The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-06 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY, JULY B.

IN the Ho, Nx of (303nm:is, at the morning sit-
ting, the ellANcl.l.l.olt of the ExcIiCQUER, ill reply
40 blr. W. E. Baxter, stated that it was intended
when the English hill for the amendment of the re-
presentation was passed to move the second reading
of the Scotch bill. The house would thereby as-
cent :u the principle of the franchise given in the
bill mid the redistribution of seats, and the details
could be stAtleil at a future time.
The house then went into COnimittve on the Re-
presentation the People Bill, rest. Aug the dis-
cussion on Mr. Lowe's clause to give caintilat've
votes in cases where the constituency returns throe
members.

Mr. LlWlnixr. opposed the clause, denying that it
VI:14 itlicr expedient or necessary minorities
should hi, represented ; and he obiecte.l to it fur-
ther hecauxe it was founded on tile principle of
elms+ retwaientation.
.
. .

Mr. observed that the leaders of the
house could afford to be indifferent to this clause,
because they were sure of obtaining seats. But
other members were differently sitw,tecl, for many
of them lose their seats altogether. He and
many other young members feared the demoralising
effect ..f being onmielled to make thentseh es popu-
lar vith the ',west class of voters.

Mr, Mt.ll.lti ios entirely concurred in the princi-
ple of this clause, and a clause which he had him-
self liven notice of was only to establish another
mode of carrying it out. Be held it t•. be a settled
axiom that the majority should rule, b•t that the
minority should have a hearing.
Mr. Beach thought the proposition was open to
only one objection, that it would place a rather
insignificant minority in a superior position to a
majority. Nevertheless ho thought it ought to be
adopted, and not only for constituencies with three
but for those with two members.
Kir K. Comder: observed that the foundation of
the argument was that the minority of the new
oinstituencies were more likely to be right than
the majority. The principle of the constitution
was that oommun i ties should be represented, but the
effect of this proposition would be that a minority
of one-th;rdfplus one would be equal to a majority;
and a constituency returning three members would
have two members of one opin,,m, and would
therefore practically have only one voice in a divi-
sion.

Mr. Annentair oppmed the clause as establish-
ing an entirely new principle. if a class hail not
sufficient energy to avert itself at elect..us he
would not change the constitution to please
them.

Mr. FAweerr thought that our representative
system ought to be such that all classes hi be
represented by the best and most independent
men, and as this clause would du something to-
wards that end, though it did not go as far as he
should wish it, he should give it his support.
Mr. Nawinsizsys quoted passages from Do
Toejueville, showing the dangers of democracy,
and ho tendered his thanks to Mr. Lowe for hav-
ing brought forward this proposition, which he
considered calculated in some degree to avert those
evils.

Mr. Barenr observed that Mr. Lowe was quite
consistent in making this proposition, but he was
very much surprised that any member on that aide
of the house, and especially the hon. member for
Brighton, who had made declarations in favour of
democracy front which he should shrink, should
support it. He found a great disposition in favour
of new-ftutgled propositions in some minds. He had
no sympathy with them—he never had. He hail al-
ways in viteti the house to march along the ancient lines
of the constitution, and in this measure the house
had hitherto marched along those lines. Mr. Lowe
had spoken of this proposition being to save the
country from the ruin that this measure was to
bring on the country. Ho might as well abstract
a snowball from a falling avalanche with a view to
stop its progress. He regarded this as a monstrous
proposition. Nothing was more calculated to de-
stroy all vitality in the electoral system and to pro-
duce a stagnation of a most unhealthy character in
public affairs.
Lord CRAM sown remarked that the monarchical
principle was dead, the aristocratic principle they
were sentencing to death, and the democratic
principle was triumphant. They must make
up their minds, if they would have one
saw thing, that they must hove other new things to
counteract it. Ho warned the house not to be
deceived by the glamour of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The smaller boroughs would in a
future parliament be disfranchised, and the seats
would go to the larger constituencies. This clause
would enable the minority in those larger consti-
tuencies to bo adequately heard in the House of
Commons, and though small in its immediate
effect, it was great in its ultimate bearings. They
only asked that when they were giving absolute
political power to a class which had never yst had
it, the ocher classes should not be utterly etfaeed,
but should have at least the power of pleading
their cause in the face of those oho would be their
Boasters.

Mr. J. S. MILL said it appeared to him that all
persons should have power in that house in pro-
portion to the power that they exercised out of the
house. The other principle on which he supported
the clause was that he wished the majority to
govern. But if they eliminated the minority out
of the house, and then theyeliminated the minority
in the house, the minority out of the house and the
minority in the house might be greater than the
majority out of the house. What they wanted to
De represented was intelligence. If a member re-
presented a constituency two-thirds of which wore
liberals and one-third conservatives, it was a false-
hood for him to say that he represented the whole
intelligence of the borough. He was anxious that
it should not get abroad that this was a conserva-
tive proposition. The reason why it was said to be
in favour of the conservatives was that it wax really
in favour of those who would be the weakest.

Mr. HISNLEY pointed out that this proposition
would not apply to more than about twelve con-
stituencies. and what was gained in the boroughs
would probably be lost in the counties, and it
would therefore not have any appreciable effect.
Before they adopted a new principle they ought
to he /Satisfied that it would havo a beneficial
effect.

The CHANcELLoicof the Eseneunsa said nothing
could offer a greater contrast than the largeness of
the principle involved in this clause and the small-
ness of its application. If it were a good principle
it should be applied furthur. But if it were applied
to the constituencies with two members, members
of opposite political opinions would be returned by
sub, and the result would be that the government
would be in the hands of the members for Scot-
land, assisted by some of those for Wales. Another
result would be to produce • complete
Ay :nation in the representation, for they