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

TtTESDAY.

Leave WAN given toiii.troiluee— -Certain Bills.
The adjourned debate on the Representation of the
People Bill Wls then renewed, with the understanding,
at the suggestion of the Cu ANCELLoR if the EV:HEW:ER,
that it was to terminate on Thuniday.
Mr. Gtaineroxx began by remarking upon the email
substantial difference of opinion upon this subject,
traceable to the antagonism of political parties, which
had appeared in the speeches from either side of the
house; and by expressing his regret that, when there
was such an union of sentiment, they should be ranged
in hostile debate, separating those who were not severed
by broad, conscientious differences. Recurring to the
,likinnia in which the House seemed to be placed, he
re-urged that if they did not pass the Resolution they
were sure of their object; whereas, if it was adopted, it
would not rest with the House to determine the ulterior
step, and the settlement of this question would be re.
tanled. If they went into committee on the 11,11 the
House must act irrespectively of the intentions of those
who had introduced the measure; they must consider
the question in the interest of reform. Having the
matter in their own hands, the House would act wisely
in keeping it there, and in settling this great question
would be left at liberty to address themselves to other
demands upon their time and care.
Mr. Maxima:ire said, the idea of a uniformity of fran•
chise, was an entire delusion. There was no analogy
between the qualifications fur thecounty and the borough
franchise, which had been and ought to be different.
This uniformity was no principle, it was a mere coin-
cidence. The Bill bad been blindly prepared; the
result of it was that it not only. did nut settle the
question, but it dealt with first principles in • retru.
grade spirit.
Mr. Ilminenr PALMER had serious objections to the
uniformity of the suffrage, and saw no reason why the
borough freeholders should be disfranchised. As lie
understood (ruin members of the Government that the
Bill in important particulars was open to amend-
ment in committee, he should vote for the second
reading.
Mr. B. WERTIIRAD, in a discursive speech, supported
the Revolution.
Major Enwmins considered that the good preponde-
rated in the Bill, and should vote for the second reading,
and against the Resolution.
Mr. MACAULAY observed that the principle of the I
Bill, looking at it broadly, WAS to give a wide extension
of the suffrage to the whole community of the country.
The principle was that there should be, or might be in
all constituencies, voters qualified AS owners of his pro-
perty, or by their occupation, or by certain personal
qualifications, and it was the first attempt to reams the
departure from the uniformity established in It4i2.
With regard to the alleged disfranchisement, or confisea.
tion, as it was termed, of borough freeholders, be MU
ready to abide by the principle, though he did not go
the entire length of the Bill upon this point. With
respect to the extension of the borough franchise, there
was one principle in the Bill, and another to be extracted
from the arguments in favour of the Resolution. The
principle of the Bill was the admission into the con.
stituencies by • process of selection. The other principle
was that of admitting into the constituencies a large
and unknown mass, with the hope and chance of the
mass, including, perhaps, all that were described its the
debate. The last would be an indiscriminate admission ;
whereas the selection in the Bill WAS intended to be
made by a test which would ascertain the fitness of the
party for the franchise. The Government had been
taunted with bringing in this measure, being in a
minority; but he asked which of the three sections in
the House were not in a minority, or that approached in
1111 l ober' the party supporting the Government! A
large numerical part of the Opposition, lie observed,
were voting for the Resolution on some ground or (ruin
some motive in furtherance of the views of the manlier
for Birmingham. Ile believed the principle of the Bill
was good, and should vote for the Bill and against the
Resolution.
Mr. Metina condemned the conduct of the Govern-
ment in introducing • Bill which they did not atteuipt
to defend. AII they said was "Go into Committee ;
make what alterations you please in the Bill, and when
Ithe House shall have decided upon the alterations, we
will see whether we can agree to them". lie objected

"I'
to voting for the second rest mg upon such terms. The
Resolution was not only convenient in form. but, if the
Govennnent were sincere, they might adopt it, fur there
was nothing in it to destroy the Bill.
Mr. llsaiiv, after a critical notice of Lord J. Russell's
. .

,
former propositions on the subject of Reform, adverted
to the iliffieult:es inherent in every attempt to legislate
upon it, and to the antagonistic views developed an the
mum of the debate. In defending the Bill he justified
the equalization of the amount of the qualification for
counties and boroughs, which would still, he said, leave
a distinction of character between the two constituencies;
and with respect to the extension of the suffrage in
boninglis, Lord John, he remarked, had not said how
far he would lower it, and at almost every metropolitan
meeting manhood suffrage was declared for.
Mr. J. Farm:HALL> observed that, if the Govern-
ment were not prepared to extend the franchise further
than was proposed by their measure, he should vote for
the Resolution, even if it defeated the measure,
although that was not, in his opinion, the necessary
consequence.
On the motion of Mr. Du CANS the debate was again
adjourned, after some discussion upon the question of
adjournment, until Thursday.
Several members protested against any arrangement
for terminating the debate on that day, or even on
Friday.
The other orders having been deposed of. the House
adjourned at • quarter to I o'clock,

WEDNESDAY.
Mr. DuNnne, in moving the second reeding of the
Trial by Jury (Scotland) Bill, explained its object,
which was to reduce the time of deliberation of juries
in Scotland, when nine jurors agreed, before a verdict
could be received from the majority, from six hours,
according to the existing law, to three hours, lie
observed that the question was totally distinct from that
of the Bill which had been thrown out in the House of
Lords on the preceding night, verdicts of the majority
being receivable in Scotland in both criminal and civil
cries.
The Lord ADVOCATII cordially assented to the pro-

posed ehange.
No opposition was offered to the Bill, but a short
debate ensued, in which the English jury law came
Incidentally under discussion, and several English
meuibers expressed their regret that the House had been
deprived of an opportunity of considering the question
of the unanimity of juries by the decision of the Lords.
The Bill was read a second time.
Mr. burmrie also moved the second reading of the
Law Ascertainment Bill, which empowered the Courts
of the United Kingdom to send cases from those
in one part to those in another, the judgment upon
which should be conclusive except upon the House of
Lords. .

The LORD ADVOCATE, tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr.
J. FIrLGERALD, and Mr. MALINB supported the
principle of the Bill, which was read a second time.
The House went into Committee upon the Tramways
(Ireland) Bill, the clauses of which were agreed to,
after discussion. . .

--f;;:d-J. Itunstu. moved that the Beribruicc7 and
Insolvency Bill, which stood for committal this day,
be reterred to a Select Committee, espreming • wish
that the Government Bill, which bad pawed the
other House, should be referred to the lame Com.
mittee.,

—tbe ATTOINET•GENZIAL entirely agreed to tbe Doom
proposed, and had no objection to referring the other

Bill, which had come down from the Lords, and had
been read • first time, to the same C ltee.
After 1601110 discussion as to whether the Committee
'Mould take evidence, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. HADFIELD inured the second reading of the Ad-
miralty Court Bill, which would open the practice of
that Court to the proffeesion at large. He complained
that • clense in the Probate and Administration Bill,
which was intended to open the Court, had been struck
out in the House of Lords, and objected to ally fur.
flier compensation to the practitioners in the Admiralty
Court.
Mr. M ALINM corrected certain misapprehensions into
which Mr. Hadfield, lie said, had fallen. No one ob-
jected to opening the Court. but the refusal of compensa-
tion would be a glaring injustice.
The Arrisites:r•GeseitAL did not oppose the second
reading of the Bill. There was no obfeLtion to opening
the Court; the question of compensation, he said, was
premature at present. The Government were instituting
ui ries into thesubjezt, and he suggested that the whole
matter should be left in their hands.
The Bill was read a second time.
Mr. HADFIELD also moved the second reading of the
Charitable Uses Bill, the object of which was to remedy
certain evils and hartbdiips arising out of • construction
of the Mortinain Acts.
The tioueirolt-Gexenat. did not object to the Bill
being read • second time, but there were questions of
lie said, arising out of its enactments, that would
require to he considered with very great care.
The Bill was read a second time.
Thu House then went into Committee upon the
Markets (Ireland) Bill, the discussion of the clauses of
which occupied the remainder of the time allotted to
debate.
The other orders were disposed of, and the House
adjourned at live minutes to 6 o'clock.