The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-04-05 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

Lord ELCHO, in a few remarks upon his speech on
Monday, gave (as he intended) an opportunity to the
Solicitor• General to explain certain expressions he had
used in reference to Lord J. Russell—nainely, "politi-
cal aggrandizement and private advantage," which some
friends of Lord John, he said, thought were injurious
to his personal honour and private character; with
which explanation Lord John was perfextly satis-
fied. . .

The iidijourned debate upon the second reading of
the Representation of the People Bill was resumed
by
Mr. DU CANE, who observed that there wan nothing

. -
in Conservative principles to prevent a Conservative
Government from making such alterations in our repre-
sentative system as the spirit of the age and the gruwing
intelligence of the people seemed to demand, and he
could not join in a Resolution meant to express a want
of confidence in the Goveniment, and which, in ita
. .

terms, was ?ague and inexplicit.
Sir R. PEEL said, the Bill pretended to amend the re-
presentation, but while it unsettled the existing system,
it did not admit to the franchise any portion of the indus-
trious classes; it disfranchised the borough freeholders,
it retained the small boroughs, and it introduced the
objectionable scheme of voting papers. The Reselution
contained principles not found in the Bill, and he called
upon the House, if it desired a measure of reform
founded upon true priciples, to confide the task to other
and abler hands.
Mr. GA/UCCLE said there were many provisions of the

Bill to which he was unable to assen.t. At tile nine
tiuie, he could not vote for the Resolution, which raised
a false issue. If the Bill was faulty it might be
amended ; if incurably bad, let it be rejected; but he
refused to vote for a vague Resolution.
Mr. SLANE"' cordially thanked the Government for
giving personal property a claim to representation, and
for lowering the franchise in counties; but, as the Bill
disfranchised the freeholders in boroughs, and did not
lower the franchise for boroughs, he should vote for the
Resolution, though he did not wish to destroy the

Bill.
Mr. E. EuturoN, although there were several parts of
the Bill to which he objected, should vote for the
second reading. The settlement of the question should
be, in his opinion, the great object to be sought.
Mr. Cosserr said he should vote for the second read•
ing of the Bill, which contained matters not found in
any other Bill, and was not only wide in its scope, but
admitted of the most extensive changes ; it even opened
the question of voting by ballot. He regretted that it
did not provide for • larger admission of the labouring
classes; but if the Bid was bad in this respect, the
Resolution was quite bare; it said nothing as to the ,
admission of these classes.
Mr. Coti:in spoke in defence of the Bill, insisting that
in the direction of enfranchisement its provisions were
liberal.
Mr. WESTERN Should Tote for the Resolution, be-
cause be thought the provision in the Bill 'thick
destroyed the second vote of the town freeholder was
detrimental to the popular interest • becimse, when the
Bill created new votes, it introduced a foreign element
and because it did not lower the borough franchise.
Mr. W. HODGSON supported the Bill, in which he saw
matters to which lie objected, but none that might not
be altered and amended in ommuittee. He was a good
deal surprised, he said, at hearing Sir J. Graham state
that the ballot had made rapid progress at Carlisle. He,
on the contrary, was assured that it had made no pro-
gress whatever.
Mr. WY', ILL said he should vote for the second read-
ing of the Bill, believing that, if it were rejected, no
measure of Reform would he passed !Ins session.
Mr. HUDSON spoke in favour of the Bill and against
the Resolution, which he considered to have been brought
forward for • party purpose.
Mr. WALTER stated the reasons which induced him to
vote against the second reading of the Bill, and to
abstain from voting for the Resolution. The whole
question of the suffrage was a serious and difficult one
and lie did not see on what ground, if the franchise were
reduced below £l.O, they weld stop short of household
suffrage. He should be sorry, he said, if the result of
this discussion should be the resignation of the Ministry;
lie saw no reason why they should not withdraw this

Bill and bring in another.
Mr. GRAINALL opposed the amendment.
Mr. GILPIN said Ike should vote for the Resolution.
The Bill was no Reform Bill at all, and if Ike were asked
whether be would have this Bill or nothing, be would
say he 'would prefer nothing.
Mr. 11ti1.K% said he had listened with great attention
to the whole of the debate, and if he had neard anything
to "hake his opinion he should nut hesitate to say so.
This was, in his opinion, • very large measure,—large in
itself and in the principle it contained, lie pnceeded
to analyse the Bill with great niinutenese of criticism,
stating his objections to it. Ile concluded with a strong
denunciation of all changes that would assimilate our
mixed constitution to that of America on the one hand,
or that of France on the other.
Mr. Roettece said, they were about to reform the
Reform Act, and the questions were—what was it that
required
eefgorrelali abtlultlinwtFiree :InumearetWofatlt: was
the exclusion from power of the working classes. Those
classes had since been increasing in intelligence, show-
ing themselves worthy of participating in power with
the other classes, and the two great objects of any
Reform Bill were, to extend the suffrage to the work-
ing classes, and to regulate the distribution of the
electoral bodies. Did the Bill of the Government
attain either end? He believed that it would be any-
thing but satisfactory to the working classes ; but he
believed, in opposition to Mr. Bright, that good could be
got from the Bill. He proceeded to oonaider how this
could be done passing under review the merits, as
Reforniers, of ford Palmerston and Lord J. Russell, ex- I
preasing no implicit confidence in either ; and asked the
Governtnent whether, if the lull went into committee,
and the House enacted that the borough franchise should
be k'fi, the county franchise being £lO, they would accept
this alteration? If they would, lie said, he was ready
to vote for the second reading of the Bill.
The CNA:MALLON of the LACHE4UXII said, this Bill
was founded upon three great principles,—first, that the
constituent body of the country should be increased by
the introduction of • large number of persons, making
as great an addition to the constituency as was made by
the Act of 1832. The second great principle was, that
large communities would be entitled to direct representa-
tion in that House. The third great principle was, that
the 11111 maintained generally the present borough
spitetil of representation. Them were the principles of I
the Bill ; all the rest was matter of detail only, to be
properly discussed in the committee. In reply to Mr.
Roebuck, he said, to every proposition, irrespective of
the three principles. the Government would give a
candid consideration ; but he declined to pledge himself,
before any discussion took place, to adopt whatever
decision the committee might mine to—• demand that
was unreasonable. The Resolution contained only
points of detail which ought to be considered in the
committee. Ile denied that there was any disfranchise-
ment in the Bill ; but, admitting there was, Lord J.
Russell had been the proposer of wholesale disfranchise-
talent. In considering the other point in the Resolution
Mr. Disraeli entered upon ii wide field of discussion,
compndiending the subject of the county occupation
franchise, and insisted upon the inipractibility of
proposing a U 0 franchise, which would have led to the
very struggle now taking place. With regard to the
extension of the borough franchise, he adverted to the
variety of opinions expressed in the House as to the
limit of that extension, and to the absence of
any details in the Resolution. He amid not
look, he said, at what was called reduction
of the franchise in boroughs without great alarm, and he
had never met any argument that eneountered the ob-
jections he urged against it. On the other hand, he in-
sisted that the objections to the maintenance of the £lO
borough franchise were either groundless or illusory.
Ile contended that the entrance of the working daises
would be facilitated by the Bill, and that the argument,
that the consequences of the change introduced by the
Bill would lead to electoral districts, might be urged
against the existing systetn. He addressed a serious ex-
postulation to Lord J. Russell, to whose recollection he
recalled the instances and the manner in which he had
overthrown preceding Administrations, and he re-
proached hitu with choosing a moment so serious as the
present for a party attack which had been most ember-
rasing to the Government, declaring, as a man and a
Minister, that he had produced injurious effects upon
the public service. He concluded with a rapid review of
the measures of the present Government in relation to
domestic and foreign policy, and, with reference to what
had been suggested regardmi‘• dissolution, he observed
that, if the servants of the een should find themselves
upon the hustings before t sir constituents, he had
that confidence in a great and generous nation that it
would not forget the difficulties under which the pre-
sent Government had succeeded to the administration of
affairs, nor what they had accomplished. It was a con-
viction in the justice of the people of England and a be-
lief in the power of public opinion that had sustained
them during this struggle, and sustained them at that
moment.
Upon &division the motion that the Bill be " now "
read • second time was negatived by 330 to 291—•
majority of 39 against the Government.
The Resolution was then put, when
Mr. WY tu moved as an amendment to add, "and that
at any election of • member or members to serve in
Parliament the votes shall be taken by ballot."
Mr. H. BERILICLEY rose amidst much confusion; he de-
clined to support the motion, as nut being brought for-
ward at a proper time and in • proper manner.
Mr. M. OINNON and Mr. CLAY In Pain endlNlVolleed
to be heard, and the latter moved the adjournment of
the debate; but this motion was negatived, and the
House divided upon Mr. Wyld's amendment, which
was neWived by 328 to 98.
The Rssolution was then agreed to.
The Howe adjourned at 10 minutes to 2 o'clock until
Monday.