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

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY.

Mr. BENTINCK asked the Under Secxtaryof State for
War whether the ages of the candidates for admission
into the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich would be
Published in the next report.
Mr. BARING answered:the question in the affirmative.
11E1( ICO—SAN JUAN AND THE FUGITIVE

ANDERSON.
I*. A. MILLS asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
tru whether the disputes concerning the respective rights
Greatitititain and America in the Straits of San Juan
d° Yuca, under the Ashburton Treaty, had been ad-
ated I`4° whether any correspondence had passed be-
tween her Maiest7's Government and that of the United
States, on the cue of the fugitive slave Anderson, as
affected by the of
of the same treaty.
Mr. BRISTOW asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs what rneasurciA had been taken, or were in contem-
plation, to protect Britigh interests in Mexico ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the resent state of
Mexico there were many difficulties p
to be
,but steps were adopted for the purpose of obtaini ounteredng justice for
British subjects. A communication had been made to the
American Government by her Majestra, which
was
so
fair and reasonable that he believed it would have been
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 A.
derson.

THE INFIDEL WITNESS.
The SFEA„liga ritildi 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 liberty to make
some verbal alterations in accordance with the fin ms of the
house.

Sir J. TRELAWNY then asked the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, whether he had I een informed
of a recent decision in the County Court t Rochdale by
the Judge, Mr. C. Temple, who was alleged to have non-
suited a plaintiff on account of the inability of the witness
to affirm her belief in certain speculative propositions ; and
whether, on the assumption that the Judge ruled properly,
the Government would deem it necessary to amend the law
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. CONINOLIAM 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 epen 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 doers 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 sigitation 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 Plymouth (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 en 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 recommendationsofthecommittee 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, he 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. T. 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 appeared 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 one to carry out an existing fran-
cilia() 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 in a reform and ought to
do so. The noble lord now at the head 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 Governmen t would rejoice at seeing small mea-
sures 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 £6 franchise, and the
hon. member for Leeds had a resolution on the paper for a
£6-borough franchise. The hon. member for East Surrey
had a notice for a £lO-franchise in counties. The right
hon. 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
the hon, gentleman the member for Middlesex sought to
give representation to Chelsea and Kensington. These
might be all very proper bills, but their iatroductioa only
had the effect of relieving the Government from the respon-
sibility that rested upon them, and they referred to reforms
which the aoble lord at the head of the Government and the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary had both said ought to be
introduced by the Government of 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 I (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
suffrage, to whatever extent; and who would be the wit-
reuses ? They would be so numerous, and the proceedings
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 inquiry.
Among the witnesses would be all the advocates and all the i
opponents of reform who chose to attend. Perhaps the
Chancellor 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 mouse of Commons.
The bill was introduced, criticism was bestowed upon it,
and under that criticism the bill withered, (Hear, hear.)
But the Government were not on that account absolved
from the responsibility of introducing another bill. They
were responsible to the country for not having done so, and
1
he repeated that the introduction of measures by private
members only served to shift the responsibility from their
shoulders. (Hear, hear.)
I‘lr, D, szynQuit observed that the Aboeuve of all re. •

ference to reform in the Royal Speech made it imperative
on the Liberal members to take some steps towards the vin-
dication of their principles. He, as a member of that party,
felt himself bound to give notice of the motion which he
had put upon the paper, in order to give the house an oppor-
tunity of considering the important question of the fran-
chise. He agreed with the hon. member for Marylebone
in thinking that the duty of introducing that question be.
longed to the Ministers of the Crown, but if they failed in
their duty the house was bound to take measures to main-
tain its own position. (Hear.) The noble lord the member
for the city of London had a great deal to answer for, and
could urge no reasonable excuse for his conduct. There
were no peculiar circumstances connected with the present
session such as occurred in the last to prevent a Reform
Bill being introduced, and the calm which prevailed was
peculiarly favourable to the consideration of such a measure.
The noble lord had told them last session that a time of
peace was a fitting time to carry a Reform Bill, and con-
trasted the period of the riots at Nottingham with the
peacefulness and loyalty of the present time, which he
thought gave a good opportunity of introducing his measure.
They all remembered the lines of Canning in the "Anti-
Jacobin "

" Now these and more, a phrenzied choir,
Sweep with bold hands confusion's lyre ;
While madding crowds around them storm
For one great radical reform."
(Hear, hear.) The very contrast of the present to those
times indicated that now was a fitting opportunity for
dealing with a measure of reform, and after having been
six times announced in royal speeches, and after a Parlia-
mentary history of 15 years, he could not help thinking
that it was time this important question was disposed of.
(Haar, hear.) He had put a notice for a bill on the paper,
but the hon. member for Leeds having given notice of a
motion on the same evening, he had thought it right to give
way to one holding so high a position in the country and
possessing so much more experience than himself. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. MACKINNON wished to correct a mistake made
by an hon. member in a former debate with respect to his
motion of last Session.
The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that it was
out of order to refer to that debate at all, unless on a mat-
ter of perional explanation.
Mr. MACKINNON would bow to the ruling of the chair.
it had, however, been said that he had been put forward
by the Government to oppose reform last Session. Now,
upon his honour, as a gentleman and a member of that
house, he had no communication, direct or indirect, with
the noble lord at the head of the Government before oppos-
ing that bill. (A laugh.) Nor had he any communication
either with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or
any other member of the Government. He might be asked
why ho took it upon himself, not being in office, to oppose
the Reform Bill of last Session. He happened to be chair-
man of a committee which sat for two or three Sessions to
inquire into the best mode of settling disputes between
masters and operatives. This inquiry gave him an oppor-
tunity of knowing the feelings of the middle and lower
classes on the subject of Parliamentary reform. The middle
classes were jealous of such a bill, fearing that their power
would be swamped by the lower classes, while the working
men, who it was sail would be enfranchised by the £6
franchise, were totally indifferent to the measure of the
noble lord. (Hear, hear.) He, therefore, thought it right
to oppose the bill, and the attitude both of the middle and
lower classes sinee the withdrawal of the bill had convinced
him that he had come to a sound conclusion. (Hear, hear.)
If the noble lord had brought in a bill this year, he would
have acted in an injudicious and imprudent manner in
going against the feelings of the middle classes and the
perfect apathy of the lower classes. (Hear.)

_
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was
read a first time.
COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE.

Sir J. TRELAWNY moved for leave to bring in a bill
to establish county financial boards for the assessing of
county rates, and for the administration of county expen-
diture in England and Wales.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he felt bound to oppose
the motion.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said this subject had already been
referred to a select committee, and underwent a strict in-
vestigation, and he believed the magistrates of coun-
ties were anxious to promote economical finan-
cial administration in their respective localities.
However, he would not oppose the motion; but,
at the same time,, ho did not think that any benefit would
result from referring the subject to a select committee, as
he understood the hon. baronet proposed.
The motion was then agreed to, and leave given to briNg
in the bill.