The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-07-12 00:00:00

THE FRANCHISE BILL.

Lord Kimberley rose to move the second read-
ing of the Representation of the People Bill.
Vaving briefly stated the provisions of the bill, he
explained the general results to be that the
franchise was placed on the broad foundation of
household qualification—one which he hoped would
wear for many years. The measure would add two
millions to the three millions of voters already on the
franchise roll. The number it would add in Ireland
was 400,000. He admitted that at first sight this seemed
to be an imminent and great danger; but the Govern-
ment had had to determine what on the whole appeared
to be the path of safety. He was sorry to say that
there was in Ireland a large party violently hostile to
the connection of the two countries and wishing to
sever that connection, and he admitted that under this
bill the number of those who supported Mr. Parnell in
Parliament was likely to receive a considerable accession.
Such an accession would show that the true feeling of Ire-
land was not now represented in Parliament, where it
would be better to have that feeling to deal with than it
was to encounter it elsewhere. The consideration however
which weighed with him, was that, if Ireland were not
included in the bill, the enemies in that country of the
British connexion would receive the support of a large
party in this country who were strongly devoted to the
general extension of the franchise. Coming to the
amendment of Lord Cairns, he asked whether the bill
was not a "well considered and complete scheme for the
extension of the franchise." Repeating pretty nearly
Mr. Gladstone's sketch of the Redistribution Bill con-
templated by the Government, he stated that they in-
tended to introduce it next year if theyi emained in office
till that time, and the bill before their lordships was
not to come into operation till January, 1886. He
pointed out what appeared to him the dangers of an •
assembly like their lordship's House rejecting this
measure at the piesent time, when revolutionary ideas
were making such formidable progress. Their bitterest
enemies were longing and praying that their lordships
might throw the measure out; but he hoped they would
not decide upon taking so perilous a step.
Lord Cairns in moving his amendment, combated the
assertion of the Government that there never had been
a complete scheme of reform such as the Opposition
now required. That assertion, he contended, had no
other foundation than the fact that different portions
of the United Kingdom had been dealt with by dif-
ferent bills, because each of those bills either contained
a redistribution scheme in itself, or was accompanied
by a measure of redistribution. He cited Lord
Derby and Lord Hartington its authorities
against the course taken by the Government
in this instance. If the Government were prepared
to accept an amendment that this bill should not
come into operation sooner than their Redistribu-
tion Bill, they had only to say so ; but as they had re-
fused that amendment in the House of Commons, the
postponement to the Committee stage of such a reso-
lution would be only to postpone the issue on the bill.
He believed in the sincerity of Mr. Gladstone's pro-
mise to bring in a Redistribution Bill next year, but
circumstances might defeat his intention. He believed
in the sincerity of the right hon. gentleman's promise
to give the House of Commons a day for the Vote of
Censure; but the day was not given, and Mr. Gladstone
was reported to have complimented his supporters on
their good sense in bringing about that result. Having
pointed out that those political organizers who were
masters of the situation might tell the Government
that they were quite satisfied with the extension of
the franchise without a Redistribution Bill, he said it
was stated that their lordships were going against the
country. They appealed to the country, and asked to
be judged by the country. Tis.ey had received a con-
siderable quantay of advice and some menace. The
latter had come mainly from one quarter, and, coming
from that quarter, it was neither fitting nor constitu-
tional. He asked their lordships to be neither deterred
by menace from supporting his amendment nor pro-
voked by menace to support it if they did not think it
was one which the House ought to approve. He
placed it before their lordships in the belief that it
would meet with the approval of the great majority of
their lordships, as he believed it would that of the
country.
The Duke of Argyll, in an earnest speech, called on
the independent members of the House to support the
second reading. While admitting that would be de-
sirable to have a Redistribution Bill before them, he
held that the effect of the Franchise Bill of itself must
be to increase the power of the county voters. Judging
from speeches made some time ago by two of the
Radical members of the Cabinet, he felt sure that it
was not without difficulty the majority of the Govern-
ment had succeeded in bringing forward so moderate a
measure. He expressed his opinion that if the House
rejected the measure because it was not accompanied
by a Redistribution Bill, its action would be misunder-
stood and misrepresented.
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon objected that
the present bill, without redistribution, would swamp
the existing constituencies by a mass of voters of the
lowest class, and argued that a House of Commons so
elected would be most unlikely to agree to any fair
measure of redistribution.
The Earl of Jersey, while agreeing that the House
would only be discharging its duty in taking care that
a measure of a greviously one-sided character should
not be passed, objected to the amendment, because it
was tantamount to the rejection of the bill.

The Earl of Fife and the Earl of Powerscourt spoke in
favour of the second reading, while Lord Balfour of
Burleigh, Lord Torrington, and Earl Stanhope sup-
ported the amendment.
Earl Cowper hoped that the amendment would not be
persisted in as its adoption would be highly unfor-
tunate, if not dangerous.
The Marquis of Waterford protested against placing
political power in Ireland in the hands of those whose
only idea of politics was hatred of England, and
avowed that he had not the slightest confidence in
any redistribution which Mr. Gladstone was likely to
propose.
Lord Fitzgerald warned their lordships that the
probable consequence of adopting the amendment
would be an agitation resembling in its incidents that
which attended the last Reform Bill.
The Earl of Dunraven, while favourable to the
extension of the franchise, regarded the passing of the
bill without redistribution as fraught with danger.
The Duke of Marlborough expressed surprise that so
astute a tactician as the Marquis of Salisbury should
attempt to precipitate a dissolution upon a bill of this
kind; and after speeches from Earl Cadogan in support
of the amendment, and the Earl of Morley in favour of
the bill, the debate was adjourned on the motion of the
Earl of Carnarvon.
Their lordships rose at five minutes past twelve
o'clock.