Tables.
Sir G. LEWIS said that Mr. Tidd Pratt had nothing
to do with these tables. They were prepared by the
actuary to the savings' bank, and approved of by the
Lords of the Tri!wary, who then published them in the
London Gazette.

THE BUDGET.
Lord J. RUSSELL asked Mr. Disraeli if he intended
to-morrow to propose his motion on going into coin.
mittee, or as an amendment to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's proposition ?
Mr. DISRLELI said that he should submit his mo-
tion on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair.

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 would be no objec-
tion to produce the paper asked for, which would show
it was the same as that that had been stated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. GLADSTONE—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 I

Air. 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
,o make the franchise in counties in England and Wales
,he same as that in boroughs, by giving the right of
voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value
of ten 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 bad never been realised
for, though several bills had been brought in upon 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 classes of voters
equal ; and not make any dfference between inhabitants
of different localities. 14 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 71) Voters but the
occupiers of 50/. a-year houses and in agricultural towns
with few inhabitants and of Coss 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 bad no vote, while persons
in towns who occupied houses of a much humbler class
did possess the franchise. The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to quote some statistical tables, by which hi
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 number
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 leo.
roughs. lie 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 ie.
creased to 89. He pointed out that the county of Bucks
was overrepresented, as compared with Lancashire, in
the former there being 125,000 electors and Ilmembers,
while in the latter there was a population of over two
millions and only 23 members. He then urged that
there had been no real objection made to this bill on for-
mer occa,zons. Certainly the noble lord the member for
Loudon 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 bad 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 be 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 chance 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 (Lord 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 diffezent classes
of the community, and that the rights of voting were of
opposite characters. But what would be the logical con-
sequence of following out 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 and 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 ow
cupation of a house of the annual value of 201., and to
that he (Lord Palmerston) did not object. His hon. friend,
in introducing this measure, might have it said by many
that he was seeking to introduce a bit by bit reform of the
representation, and that the question ought so be dealt
with by a great and comprehensive measure. He (Lord
Palmerston) himself was not an advocate for great and
there did exist a necessity for a great comprehensive measures of reform of
athnids
nkeintndp.relhnenleBi3vel
measure, in consequence of the manifest abuses which
p irde vnaoitl endoi:
eoxui rs tr e.
Tp rheas e
systemn tat io nT
of
our
re sameconstitution
b thingsadgra.
ddually grown up to its present state, and he thought it
wiser and safer, in dealing with questions of reform, to see
your way andclearly,
to take one step at a time—to takeu
p 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.
cause he could not concur inthe intrordeinsscetnfisotaen of this bill,teiv altogether
lt
system.ogether
athat h: a wasi oneo of those
nlnwoh:r sreetp
h
Hisi n
e objeation mwas to the particular measure which his
hon. friend proposed, and also to the introduction of any
such measure, which in the present session of Parliament,
asuntdisifnaetthoeryprreesseunltt.staAtes of
theepublicm
ea as u firaei
sr s ,b could
tl ebasd
ht oo
urge
would sufficiently occupy the
advise the house not to assent') rtoes
tehnet wouldsienstsrieodnoiohtieonof a
bill which be thought was
objectionable in itself, and
which, if it was introduced,
therewaslittlechchance
of
passing this session.
Mr. HEA.DLAM was one of those who always
.sup-
ported
the proposal of his hon. friend, and be bad listened
to the speech of the noble lord, but he could not find
iin it
with re.
sufficient reason to induce him to alter his opi
house,
which there was
gthaerdsttaotiet.otsthreegbatirdsiendestshebfiefrosrt
eobtrection of tblineebrinmnoubslte lord
aay
that he scarcely recollected a session
Thewlith reference to the
ofthat c
otuhnetrye :lel sdi
les-ibusiness before the
principle of the bill, theihu
a distinction qualificationbetweenkitnbgeto
the history of our own con•
borough voters. nobleus e
ar that the county franchise was
lrdsaid
the boroughs,
originally a alore4oB
freehold was the original franchisee
stittnion, it would
as the .
inasmuch
b'eotion to the class ofpersons
11;abopeolP•ral one than that of
as there ae.Ye J
to the f ' 1
But w
sought to admit ranchise—namely, 10 .
it was whom
counties 1 A quarter of a century ago
holders inboroughs were admitted to the fina-
le/. house
all the objections to the danger of that coulee
chise, and
bad been found to be without any grounds - and sorely/
growl ,
householders in
to the class of persons who were 104 householders in
counties the same objection was less applicable._ Be
thouln
'lit that it was desirable that we should avail our-

selves of every opportunity which occurred of extenditg
the franchise, and he believed there could be no proposal
which contained lese of evil, or less:of danger, than that