The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

She Bill on the record reading would be pre-- nerved int--o% for the th/--d rsading. _ Hein-- stanced a rec ont crre in Eoglend where such :: .':cndmm as ttak of ¥fr, Cameron wes 4 o .ro a case the clder :on t3ok the v he might ta the loferlor in in! younger, In this saspec. the measure was n0% gounbh to fermera' sons generally, ' but only to particalar sers, A man who | owned a farm of 20) rorar, worth $29,000, and having but one son, would have $wo votes only, while a man ownlog filly ajes, worth $1,030, and baving four sors, would . have five votss, Mr, CROOKS ra'--ed a question of order. He said that <hs Houss bad already ordercA that this B!!l ta read a Obird time t>--day. 'The only amenandment fumldbh would be one gelating to the time, It was op n to move the six montha' hoist, or ta vots down the third reading, but not an amendment which was opposci t3 the Blil altogether. that an amendment declaratory of some principle adverse to the Bil! might be move4 mt the sesord rerding or the third nullq! or at any other stage of the Bill He quote from May a passage I'IOI:B* that an amend-- ment could bs moved at th's stage adverse by hon. gentlemen cpporit>, and it was put adviscily in the shape in which I!t now wan. He proceeied to say that it would k3 obvi-- ously urjust to give a mru owaing a smm« property a lirg*r numbksr of votes and greater infiuencs than a man owniog a _ larger roporty. He was not one of those who thought that Mr, MACDOUGALL (Simcs:) was not aware whother the hon, gentleman had bsen in the House at the recond reaiing of the Bill, when it was distinot'y understcod that .lln'llfllxt of 1.« Opposi+vion to take uc:iloi to She Bill on the rscord reading would be pre-- to the further progress of the BWU', The amendment wes therefore !1 order, Mr, CAMERON said the resolation was property should give a plarality of votc>, but he thought the small holder of property ought not t> have any aivantrn~e over the large holder of properigy, atd this Bill would not rroptu:! in that way without con'der. log it likely that objectlions mights bs taken have that effeot, and would therofore be injurions, Another bad effech of the B was that it gave farmera' sons a pi.vilege that other clacaes of the community did not puszers, He would like to know why the mechanis resident in Toronto, and pas-- zessed of property r=~secei at $2,000 aud having five sors,:hould not have his five soz:> enfranchised as well as the sons of the farmer who was arseesscd for lem? And why co% give votes to the sons ¢i the merohant, and the laboutar, dooctor, and lawyer, who were as:-- arce with the gonius of our Constitutl and experience of it in other countrles f:& not alnn Cansia any reason to think it be beneficlal, but, on the contrary, that it wculd be detrimental and injarious #o this country. For theso reasons he was opposed t> the measure of the hon. Com-- sessed? To give a vote to a claas without attaching a proparty qualificit/on as owned by the paities themselves, was a step in the dl'oofion of manhood suffrage or universal suffrage which he trusted they would not sce in this country, for it was not in acoord« est on income Iu the rural munloigalities and they had given the income franchise to by the Government simply because they feaid oltles, towns, and villages, To this he wou'd w that the income franchiss extended to parts of the country, and to every olr*s, and it could not therefore be considered olass legislation. The Bll eonvayed a de-- plal of right t> a large portion of the com-- munity, because, although every man might be a farmer, every man could not be a farmer's son, Hefancled that the Govern:-- ment in Introjucic; this measure felt that lhey wou'd do samething t> ingratiate them:-- gelves with the f»* community, It might be found. bhowever, that those in the country regard:d the alleged benefits of the Bill as hurtiul to them, erpecially when the farmer understood that it gave missioncr of Public Works, introduced m {armer .::r.m:* & :iiit""ii' gave sons . a * o_ _ rogistered, and record there votes againt his own. He would naturally object]to his g:apciy giving his sons a right to record votes in favour, prhpv). of his poliiical opponents, (Ap: plause, A Mr. MASSIE sa'd that the hon, gentle-- man had brought forward a vory lams seriss of objections to the BiJ', one of which was that thera we« aun injustice done &2 the man who bappened t>o be Mr, SPEAKER er!d that ho had no doubt wealtby and had only one son by his xeighbour who was pror and had four or five ons getting votes for each of them, He was not doing the same amount of good to his country. ****_-- Mr, BOULTER--Might be not have a number of Caughters ? (Laughter.) Mr, MASSIE--He was not _ doing Lhe same aroount of good, aud there. fore It could k no excurs urged aga'nst the Bill, Merchents and mechanion' cons were very easl'y prov.ded with votes, and be: aldes, they can vote on jucome. The other reasons were also to lame that he did not §hink they c2'led for any remorke, Mr, BARR siid that though he repre: zented a farming community, he thought they wore not In favour of th's Blll, which, In-&cl being a itop towards manhood aut. frage, was class legisation. He thought Ahat tke Bil! «ould bae dolug an injustics to meobsnilos who mighkt be paying large sums In taxation, ard whose sons would not on %hat scovunt get a vote, while a faimer of 50 mores with a number of rons would have a woke for each of them. It was a moat tor, snd ore to b: avolded most carfully, _ Afser contraiting the relative positions of the rich and poor farmers, he wernt on to say that in many cases the farmer would have an obj clion to split his vote on his pfl;udthll measure left him no zfl!: rons might thus kill the vote of eir fathers, Why, if the sons were to have this power, not extond it t> the daughters who oooupi«l a similar positior? Mr. ROSEVEAR rald he was a farmer, and a staunch believer In Mr, Cameron, to go sgainst whom would be like cutiing him to the bone; but on this &uuwm ho thought his views were mnao e entered Into a defence of the porltion of the farmers, who were the bone and sinew of the count' y, and was g:thotlynthfled that the measure would not be aiterded with such results as some hon, membars antlcipated. He was perfectly sathfied that there will be no cosrclon of son by father or father by son, and mention: «d an instance coourr:log durlnfi his own canvars in support of his views. He conclud-- ed 'by n&hg that nnquutloubli the Blil was in the right direct.on, and he only re-- gretted that is did not Include the sons of other olaszes of the community, much through the rural distriots, said thas his constituents were, at a'l events, in favour of the BilJ, and oonstdued it in the right direcotion, He sald it was common to tind the faiker as owner and the ron as tenast, and it wes also common to find the father as owncr and terant, The rons of koth, he contended, had an equal right, and was is prorer to keep the sons of the latter in that porlsion? Ho referred to the unseemly dis. plays of ewsariog so often witnessed in votera' courts, 'This mearure, he thought, was cal: uirbed to aitach farmers' sons to the soil and let them feel that they ars not in a wcree poaition then mechanios in the city, Hoe referred to the iropr'r. tant park that the farming community formed in the soslal economy of the country, and 1poke of the desire evincsd by so many farmers' sous to leave the old place because they could have no volce in the affairs of the coustry so long ss they remained there, The Bi}l, to his mind, would bave a most poweifual effeot in this direction, There was always a desire to discu:s politics between father and rton, but he cou!d not see that it would be likely to lead to rupture when they had the proteciion of the bailot in voting. They were entitled to it as a right--earniog as they did as muob, though not !n the same way, as those in cities, who erjoyed this privilege--in many cases supporting by their exerticns their aged parents, and being. as exertions their l?cd paren! lhmn», an intelligent por munity, why refuse them ? Mr: RIOHARDSQN. aen Mr, DEACON seld he was oppor:d t> the meature as devold cof common--sense or rearon, Because the father voted on a property was no reason why his son should. Such a view was entirely opy *1ed t» every rrlnolplo upon which we have hitherto gcaute 1 the franchise, The Bill actually proposed to give a vote to one with no interest in the countr ; and with zo qualification as a basis, Auy one who Srave's through the ocuntry will find that the zon does not always vote with the father, and this memure he was cure would produce great 1!"--will and hemt-- burnirgs betweer father aud son, To sum up the matter, is was a bid for the farmera' vote sud ncthing else, being rokten in prin-- olple, urscund in jadgment, and with no. thirg to commend it Mr. BETHUNE, though he had not moved Igent portion of the d not agree with com»