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

HOSE OF COMMONS.-MONDA Y.

propomeid,

The sajourned debate on the second reading of the
Representation of the People Bill was again renewed. ,
Mr..l.ie NM, in sumiorting the amendment, observed
that the vital and substantial principles gif the Bill had
found little favour on either side of the House, and that
the Resolution pointed directly to its three main princi•
plea. That Resolution, lie contended, had not been de-
bated upon its merits. The franchise had always stood
on two great principles : the county franchise rested
upon property and territorial rights; the borough fran-
chise had been reoidental ; whereas the Bill would flood
boroughs with non-resident votes. lii conjunction with
the voting papers, this was an essential principle of the
Bill, the real object of which was tc clothe property
with more power. These voting papers would give
freer scope to bribery and fraud, while they would afford
no irotoction against intimidation. This was no matter
of detail; it was, he repeated, an essential part of the
scheme. The Resolution called for • greater extension
of the borough franchise, and the majority of the speak-
era in the debate had been in favour of such extension,
though Sir B. Lyttonliadexhibited an unnecessary dread
of the admission to the franchiseof uninstructed numbers.
In considering what was to be the I lovernment that would
succeed the present, Mr. James remarked that none
would have the confidence of the country unless it were
formed upon a basis different froui that of former Go-
vernments, and he told Lord J. Russell, amidst much
laughter and cheers, that, if lie had to construct an
Administration, it must not be upon exclusive Whig
principles, but upon a much broader basis.
Mr. Bexcuorer, although • supporter of Lord Pal-
merston and the Liberal party, should, upon this occa-
sion, without hesitation, but with regret, vote with the
Government.
_ . .

Lord b.umo, after replying to some comments by Mr.
James upon the letter of Lord Grey, addressed to bitu
(Lord Elcho), observed, upon tl.e general question of the
representation of the peor4e, that he saw no necessity
for any great change, far less for any organic change;
but he coul.i nut say that a change could be resisted,
though he did not believe that there was an earnest
desire for it out of doors. In conclusion, Lord Riche
discussed the alternatives which would present them-
selves in the event of a defeat of the Government upon
this question,—namely, dissolution, which he depre-
cated, or resignation, warning the opponents of the
Ministry against playing& game that would lead to a
coalition between Lord J.-Russell and Mr. Brigl.t.
Mr. ELLICE said, in his opinion, it would be better if
• principle of reform could be agreed upon, to proceed
gradually; but, practically, the House had to deal with
the Bill before it. He thought it • bad measure—essenti-
, ally bad—for its sins of commission and of °imitation.
Nothing was more clear than the principles upon which
the Government ought to have acted; whereas they had
introduced new and monstrous principles, and • scheme
which was nothing short of confiscation.
Colonel Sat yrmi condemned the principle of uniformity
of suffrage, which he said bad never been admitted, and
could not be maintained, and considered that the altering
of the boundaries of boroughs was the first step to the
establishment of electoral districts. The Bill, however,
he said, contained the germs of a good tnessure of re-
I form, and might be improved in the Committee. He
should, therefore, vote for the second reading.
Mr. M. MiLNEB said it was impossible not to see that
• Reform Bill proposed by the present Government
came before the House under great disadvantages, and
he thought they might have waited until • Reform
Bill had come from the other side of the House. They
had, however, preferred to bring forward themselves a

formal and novel measure. He felt bound to vote for
the resolution, though he should have preferred discuss
ing it in co ltee.
Sir J. Gs nail said he wished not to see the day
when it became necessary to reconsider the fundamental
principles of the constitution. The measure of 1832
produced an immense change ; it bad been called &
bloodless revolution ; it took power from the aristoc-
racy and gave it to the middle classes, it object being to
blend property and numbers. Since that period we had
enjoyed better legislation, more prosperity, and less civil
discord than at any other period of equal duration. Upon
the whole, therefore, the experiment had been MUCCCA-
ftiI, and lie hoped that it would have been a final oue.
In this lie had ben C.isappointed, and the object of all
Reformers should lie, when thange was required, to pre-
vent the eseeemity, if pussible, of further alterations.
In this Bill three principles were contained—namely,
identity of suffrage, electorial districts, and voting•
papers—which hail a direct tendency to consequences
most to be apprehended, and it seemed as if the Bill
too clever by half- had been framed so as to obtain
support from every quarter of the House. He avowed
that lie hail hail a share in the resolution; and, avowing
that lie had been quite prepared to vote &gaited the
second reading of the Kill, he explained his reasons for
assenting to proceeding by way of resolution. The Bill
propowil, lie observed, to remedy the imperfections of
the Act of 1832; but its imperfections. so far from
being remedied, were aggravated by this Bill. The .Ict
of 1112 was imperfect in fixing the 1:10 franchise for
boroughs and in providing that the boundaries of the dif-
ferent boroughs should be fixed by Royal Commis-
si ~,, ens ; and this was to be repeated, the operation
being exposed to all the obloquy of the former. After
noticing other objectionable features in the Bill, lie
observed that, if the borough franchise were lowered,
it should be to such • point as would render ulterior
changes unnecessary ; and he said distinctly that, as
the ancient borough franchise rested upon rating, he
was of opinion that the municipal franchise was • good
franchise for the Parliamentary constituency in boroughs.
He had the strongest objection to the proposition of
voting-papers, because lie objected to the ballet; but
lie should not he candid if lie did not state that, in the
place lie represented, no object of reform had made
inure rapid progress than the demand for secret voting.
He lamented it, and was not a convert to it ; but lie
stated it as a fact ; and he was persuaded that the
system of voting•papers would so organize intimidation
and bribery that it would create a general demand for
the ballot. Ile objected likewise to the lodger's vote,
suggesting objections to the other miscellaneous (ran-
chises ; and, in conclusion, lie warne.l the Government
that if they rejected the resolution, which was a milder
course than that of oegativing the second reading of the
Bill, they would incur a heavy responsibility, and must
make up their minds to encounter all the difficulties and
dangers attending that determination.
Sir J. PAICINGTON, in replying to Sir J. Graham,
complained of the course taken by Lord J. Russell in
raising a debate upon an abstract resolution, instead of
meeting the Bill with a direct negative. He had taken
some pains to ascertain from the highest authority how
far the noble lord's proceedings were consistent with
the usual practice of the House, and he had no hesita-
tion in declaring that they were irregular and unpar-
liamentary. The right bon, baronet proceeded to com-
ment upon the objections which had been made to the
Bill, deprecating particularly the !speech of Lord Pal-
menden, who, he said, had adopted a tone of arrogance
altogether unusual between gentlemen who sat oppo-
site to each other in that House. He could look upon his
language in no other light than as wanting in due
respect to the Crown. With regard to the amendment
of Lord John Russell, be (Sir J. Pakington) only at-
tributed it to the persuasion that the noble lord did not
dare to meet the Bill fairly and boldly.
An explanation ensued between Lord PALMERSTON
and Mr. WHITESIDE regarding an incident in Austro-
Italian politics, which had been adverted to in the
debate.
Mr. Gt.seserose moved the adjournment of the
debate, and, after • good deal of discussion, the motion
was agreed to.
'rhe remaining orders were then proceeded with ;
certain Bills were forwarded a stage, and the House
adjourned at five minutes to °le o'clock.