The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-03 00:00:00

THE PRANCIIISE BILL.

The debate on going into Committee on the Franchise
Bill was opened by Mr. Raikes, who moved an instruc-
tion to the Committee to make provision for the rediS
tribution of seats between the existing constituencies;
and for the representation of populous urban sanitary
districts at present unrepresented. In support of this,
Mr. Raikes went at length into some of the anomalies
of the present system, which he showed would be enor-
mously increased by enfranchisement pure and simple.
For instance, while 1,600,000 borough voters would con-
tint,e to return 297 members the 189 county members
would be returned by 2,000,000. The necessity for re-
distribution would therefore be immensely strengthened
by the passing of the bill. So also would be the case
for the representation of minorities and a scheme
which shrank from dealing with bah these capital
points was unworthy of the House.
Mr. Gladstono replied briefly, insisting that every
argument used by Mr. Raikes had been fully urged in
the former debates, and a solemn decision had been
pronounced upon them. He regarded the speech there-
fore, as made for the consumption of time, and he de-
clined himself and hoped *is friends would decline to
discuss these arguments over again.
Lord R. Churchill characterised the position assumed
by the Premier as a rigid and a barbarous application
of the "cloture," and his advice to the Liberal party as
a peremptory order to silence. If the Government
would undertake to introduce their Redistribution
scheme immediately after the passing of this bill, they
would get rid of :many difficulties and greatly facilitate
progress.

- Mr. E. Clarke also protested against the Prime
Minister's assumption to silence discussion; and main-
tained that the question of redistribution never had
yet been fairly debated; nor had the country been
fairly informed as to the effect of this bill on the agri-
cultural constituencies. The Opposition under such
circumstances would be indifferent to the charge of
obstruction.

Mr. Brodrick then moved the adjournment of the
dsbate as a protest against the refusal of the Govern-
ment to discuss the question of redistribution, to which
Sir William Harcourt replied that the Ministerial side
held that they had already discussed the question suf-
ficiently, and declined to be parties to further discussion
which would be a waste of time.

Mr. Gibson vigorously condemned the conduct of the
Government, and declared that compared with former
bills the Opposition had shown great moderation in
discussion.

Mr. Gladstone defended the course he had taken, and
observed that the Liberal party could not be expected
to play into the hands of their opponents.
Sir S. Northcote retorted that neither could the
Opposition be expected to play into the hands of the
Government. It was incumbent upon them under the
circumstances to put on record their protest against the
manner in which the Government were conducting the
debate upon a measure of this great importance.
On a division the motion for adjournment was nega-
tived by 108 to 71, and the debate was then resumed
by Mr. Elton, who, speaking in the interests of the
West of England, which was threatened with a diminu-
tion of representation, objected to proceed further
until more light was cast on the redistribution
scheme.

Major-General Alexander dwelt on the claims of
Scotland to increased representation, and Mr. Rankin
vindicated the uses of the small boroughs.
Mr. Whitley did not object to the extension of
the franchise, but held that this bill as it stood would
sacrifice the rights of many electors. Unless the
House took a firm stand now he did not believe
that there would be redistribution before the dis-
solution. .

Lord E. Cecil said he had always believed the Act of
1867 to be a mistake, and he was not disposed to take
another leap in the dark. This bill was founded on the
same principle of enfranchising numbers at the expense
of intelligence and property, and it emphasised the
inequality between representation and taxation.
Mr. Ecroyd argued that though the bill might confer
the franchise on large numbers, without redistribution
would not give them proportionate electoral power.
Mr. Gregory supported the instruction; and Mr. T.
Collins spoke strongly on the absolute necessity of
including redistribution in the bill. Without it he held
the scheme of reform to be a fraud on the people.
On a division the instruction was negatived by 174
to 147; and the announcement of the numbers was
received with much cheering from the Opposition
be-aches.

111 r. Tomlinson then moved that it be an instruction to
tin Committee to enlarge the scope of the bill so as to
provide where desirable for the extension of the boun-
daries of Parliamentary boroughs.
This was supported by Mr. E. Clarke and Mr.
Grantham, and opposed by Mr. Gladstone and the
Attorney-General, who contended that it was merely
a repetition of the redistribution motion in another
form.
On a division it was negatived by 158 to 132; and an
instruction by Sir R. Cross that the Committee make
provision for the due registration of all persons en-
franchised by the bill was ruled out of order, as the
Committee would have power to do this withotit an
instruction. Purther progress with the bill Was then
adjourned.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at hall-past one o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, April 29, the Duke of Marl
borough subscribed to the oath on his succession to th
peerage, and took hid seat on the cross benches.
Lord Salisbury, in moving the second reading of the
Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment
Bill, explained that the object of the measure was to
remove a technical defect in the Act.

Lord Bramwell suggested that the bill should be
amended by making it provide that husband and wife
should be competent witnesses for, as well as against,
each other in criminal cases.
The hill was read a second time.
THE Misit tAtSD Adt

Lord Castletown moved a resolution affirming tho
necessity of giving landlords, who had suffered pecu-
niary loss through the operation of the Irish Land Act,
facilities for raising money to pay off charges affecting
their estates on as easy terms as by the promised Go-
vernment measure would be granted to purchasing
tenants.

The Earl of Kimberley declined to admit that the
Llnd Act was the cause of the losses sustained by the
Irish landlords. On the contrdry, he amerthtl that that
Act had saved the landlords from ruin. The Govern-
ment, however, were deeply sensible of the necessity
for amending the purchase clauses in order to increase
the number of freeholders, and enable landlords to dis-
pose of their estates on favourable terms.
The Earl of Donoughmore, the Marquis of Water-
ford, and the Earl of Dunraven joined in urging the
Government to do something to enable Irish landlords
to tide over their difficulties.

The motion having been withdrawn, their lordships
rose at seven o'clock,