The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-03-29 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

The adjourned debate on the Representation of the
People Hill was resumed by
Mr. (Winos, who said the speeches from the Treasury
Bench were deficient in one material particular ; they
had not stated, supposing the House el Id adopt the
Hill, whatiolvantage would bee inferred upon the country,
and what improvements would be introduced into the eim-
stituency of England awl Wales. He should appro.ch
the consideration of this measure, I ght forward by
the Conservative party, without any prejudice ; but he
W 5 s not prepared to pass ally ineasule which he conceived
to be injurious or imperfect. What, then, did the
Government repo:, to effect? lie did not call this a '
It.•forin Hill, but a measure to operate in a peculi..r and
note! manner upon the county and boroligh constituen-
cies ; and he asked the Government what good the
country would derive from a £lO county ocenvation
franchise, coupled with the cone.ition that freeholders in
boroughs el Id be deprived of their county fraischiw ?
Ife believed that what Was propo•ed to he I lone for the
counties would be iiijorions to thela as a whole ; and,
with regard to the boroughs, it was an ahar.siiuig idea
that • set of non vesident voters sl Id be created, awl
means he thereby ;Monied of manufacturing borough
votes. This was not reform ; it would produce universal
dissatisfaction ; and was it not better, instead of killing
such a Hill by a *low process, as proposed by Mr. Hors
-
man, to slaughter it at once by adopting the amend-
' nicht ? rhis was the fairest course towards the tlovern-
ment as well as to the Millie.
i 1 r. A umliCmtiri observed, that the issue now plainly
Mole the Milts, Was between two broad principh•s,--
first, tic' extension of the electoral franchise on the blobs
of qual.fication, with a test lif fitness, namely. prolwrty ;
Second, itm extension without limit, as is matter of equal
right to all citizens, that is on the 1i.144 of numhers.
Which of these principles, he asked, dill Lord .1. Ituoell
adopt ? Ile fluctuated between both ; hi. Was said to lie
" ill the same boat" with the advocates of the latter
principle, whereas in his speech lie hail declared for •
property .ittalification. Thu Bill was leue4l upon the
first principle, but it provided by the savings.bank suf-
frage for the indefinite extension of the franchise to the
working classes. Mr. Aiblerley then discussed the
amendment, replying to the objection of Lord .1. Russell
that the Bill interfered with the fierliolil franchise in
boroughs, and Was a violation id prescriptive rights. Ile
denied that either prescription or right (thus artfully
brought into juxtaposition) hail any meaning in a a.
' With a vote, awl contended that the Hill merely ail-
justol the balance between urban and ty influence,
disturbed since the Rill of 18:12. iii coliellision, he warned
. .

thq• !bei,.c that this wa•i, perhaps, the last, the golden ;
opportunity it hail of standing upon the principle of pro- I
perty, observing that it was a grave matter for the
omisiderstil.ll of the great Whig party, whe-
ther, agteeing as they did with the present Unvernment
upon that principle, they would hand over this question
to a party that demanded the electoral franchise without
limitation and founded only upon number's.
Mr. Colltellded that the Cover:intent, in
bringing forward • measure of Reform hail no right to
fetter the Rill with conditions which rendered it impos-
sible for the House to accept it, and that the amend-
ment, the adoption of which would be fatal to the Bill,
Was reasonable and proper. lie COlldelelled the new
, device of uniformity of franchise ; lie insisted that no
plea had been made out for the disfranchisement of the
borough freeholders, and dwelt upon the mischievous
facilities offered by the 441111616011 of -resident

voters.
Mr. BENTINCK, though dissenting from some of tile
dmaita of the Bill, would support the second reading.
his chief object to the Bill was that it did not grapple
sufficiently with the injustice clone to the counties,
which were tout fairly represented. Ile regarded this
contest. lie sail, as i nitre political soil party struggle,
soil, after reading • lecture to Lord .1. Rusuell upon his
dealings with this question, called upon hint to declare
distinctly what were his VieWS anil laaelltalaS respect-
ing Reform, adding that it haul heen asserted that there
was to be a coalition, and that lie and Mr. Bright were
associate.l,—a statement which drew fr.alb Lord J. Kali-
sell an emphatic " No."
Mr. W. 1/ExiMA.N isUppOrted the amendment.
Mr. laWaa KiNli said this Bill so spoilt and inuti•
hated his measure for reducing the county franchise that
he could not give it his support. Rix Ihll disfranchised
nobody ; this Bill deprived • whole class of the fran-
chise. The Bill professed to be a Reform Bill, but
he should have expected that any (lover 1111 l rot which
thought it right to ',wpm* a Reform Bill in IMifi would
have adopted the same principle as that of 11432,
and that certain small boroughs would hue included in a
schedule A ; whereas they were carefully preserved in
this Bill. There were four points which should be
found in • Reform Bill, but which in this Bill was defi-
cient—the disfranchisement of small and insignificant
boroughs, the enfranchisement of large towns, the ex-
tetisi 111 l of the county franchise, and the extension of
that for the boroughs au as to admit the workiug
classics.
Mr. Di:ll'oN, though lie agreed in the substance of the
resolution, yet, as it could be incorporated with the
Bill in the Committee, should vote againat the amend-
meet, Mal for th, second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Fox ob,,erve.l that they hail heard strung
laudation of the middle classes, which Calla, very ohlly
f those who had imposed measures for the benefit of
those clineles. The middle classes were now anxious
that the working classes should be admitted to the fran-
chise, and he had always regar.h.sl • Reform Bill as •
measure for their eisfranchieement.to is hich all had been
looking year after year. Is his opinion, they might be
safely trusted, not as governors of the country, but to
support the men who were to govern it, lie treated the
apprehension that if these classes were enfranchised
all power would 'Mal into their hands as • users
chimera.
Mr. HOPI:, after a critical analysis of the reisolution,
defended the inovision in the Bill regarding the borough
freeholders, the oppueition to which he eonsidervil sit
attempt to get up a grievance, which Was only • 'rho
mice on paper. With respect to the claims of the
working classed, he alibi, granting their morality and
their intelligence, the franchise that would give them
the preponderating Influence of number% with their in.
piety knowledge of political *ciente, would make
them tools in the hands of others to advance the due.
trines of Sucialion. his should support the second
reading of the Bill, he said, as it did not ',rowed upo9
high theoretical principles, but went to wurk in • me.
Oval manner.
mv, thiamine: Pahl he thought the Oovernment had
fully redeemed the pledge they gave last year, but that
it would have been hitter If they had proceeded In •
larger and inure liberal way to settle this qui...hint, fur
utiles,' It was eettled upon a peritionent hails it would be
better not to bring In a Reform 11111 at all. Why was •
Rufm•iss 1011 celled fur? Thu Act it 1•32 was defective
In totally .iiiiitting the grist hotly of the working
classes from the franoliive, and If a Reform Bill was
wantiml stall It was to mime this grievance. Did the
11111 propose to du It? ill, B. Lytton had eaproesly told

the lion Unit he declined to admit the working men to
power, and they wile never recognized in the Bill,
except, when they were to he disfranchised, as the dock-
yard labourers. Neither the lodging•house franchise nor
the s,vings-bank franchise would ashuit working men ;
the Covernment did not want then, to get it. Then the
13 11 would disfranchise the noble body of borough free-
holders. In reviewing the reasons urged against the
amendment. Mr. Osborne passed s • severe strictures
nisei the speeches of Mr. Montanan and the ,bilicitor-
lfeneral. and, in conclusion, denounced the Bill as an
act of spiolation awl injustice, a change without pro-

Mr. W.ti.rote began by obeerving that it was &Mr-
side to endeavour to conic to a settlement of a most dif-
ficult question, awl not to keep it in etispenee for another
qsr,, As to the measure before the House, when a
in aerial alteration was to he made in the constitution,
the fir d duty of Parliament was to see what practice'
grievances existed, or what defects required to be sup-
plied, and how these evils might be remedied in such •
mainier as to harm tttt ise with our existing inatititutions.
This was the 00110:0 MINIM! in 1832. The grievance*
might he classed under three heads—first, that the right
of voting was not extended to all who were entitled to
a vote ; 'wound, that some plates were either not repre-
sented, or not adequately represented ; and third, that
the right of voting could not be exercised fairly and
easily. Upon the last head Mr. Walpole cordially
supported the proposition of the Government. with cer-
tain mialitieations, sd voting papers. Upon the second
, head lie condemned the disfranchisement of small
I boroughs, except in cases of proved corruption or nomi-
nation.
Mr. Butiiiir, after declaring that, if he was found
acting with Lord .1. Russell, it was only because Ise
believed the course Lord John was taking was 'Wean-
tageou* to the country, observed that the objects in
view in a Reform of the repreantation were two—first,
to give the elective franchise to a considerable class not
HOW enfranchised ; and, second, to give the country a
larger, freer, and more independent constituency. How
did the Bill meet this cue? If it did not meet the case
it was not a Itehirm Bill, awl the Boum" would fail in its
duty if it countenanced the meaeure. Appealing to
figttree, he contended that the Bill would disfranchise
rahtgal of the best electors in the kingdom, and that its
object was to make the representation in counties inure
exclusively territorial then at present. No man, believed
lie said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought
this the beat Ihll for the country ; no, it wax hallos' to
satisfy the prejudice's, and scruplee, and fears of the MO
country gentlemen behind 1 . Referring to the email
hormighx, lie argued that, under the Bill, there would
IV Do liuzuit to the a ~,,, unt of corruption in them. the
re.ident voters being 'swamped by the non-iesident.
What, lie asked, would the country say if the Bill was
passed in its present shape ? The House would in ell at
tell the unetifranchised "We don't trust yon." The
savings-bank franchise was the only small dole dealt out
to the great body of the working people of this country.
Ile denied that this was a Reform Bill at all; it was, in
election phraseology, • complete case of personation.
The jesiple who were about to be disappointed hail cum
quered everything they had grappled with hitherto in
arts, manufactures, and everything that created national
wealth, and would they not conquer a much larger
share of political rights than was now offered them ?
The House did not very well understand the great
body of the penile. Large employer' of labour in Man-
cliester and Yorkshire, who had much to lore, had no
fear of the working classes, and MOM in favour of a large
extension of the suffrafe. The Solicitor-Lteneral had
referred to the state of Europe, and had called upon the
House to beware of what they were doing upon this
question. Ile (3lr. Bright) came to • different conclu-
sion. He believed that a substsuitial measure of Reform
would elevate the character of the people, knit together
all hearts, and give within the realm authority to the
decision id Parliament.
The debate, upon the motion of Sir S. NORTHCOTIS,
was again adjourned.
The other orders having been disposed of, the House
adjourned at 10 iiiiuntes to 1 o'clock.

FRIDAY.
On the motion that the Hume at ite rising do adjourn
until Monday,
The SoLICITOR-GEKERAL took this opportunity to
vindicate himself from what lie considered to be an im-
mast cast upon him by Mr. Osborne in the debate of
the preceding night
Various questions were likewise addressed to different
members of the ttovermuent, which, there being a
motion before the House, opened • door to di4etpLni ~,, ,
and the SPEAKER was called upon to expound the rules in
relation to the matter, creating, nut uufrequently, same
apparently irregularity and confusion.
One of these imestiona led to an explanation by Lord
STANLEY regarding the despatch to Lord Canning of the
11th of December.
The (ion for adjournment was agreed to.
The adjourned debate on the second reading of the
Repreeentetion of the People Bill was then renewed.
Sir S. NoRTHC.ETE Doticcd the einharrasainent in which
the Oliverninent, as well as the House, was placed in
relation to this question, sufficiently complicated of
itself, owing, aiming other causes, to (lie IIIeReUTO not
having altogether originated in their spontaneous action,
but in the call made upon them. The embarrassment,
moreover, was increased by the manner in which the
ineaaure hail been met and the issue raised. After sine
ge.ting a variety of reasons in favour of a uniformity
of suffrage for all classes of voters, and citing data to
show that the probable addition to the constituency by
Ow Bill wouhl be one-third, or 300,01.10, be observed that
the I:over:uncut invited the House to deal with this
measure practically; to go into oonituittee„ and there
.li4Cipus any definite proposals for the amendment of a
Bill which contained elements for a settlement of the
question.
Mr. Ca Kim KLI. observed it might be inferred from the
speech of Sir S. Nortlicote that this Bill contained no
single promniition that could be dignified by the title of
a principle ; that it waenot to accomplish any important
practical result, or confer any substantial benefit upon
the country ; hut that it was made to pass. It was a
inexeure lie (Mr. ('ardwell) said, to increase instead of
reducing influence, and to diminish instead of augment-
ing the power of public opiiiiou in that House. It was
a question which lay at the very root of this whole
inesieure, whether the uniformity of suffrage was a
matter of detail or of principle. He contended that
variety of franchise was the ride of the Constitution,
mid that, in order not to unsettle ancient preseripti 111 l ,
a Reform Rill *Muhl deal with tin, county franchise
urconling to the history of (list franchis4, and with the
~,,, ugh franchise according to its own pecuniary hie-
tory If a new great principle were imparted into the
British Conetitidi ~,,, that would bCCOMO a vital and
animated principle, pereading all its peels and affecting
all its iiistitutions Comparing the history uf this
• try with that of other countries, it would be to 1111 l I
that freedom, nut equality, had been the desire of the
British people ; and equality rather than freedom had
been the desire of other tries. The principle of
uniformity was wholly foreign to our Constitution, and
dangerem in its consequences, and, as the Resolution
was favourable to an alteration in both the county and
the borough franchise:, while it was adverse to the prin.
cipal of uniformity, lie should vote for it, and against
the second reading of tlw Bill.
Mr. 1)11111/110NIP said, when the Bill was in Pommittee
lie eliould be neatly to consider favourably the Resolution
of Lonl J. Russell, hut the question now was the
second reading of the Bill. A Reform Bill comieted of
two parte—one, the extension of the suffrege ; the other, '
the disfranchisement of some placee and the enfranehiee-
ment of others ; but bow far the suffrage should bc
extended, and how far disfranchisement and eufranchise.
meld should be carried, were questions of degree, and
had nothing to ilo with the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Mort opposed the second reading of the Bill,
which was impported by
Mr. PACKE, who vindicated it from the charges that
it did nothing for the working daises and that it was
periloUN i 111 l ovation. He gave no opinion as to the
details of the Bill.
Lord 11. VANE noticed the singular contrast between
the conciliatory speech of Sir S. Northoote and the
speeches of Sir 11. Lytton and Lord Stanley. Ile
tl glat 11111 early *ailment of this question desirable,
and, not concurring with the principles of Mr. Bright,
the settlement should, be said, afford some hope of per.
mammy. Ile was of or that the distinction
between the franchise of ty and town should be
preeerved, and that the town freeholders had given •
character to the county elections which should not be
lost. ITIRM the whole, lie considered the measure not
to be of a satisfactory kind, or likely to prove acceptable,
and he ahiiiiuld vote for the amendment.
Mr. S. Wouri.i.v, having put on the vides• notice of a
resolution, thought some explanation of the rimiest was
due to the House. There were, he said, two alteniatives
before thein,--either to vote for the eccond reading of
the Bihl ; or, in substance, though not in form, to reject
it. In the former case, the Bill would be men to
amehilinent t (tee ; but if the amendment was
Adopted, who doubted that it was the intention of the
followers of Lord J. ltuwiell, if not of Lord John himself,
. _

.....
Is, defeat the hill? He agreed with the propositions
contAined in the amendment ; but he thought it would
be more respectful to the Crown and fur the dignity of
the House to adopt his rcsoluti .... , pledging the House,
in obedience to the Speech from the Throne, to proceed to
the consideration of the Govern latent meaaure, but express.
ing an opinion that certain mielifications of its provision!
were indispensable. The Rill he observed, contained
what was good and what was bail ; the former lie would
cherish, the latter he would expunge. He then pro-
ceeded 'minutely to analyse the Bill, premising that the
identity of franchise, though a bad feature, was not its
teal principle, and pointing out what lie regarded as
merits and what as defects and blots in the meallure.
lie adverted, in *inclusion, to the difficulty which would
beset every Ail ... i .. istration at the present day in attempt.
log t. poet a Reform Hill. Now had arrived the time,
he aaid, when the difficulty of carrying on the Queen's
Government appeared ; and lie asked who WAS to give
a Refiinit Bill if the present Government could not?
No other party amid, and Mr. Bright's scheme the
country would nut have. Whatever might be the
result of this discussion, be entreated the Gueeni-
molt, not only if they wanted to settle this question
upon mitt principles, but if they venerated ou r institutions,
to pninie before they resorted to the hasardous step a a
dissolutism.
LOT•i PALMERSTON said he was going to give 111 A cot.-
dial support to the resolution moved by Lord ./. Russell.
Long as the debate had lasted, and as it wax likely to
last, lie could not say that the time and attention which
the Ilouse had bestowed 1111011 the subject had been
entirely thrown away. At the begi tttt ing they had been
I*l to believe that the identity of the auffrage and the
I ilisfranclibiement of the borough freeholders were funds,.
I mental principles of the Bill, but lie rejoiced to hear
Hod the Government held every pad of the Bill to be
Open to consideration iii the t'unimittee, including even
the proposition+ contained in the resolution. When the
preaent Ailininiatration applied themselves to the fra g
of a measure of Reform they would naturally discern
certain defeats and imperfection* in the Act of H 132.
The county franchise roLuired to he lowered, and, upon
further consideration, lie was of opinion that the
borough franchise should be reduced below 1:10. Them
it would be a question whether there should not be
transference of sesta from small eonstituenuiem to unrin
premented plums. l'pun this point lie was not disposed
to quarrel with the Government um:lure ; mid he
assigned reasona why, in his opinion, small boroughs
should be retained. Hut the iloverninent had inserted
In their Hal provisions totally inconiistent with the
principles of the Constitution, committing an act of
injustice against those county freeholders who happened
Is' reside in boroughs, and identifying the town and
windy franchise, therehy ilestniying An ancient prin•
elide of the constitution, which provided for a marked
distinction between them, sod actually establishing
elooterlal &trick. Thu priaalplos of the Bill being so

unjust, the question was whether the measure ought to
he iesisted on the second reading, and that hail been hit
first impression ; but be had since thought the most
expedient. cour.e, under the circumstances. was to pro-
pose the amendment, and the Government ought to
thank Lord .1. Iluasell for relieving them from a serious
difficulty. In considering the courses the Iloveniment
might pursue, be believed they would neither resign nor
reaort to a ili,silution ; and lie felt assured that they
would not adopt the course of I.Landuninz the Bill.
Thry would, to, doulit,feel it their duty ti go on with it.
and would, indeed, be bound, and even compelled, to
conform to the ileession of the Ilinsse,
Mr. WHITEMUI: admitted, with Lord Palmerston,
that Parliament ought to deal with this great quest hit.
on the principles of the constitution. After what hail
helot iliam in the way of Reform, the "Illy I • hh,st
ri mained was whether it ass Hot Imp atria to infuse
m.ue wood into the laaly politic, and esti the area of
representation. The present Ministry haul prairie...l a
ineassin. for these obj-ets, whirl, hail been °Named upon
conflicting grounds, and hail bet ii met by an inscrutable
resolution, to stifle truth and prevent iliiiciission,—a
crafty contrivance, he add, to ilefeat the Bill, and if pos-
sible, the Ministry. The chief ground of attack upon
the Bill wan the uniformity of the suffrage: but if it was
unconatittitional to ansimilate the qualification for the
town and the county franchise, that WAS precisely what
Mr. Locke King bad done, and that was what Lord J.
Russell had proposed to do. Those who hail concurred in
this disfranchisement of the Irish .104. freeholder* were
not, he observed, the ;imams 01 Mel fault with a Kiwi-
awn in thin Bill which liii not abolish or destroy the
franchise of the 40.4. freeholders in Engliali boroughs.
but only regulated the mode of voting. But what, it
was !piked hail been done for the working classes The
Bill did not admit them, as /1011IC &Aired, eI4 moue, with-
out reatriction or finftlification, but it did admit a
large number of thosi classes, and in London the great
bulk of skilled artisans would lIRVe the franchise. To
Lori Palmerston, who had, he said, artfully suggested
that the resolution was never intended to affect the
Bill, that the Government might take the Bill and
amend it, lie gave Oda plain anniver--they would never
take the Bill and that offensive resolution, which was in-
tended for the purpinie of spoiling it.
On the motion of Mr. Jut vs, the debate was again
adjourisiml.
The remaining orders were then disposed of, and the
Illisuae adjourned, at 10 minutes before I o'clock until
Monday.