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

THE LORDS AND THE FRANCHISE
BILL.

On Tuesday night the House of Lords was cleared
Zor the division at a quarter-past one, and the result
was not announced until half-past. During the divi-
sion the House was densely crowded, so much so that
the peers who crowded in to vote had to stand in the
gangways and in the spaces near the woolsack and
the table. Among those who voted against the bill
were, in addition to all the leaders of the Opposition,
Lord Brabourne, Lord Dunraven, and the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol. Several bishops, as well
as the Archbishop of Canterbury, voted with the
Government, as .did also the Duke of Marlborough,
Lord Tennyson, and Lord Wemyss. The Duke of
Cambridge, who was in the House up to the close of
of the debate, tetired and did not vote.

The Tines, in a leader, says: The Episcopal Bench
has not always been conspicuous for its readiness to
extend the liberties of the people, but we gladly hail
the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury as an.
augury of better things. He uttered at once sound
Liberalism, sound Conservatism, and sound sense
when he said that he trusts the country, and recog-
nises that not this class or the other, but the good
sense and integrity of the people of England have
made this nation what it is. With one exception, the
bishops present voted for the second reading of the
bill, and in doing so gave evidence of that sympathy
with the mass of the people, which is the surest
foundation for the Church's prosperity. After the
'Lord Chancellor had repeated the warning that the
House of Lords does not occupy strong enough
ground on this question to warrant its opposition to
the Commons, the summing-up of the debate by the
leaders on either side was little more than formal,
Lord Salisbury could add no real strength to a case
logically and tactically indefensible, and Lord Gran-
ville was aware that his final appeal would not alter
a result already inevitable. As hopes of. a compro-
mise have been clung to with tenacity in many
quarters, it may be interesting to note that the second
readirg of the bill is not technically disposed
of by last night's vote. The Duke of Rich-
mond moved an amendment to the Army
Regulation Bill of 1871 of exactly a similar
character to that of Lord Cairns, which was carried
against the Government. But on the abolition of
purchase by Royal Warrant, Lord Granville sug-
gested that the House would probably be glad to go
on with the bill in order to secure compensation to
the officers. The second reading was accordingly
proceeded with as if no adverse vote had been given.
In that case, however, the Government had an excel-
lent opening for giving the House of Lords another
opportunity, while in the present case it is difficult to
see what they can do consistent with self-respect to
reopen the debate.

The Daily Telegraph says: The debate has been
conducted from first to last on a feigned issue. It has
been represented as a conflict upon a matter of high
policy, whereas it was really a struggle upon a point
of Parliamentary tactics. Neither side has ventured
to meet the demand of the other with a direct re-
fusal, while each side has manceuvred to throw upon
the other discredit of seeming to pronounce such a
refusal and thereby wrecking the bill. When the
Opposition have claimed that the operation of the
measure should be postpcned until after redistribution
had been effected, the Government have replied by
calling upon them to prefer their claim in the
form of an amendment in Committee. And
upon its being rejoined that the Government have
already rejected this claim in the House of Commons,
and are bound to make some overt sign that they are
now willing to admit it, the Ministerial answer, ex-
pressed or implied, ha's been that it is the duty of
the Opposition to assent to the second reading first,
and to formulate their demands afterwards. The
question, therefore, between the two parties has been
reduced to a very narrow issue indeed; and it is of
such a nature as to go far to divide between them the
responsibility for the rejection of the bill. The
Conservative peers have all along relied upon the
hope that their vote would be popularly recog-
nised as implying no hostility to the principle of
the measure. They are entitled however, to go
further, and to urge that the bill has not even
been lost because they proposed to attach to it a con-
dition to which Minisi.ers were unwilling to assent,
but simply because they could not come to an agree-
ment with their advenaries as to the particular mode
in which this proposal should be made. Could they
succeed in impressing their view on the constituencies
they might undoubtedly look forward, with much
composure to the agitation with which they are
threatened. But whether they are likely to succeed
in this—whether, in other words, the feeling of the
public on the matter of the Franchise Bill is
sufficiently calm to allow of their looking deeper than
the superficial aspect of the Lords' action—we must
wait to see.

The Daily _Yews says: The House of Lords has
audaciously rejected the Franchise Bill by a majority
of 205 to 146. It has thus entered upon a conflict
with the House of Commons and the country which
must end in its being deprived of functions which it
is incompetent to discharge, and of privileges which it
has abused. The country and House of Commons
will not be the worse for the impudent defiance which
has been flung at them. But the House of Lords
certainly will.

The Morning Post believes the country will learn
without surprise, and also without dissatisfaction, that
the House of Lords has rejected the Ministerial
Reform Bill on the ground that, however excellent its
provisions may be in themselves, the measure is 'n-
complete. The result may, in one sense, be regarded
as unfortunate, inasmuch as it delays the enfranchise-
ment of a numerous class whom the Conservative
Party are no less desirous than the Liberals of admit-
ting to the electorate, but it is the fault, not of
the former, but of the latter that the pro-
posed enfranchisement was effected under conditions
which in the interests both of the new electors, and of
those who have long enjoyed the franchise, and who are
consequently not unworthy of consideration, were
utterly inadmissable. The Lord Chancellor, in a very
eloquent peroration, implored the peers to be cautious,
lest by rejecting the bill they might incur the hostility
of the rural labouring population, and the Marquis of
Salisbury, in summing up the case for the Opposition,
reminded Lord Selborne, and also the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who expressed similar sentiments, that the
Conservative party had the interests of that section of
the community at heart no less than their
political rivals, and that in taking the course
which Earl:Cairns7proposed, the House of Lords would
neither directly nor indirectly raise a barrier against
their admission to the electorate. The extension of
the'suffrage on the lines indicated, and the redistribu-
tion of seats are, as the leader of the Opposition
pointed out, so inseparably connected that it is in the
necessity of things impossible, having regard to the
interests of the nation, to sever the one from the
other. The Government attempted to do so, and they
alone are responsible for the loss of the measure from
which they hoped so much.