The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.T(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve o'clock,
NAVY (WOODEN SHIPS).

Mr. CORRY obtained a return specifying the names of
the wooden ships intended to carry guns on more than one
deck now building, and showing in Bths the state of pro-
gress of each ship towards completion.
COUNTY FRANCHISE BILL.
Mr. LOCKE KING moved the second reading of this
bill. He said, as the principle of the bill had frequently
been approved by that house, he need not repeat the argu-
ments which had been adduced in its favour; but he had
to regret that hon. gentlemen who opposed him did not
resort to direct means for throwing it out, but took indirect
measures, which he did not think creditable to the house.
The hon. gentleman met some objections which have been
urged against the bill, and came to the conclusion that
there were no real force in them. lie strongly urged upon
the Government the necessity of proceeding without delay
with some practical measure of reform.
Mr. A. SMITH moved as an amendment "The previous
question." He thought they could not look to the measure
by itself, but must regard the inevitable consequences which
would flow from it. If they proposed this bill it would be
impossible to retain those differences which ought to exist
between county and town constituencies. He considered
that the hon. member for Birmingham had done much to
retard the progress of reform by his ceaseless agitation.
Although that hon. gentleman perseveringly smoked the
pipe of peace, he raised such a cloud of smoke as to lead to
the supposition that there was something like incendiarism
at the bottom of it.
Mr. DL CANE considered that the motion of the lion.
member for East Surrey was extremely inopportune at the
present moment, and he therefore seconded the amend-
ment. The question had been fairly discussed in two sue.
cessive Parliaments, and under the auspices of two adminis-
trations, and he had no hesitation in saying that, throughout
the country there was a perfect indifference on the matter.
Lord HENLEY objected to the bill, because, while it
created a vast number of additional county electors, it made
no provision for diminishing the expenses of county elec-
tions, which were at present enormous and scandalous. In
Northamptonshire the expenses of conveying voters in one
year, from February, 18.58, to February, 1859, were £lO,OOO,
or very close upon it. He would take the case of Colches-
ter. In that county there was a farm of 1,000 acres,
which was let out to at least fifty tenants.' Now,
the proprietor of this ground might, by means of the
number of small voters be able to swamp the whole consti-
tuency.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, he did not consider the hon.
member (Mr. L. King) had any ground for congratulation
on the description of support which he had received from
hon. members. The hon. member seemed to consider that
there was a virtue in a £lO occupancy, but he denied
that he had _advanced any proper basis for his
measure. He denied that the county constituency was
corrupt, or that it exhibited any want of independence, so
as to justify a bill of this description. The case for the bill
rested on an isolated instance, and it was not of general appli-
cation. The fact was, that constitutionally the county con-
stituency was not placed in a proper position, and he re-
ferred to Staffordshire, where the electors connected with
the potteries overwhelmed the other constituency, and to
Birmingham, where the 40s. electors formed a considerable
number. Ile, therefore, felt bound to oppose the second
reading. _ _
Mr. BRISTOW expressed his surprise that any opposi-
tion could be offered towards this bill by those who called
themselves reformers. He thought hon. members were
mistaken about the feeling of the country, if they supposed
there was any sentiment of indifference pervading the com-
munity in reference to the question of Reform. (Hear,
hear.) Notwithstanding that reformers had been twitted
with the absence of indignation meetings, he could assure
hon. members that in the Midland Counties where greater
interest was felt on the question than in metropolitan
boroughs, constituencies were watching with anxiety the
progress of this bill, in order to see how members who were
sent to Parliament pledged to support reform, and ministers
would act in reference to the measure, as indices of what
they might expect from their representatives and Go-
vernment. He supported the bill not only on its intrinsic
merits, but on extrinsic grounds, for it had a peculiar im-
portance at the present time with the people of England.
He trusted, therefore, that the bill would be carried by a
large majority of independent members, and that Govern-
ment would show, not only by their conduct in regard to
the present question, but in future with regard to the
subject of reform, that they were anxious to have the question
settled. Ho believed that this alone would be the means of
averting that storm of popular indignation which might be
expected to break forth by a further delay of the question,
notwithstanding the patient and reasonable character of the
people of this country. (Hear, hear.)
Sir L. PALK strongly deprecated the attempts made by
hon. members in respect to the question of reform, by en-
deavouring to effect a defeat which they could not accom-
plish by acomprehensive measure which Parliament had
already rejected. He denied that there was any popular
feeling in favour of this bill, which was shown by the fact
that the hon. member for Surrey had to re• introduce it
from session to session. He believed that eventually a corn •
prehensive measure would be required, but he did not think
• the time had arrived. He considered that the effect of this
bill would be to throw increased political power into the
hands of the commercial classes, and it would be most dan-
gerous to pass any bill of such a nature without accompany-
ing it with safeguards. Ile concluded by moving as an
amendment the previous question.

Lord ENFIELD said he felt bound to support the bill.
It had been objected to the measure that the amount en-
titling to the franchise was too low, but he believed that
no one was pledged to any amount, and as far as he was
concerned he reserved to himself a perfect right to deal with
the bill in committee. With regard to the argument about
the rejection of large measures of reform by the house as
being a reason for not introducing a measure of detail, he,
contended that Reform was more likely to be carried out
by means of the latter. Reformers might endeavour to carry
out their views in reference to the county franchise by pas-
sing this bill, and next session they might deal with the
question of the borough franchise. (Hear, hear, and oh,
oh.) Considering the pledges he had given to his consti-
tuency, and the promises of the house to deal with the sub-
ject of Reform, he thought he was called on to support this
bill.

Mr. lITJNT said the object of the bill was to introduce
into county constituencies a town element of franchise
which operates most unjustly. Ile thought it might be
desirable to make an alteration in tha county franchise,
which he would not object to see lowered to £2O, provided
it was attended with safeguards.

Mr. CONINGHAM considered that bringing forward a
measure of this description was only trifling with the great
subject of reform, and bringing the Liberal party into con-
tempt with the country. Members who advocated the mea-
sure must know that with the opposition of the Govern-
ment and of members on the Opposition benches they could
not expect to carry the bill. He was a sincere Reformer,
and denounced measures like the present as the result of a
sham and hypocritical feeling on the part of pretended
Reformers. However, he did not intend to vote against
the bill—(laughter)—for he would not wish it to be under-
stood that he was opposed to the £lO franchise, but he
would not vote in its favour.

Mr. A. EGERTON opposed the bill, but considering
himself pledged to reform, he would support a compre-
hensive measure, including a £25 franchise.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that it had been observed that
there were three modes of dealing with the question of re •
form. In the first place, the Government might introduce
a comprehensive measure, or, as in the present instance, it
might be dealt with in detail by private members. The
Government came to the conclusion that after the experi-
once ,f I.lst session, it. would not be advisable to introduce
a similar bill on the subject of Parliamentary Reform to
that of last year. He concurred in the wisdom of that de-

vision, and was a party to it, and his opinion was unaltered,
He thought that the wisdom of that decision had been con•
firmed by the vote of the house on the first nighi
of the session and the feeling of the country,
On the occasion alluded to there was a reso•

lotion proposed pledging the house that it was their
opinion the Government ought to introduce a comprehen-
give measure of Parliamentary Reform, and it was nega-
tived, there being_ only 46 in its favour, while against it
there were 129. The Principle clearly affirmed by that
vote was that it was not desirable for her Majesty's Govern-

meat to introduce this session any bill on Reform. Nothing
had since occurred to call for any alteration in the course
the Government had pursued. With regard to the two
measures, the present and the one relating to the borough
franchise, which proposed to deal with the question, united
they would effect a considerable alteration in the constitu-
encies of the country. But they were the measures of
different members, and were not produced simul-
taneously, and great difficulties necessarily existed
in dealing with them. In illustration of the
feeling of indifference towards the question of reform,
he referred to the bill which he introduced for the transfer
of four seats. Some years ago that transfer would have
been et
considered a mater of considerable importance, but
the manner in --
in which it had been treated did not show that
there was any strong feeling on the question at present. Ho
hwiassodleisniirost the
ef seeing reform carried out in detail, but in
ject. However there
had not at rived for discussing the sub-
for
hie
was nothing to prevent gentlemen
front voting
of the £lO franchie second reading of the bill on the ground
committee,
and
heselli for the measure could be altered in
,and
asielf would vote for the second read-
ing. (Hear. hear himself
oppo:itifhter.)
Mr. BARRO
fretiut,ihe bill on the ground that it
would swamp the 40s.
Mr. OSBORNE cornplaineutierw:h;,:ong,ly of the conduct of
some of the reform members,
reform in a state of confe ith left the question of
gesol,rirai:cll(wsaisir
Gincreased by the
speech of the right hon.
s. C. Lewis). He
thought his hon. friend the member for
.had been
trusted in respeet.to his measure like a too CourZfiy-
promitg young
Youth, fbumt ahre-
lady. He (Mr. L. King) had received a
riage from the right hon. gentleman in his
bad been abandoned in his sere and yellowleaf—(laughter)
—and ultimately he found himself turned into the streets