The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

LEASES IN IRELAND.

The Earl of BANDON asked whether it was the in-
-sention of the Government to introduce any bill for facili-
ating the gTantingof leases in Ireland ?

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said the Attorney-
General for Ireland was at present engaged in framing a
bill on the subject referred to by the noble lord.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES BILL.

This bill passed through committee without amendments'
and was ordered to be reported on Thursday next.

Lord LYNDHURST. thought that th bill ought not
to be forwarded so hastily.
The LORD.CHANCELLOR said he had no objection
to postpone the third reading of the bill until his noble
friend the Lord Chief Justice was in his place,
although he knew his noble friend entirely approved
of all its provisions. He did not see any objection to the
bill being reported on Thursday, and he would not move
the third reading until Lord Campbell was present.

MUTINY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bill was also read a second time.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
CONVICT PRISONS ABROAD BILL,
This bill passed through committee.
MANOR COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTmRDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time, and passed :
East Suffolk Railway ; Lands Improvement Company ; and
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Markets•and Pier.
The following private bills were considered and ordered
for third reading :—Glasgow Corporation Water ; King's
Lynn Borough and Port and Harbour Improvement ;
Llanidloes and Newtown Railway; Londonderry Bridge;
and the Chichester Harbour Embankment.
PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the Government
Reform Bill ; in favour of vote by ballot.; and for the
recall of Sir John Bowring, &c.

NEW MEMBER.
Captvin JERVIS took theoaths and his seat for Harwich

THE DIVORCE COURT.

Mr. EDWIN JAMES gave notice that he would put a
question to Government on the subject of the increase of
business in this court, with a view to its facilitation.
DESPATCHES TO LORD CANNING.
Mr. SALISBURY asked the Secretary of State for
India, whether the despatch, No. 5, 1858, dated the
9th December, had been submitted to the Indian Council
for consideration before its transmission to Lord Canning;
also, if any reply had been received from Lord Canning to
the despatch in question ; and whether the Government
were prepared to lay such reply on the table of the house ?
Lord STANLEY said he was not in a position to lay on
the table of the house the document referred to.

CONSOLIDATED v
FUND (£1,222,388 Bs. 9d.) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (LI1,000,000) BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

The Strangers' Gallery was filled immediately prayers
were as er, and the stream of petitions that flowed inces-
santly against the Government measure, and the applause
with which they were received evinced, in the clearest
manner, the feeling of the house and the country. Mr.
BERKELEY was entrusted with a number of these petitions,
and excited considerable amusement by shouldering the
voluminous documents, and bending under their weight,
depositing them on the usual receptacle. Mr. GARNETT

presented a petition from the inhabitants of Hamersham,
praying for the adoption of the Government Bill ; and this
solitary demonstration in favour of the obnoxious measure
elicited considerable laughter.

THE REFORM BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the
Representation of the People Bill,
Mr. DISRAELI moved that the bill should be read a
second time.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise, sir, to move the amendment
of which I have given notice, and I believe I shall best
consult the convenience Qf the house by saying as little as
possible by way of preface to the arguments which I wish
to urge upon their attsation. I shall be the more ready
to do this because I quite agree with the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the
duty of her Majesty's Ministers to propose a bill to amend
tho representation of the people in this house. It might
be a question whether the Ministers, upon taking office,
being in a decided minority, were justified in presenting
themselves to this house ; it might be a question
whether it was right' to hold out expectations that
they would present a Reform Bill to the house ;
but I think there can be no doubt that, having held
out those expectations, they were right in fulfilling
their pledge and bringing their propositions before Parlia-
ment in the shape of a bill. The right hon. gentleman
spoke much of the importance of this question, and I do
not wish to weaken what he said by attempting to add any •
thing to it. There can be no question of graver importance
to us, our children, and our posterity, than that which is
now before the house. And, sir, if it is a question of so
much importance, I think it cannot be wrong to urge this
house to consider every step which they take—not to be
blind to the importance of any movement which they make,
and to consider well before they advance in what may turn
out in a wrong direction. In the arguments which lam
about to address to the house I am encouraged by the fact
that two of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman—
one the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Walpole), distinguished among his colleagues for his great
constitutional knowledge and the calmness and temper-
ance of his views upon all subjects—(hear, hear)—and
the other the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire, than whom no man is better acquainted with
the population of this country, or a better judge of their
character—have felt objections in a great degree similar to
that which I myself entertain against the bill which the
rest of the Government have introduced. I think it will
save much misconception if I read what is contained in the
beginning of the first clause of this bill, which, in fact,
contains the whole principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.)
I hear gentlemen saying, and I have observed the same re-
marks in public journals, " Exclude the clause which dis-
franchises freeholders in boroughs ; amend the clause with
respect to borough franchises," and various other phrases,
implying, in the first place, that they think this bad bill
can be easily amended, and, in the second, that they have
not read the measure of which they speak. The bill con-
tains, in the first eight lines, the following proposition :
"Every male person of full age, and not subject to any
legal incapacity, who shall have any one of the several
qualifications hereinafter specified, shall be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and to vote in the election of a mem-
ber or members for the county, or if within the limits of a
borough, then in the election of a member or members for
the borough, where, in the case of qualifications arising out
of lands or tenements, such lands or tenements shall be
situated, and where, in ail other cases, such person shall
reside."
This lays down, as I imagine, the principle of the bill,
which is, that the suffrage throughout the country in coun-
ties and boroughs shall be uniform, or, as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer expresses it, identical. Now, sir, let the
house observe the consequences of this proposition. I will
speak first of the particular consequences, and then of the
general principle which is hero affirmed. The first piinci-
eiple, then, is that all the freeholders resident in boroughs
who have hitherto voted for the counties in which those bo-
roughs are situated are hereafter to vote for the boroughs
in which aro their freeholds. This is a complete change in
the constitution of this country. (Hear.) These rights
have been enjoyed for an immense length of time. When
there was recently int his house a discussion upon the right
of primogeniture, I stated that I had heard a freeholder of
Devonshire, when asked by the poll-clerk, " Have you had
this freehold more than a year ?" reply " More than a year
we have had it since William the Conqueror." (Hear.)
That shows, among a thousand other instances, what value
the smaller freeholders place upon the antiquity of their
franchise. It is now proposed to deprive them of their
votes for counties and to. compel them hereafter to exercise
their suffrage only in boroughs, Is that proposal made on
account of any delinquency or any crime on their part? Have
they shown themselves unworthy of the trust which has
hitherto been reposed in them ? It is evident that such is
because, otherwise, the Chancellor of the
would have proceeded, as the late Sir R. Peel
not
Exchequer case,
proceeded jia the case of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland, to
propose their* immediate disfranchisement. Instead of that,
the right hon. ontleman has brought in a special clause by
which he proposes that they shall retain their fi anchise for
life, thereby entirely ANativing the supposition that they aro
unworthy to exercise the right of voting which they have
so long possessed. With tl:e exception, indeed, of a hint
that the Freehold Land Societies, have increased the num-
ber of such freeholds to an injurious extent, there is not a
word to be said against the 100,000 ti•Vholders who have
hitherto exercised the right of voting in coii!lties. But by
the first proposition of the bill, although they themselves
are acquitted of all crime, their children for ever are de-
prived of their votes for counties, and compelled to vote
for the boroughs in which their qualifications exist, Now,
many of them, as I have said, have had their existing AM.
Landed down to them from a long line of ancestors. Others
have purchased their freeholds with the special view of
voting for counties. What injustice, then, to say you will
deprive them of their rights without any fault on their part,
and hereafter compel them to Vote where they do not wish
to exercise their franchise. Therefore, I think it is esta-
blished that the first proposition of the bill is unjust, it is
unjust because there is no public necessity for it. (Hear,
hear.) But, in the next place, lam not afraid to maintain
tpersonahat vote for counties in virtue of
freeholdst tor to the representation of those
at those
do
gve
there are 797 free'l?-011•07
counties which it would net otherwise possess. (Hear,
hear.) I hesitate not to say diet they add to the liberal
element of the counties to which they Wcng, (Hear, hear.)
I find that
isnB3 Gloucestershire,
Dover, l
,037 ; Stroud,ih ij he
"In Devonshire, Plymoet‘
itslb3i3rei,;Liivneril,--Cel:23ajr NridilrY'r
cheater, 3,043; in Middlesex, Tower Hamlet: 3'wtif.fin"
Northumberland, Neweastle,upon-Tyne, .1,687; • m-
an