The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

ROUSE. OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
The Speaker took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.

THE BRISTOL ELECTION.
The Clerk read the report of the judge who tried the
Bristol election petition, stating that Mr. Robinson was
not duly elected.

PRESS ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. P. A. TAYLOR gave notice that on Monday he
should ask whether the attention of the First Commis-
sifter of Works had been called to the insufficient accom-
modation for the Reporters both as regarded space and
ventilation.
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES' ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
HARDCASTLE moved the second reading of this bill.
Ile sought to repeal certain clauses in the Representation
of the Peoples' Act of 1867 and 1868, which had the effect
of Partially disfranchising the voters in certain urban and
aural constituencies in England and in Scotland. In
BPeaking of the effect of the minority clause, he said that
the result of the general election had not been what was
anticipated. The clauses which he wished to repeal he
Characterized as a dodge, for the purpose of giving a large
minority in certain constituencies, the power which ought
Properly to belong to the majority.
Mr. CoLLINs moved "the previous question," and said
that the effect of the bill was not simply to take away
ithe power of minorities in certain cases to return mem-
°era, but it likewise re-enacted an exploded system of
triple representation, that was to allow electors in
certain constituencies to vote for more than two
Members. This was a complete novelty in English
representation, a novelty introduced in 1832, which
had been virtually condemned ever since its
introduction. If they repealed the minority clause they
Would practically, in his view, disfranchise 800,000
electors. He believed that the principle of the represen-
tation of minorities prevented politics from stagnation.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that the hon. member who
had just sat down objected to the innovation of 1832, and
appeared to think that it was a principle of the Constitu-
tion that no person should be allowed to give more
than two votes. But there were instances
in the Parliamentary system as it existed before
1832, in which more than two votes were given. The city
of London, for instance, by a privilege enjoyed for cen-
turies, returned four members to the House ; and an
insignificant borough, probably from accidental causes,
returned four members. There was no doubt that
minorities ought to be represented, and they could not
conceive a more detestable government than the repre-
sentative system, which should simply sum up
and ascertain the opinion of the majority, and treat
as nothing the opinion of the remaining portion.
Mr. Gladstone went on to argue that minorities were
represented, and then briefly stated the reasons which
induced Parliament to incorporate the minority clause in
the Act for the Representation of the People. At the
time it was passed, a majority of the members of that
House did not conceal their disapprobation of it. After
the experience of the working of the clause, there must
be very few indeed who thonght that Parliament was
likely to go on with the extension of the minority clause.
lie expected that there were those among the supporters
of the clause in 1867, who now seeing the improbability of
its extension might admit that it was untenable in its pre-
sent position, and therefore had better be parted with.
The Act of 1867 would, in his opinion, stand better and
firmer upon its foundation after this extraneous and
Peculiar introduction had been dismissed, than it did now.
He did not think that the motion of his hon. friend had
the slightest tendency to produce a general disturbance of
the subject of Parliamentary representation, and he
should give the bill his cordial support.
Mr. MORRISON seconded the previous question. He
thought the time for bringing forward the measure was
inopportune, and he said he did not agree with the Prime
Minister that the member for Bury had only raised a
small question. The minority representation gave the
electors a greater liberty of choice, and he argued, at
great length, in favour of proportional representation,
referring to the movement on the Continent and in
America in relation to the subject. The great principle
of representation which they should aim at was
that the minority should be represented in the sense that
it should be heard on all questions ; but they should take
means to secure as the result that the majority should
rule, and in support of this view the hon. member in-
stanced the system adopted in the free cities of Italy and
of the ancient world. He remarked that hereafter the
Ho
, nee would have to consider questions of greater
importance in their ultimate result than any they
had yet considered, and chief amongst these
would be the question of capital and labour.
Hitherto the working men had failed to secure a repre-
sentation of their interests by a bona fide artisan represen-
tative, and to satisfy their aspirations on this subject it
was necessary that they should send their own nominees
to the House. It was on this ground that he found so
many working men advocated some system of proportional
representation.
Mr. J. HARDY supported the previous question.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he should vote against the
second reading on the ground of the extreme inexpediency
of attempting now to repeal provisions which were in-
serted in the Reform Act of 1867 by an arrangement
between the two Houses without any pressing or urgent
necessity. There was no great interest taken in the
matter by the House, and he was not aware that there
was a sense of wrong or a grievance among the people
which required immediate attention on the part of the
Legislature. The clauses were necessary for the effective re-
presentation of minorities. It was impossible to deal
with the subject in the summary manner proposed by the
Member for Bury.
Mr. WALTER protested against the question being re-
opened in the present session. The subject, he considered,
formed part of a much larger question of the general
electoral system of the country. In his opinion, it was
only when there were more than two members returned
that the system of giving the minority the power to return
a member was justifiable.
Mr. GRAHAM supported the bill.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, in the interest of freedom, urged the
Rouse not to depart from the principle of the representa-
tion of minorities.
Mr. DODSON remarked that purely on the majority
system they got a monotony of opinion, accompanied
by great voting power emanating from a few centres.
.0n
the other hand, if they were to returnmembers onthe ram°.
ritY system they obtained an antagonism of opinion of the
roost undesirable kind, because it was apt to be tinged with
the colour of local disputes, and they got into the House a
Paralysis of power. There was no reason why they should
Stop at three or more. members. The tendency of modern
civilisation was to concentrate the wealth into centres,
and there was no reason why the inhabitants of large
towns should not ask for five or six, or
'4IT, more members. It appeared to him that
e was a rough justice and common sense in the
old system of representation under which important con-
stituencies returned two members, whilst less important
Constituencies returned onl one. He was not prepared
voteto
„After some remarks from Mr. Buxton,
311-r• FAWCETT defended the representation of minorities,
411.11,,strongly opposed the second reading of the bill.
se'YIr..RATHBONE said he had been in favour of the repre-
ntatton of minorities long before it was introduced into
to Act of Parliament. He urged that the system should
a_Z,O a long trial before any final step was taken.
DISRAELI thought the best course for those to
athewho agreed with him was to support the motion for
e Previous question. He justified the course he had
'1
adoptedunder
on former occasions when the subject had been
der consideration because then, as now, lie was against
"313, of these refined' and fantastic arrangements for the
representation_ of the people. He thought that it would
unwise after so brief an experiment to pass a bill for
dal repeal of that upon which there was yet no reliable
of 44,. He thought itwould be better to accept the motion
hon. member for Boston, because it committed the
T,lse to no principle, but only delayed the consideration
of
'oe matter until some further information was gathered
on the subject.
Mr.
• HENLEY supported the second reading, because it
bill.
sought to get rid of that which he looked upon as a
greati mistake in the representative system of this country.
• HIBBERT supported the second reading of the

Colonel L. LINDSAY said he should vote for the amend-
ment of the hon member for Boston, because it would
ng about that which he wished, namely delay before
aili
nY final result was arrived at on a subject upon which
great doubt still existed.
11 a division " that the question be now put " there
aPPeared
Ayes lBl
Noes lBl
Therewh was some excitement at the result of the division,
lei' was increased on the Speaker giving his vote with
the aYes.
- Rouse then divided on the question that the bill be
j4()Nv read a second time, when there appeared—
For the second reading . 175
Against it

Majority against the second reading ... 8
ad
A Turned at The other orders were then disposed of, and the House
six o'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PRESS-THIS MORNING.

THE EDUCATION BILL.
The State, observes the Times, in discussing the Edu-
cation Bill, finds a work to be done, which it must do in
some fashion or other. Tne religious people will not act
in concert by merging their differences ; nor is there any
body willing or able to do all the work. So there are
thousands, and tens of thousands, and, what seems a
still more hopeless case, scores, and tens of scores, of
children growing up without instruction, or with
instruction which is a name and not a thing.
Where this is the case, and where evidently a burden
is thrown on the State, the only conclusion yet dis-
covered is that the ratepayers shall be empowered
to provide schools. But here comes the specific form of
the difficulty upon which good peoole are at once so sen-
sitive and so useless. Ratepayers are a well known in-
stitution. They have managed to put themselves rather
forward of late years, till there are men who would
have no objection to face a line of battle, a
battery, a House of Commons, or a town hall,
but who would rather not make an observation in a
parish vestry. The ratepayer is the terror of the age ;
he is the only being who achieves victories without
cost, and exhorts surrender without compromise.
Everything gives way to him, and the only bounds 1
to his successes are the enjoyment he evidently derives
from the sport itself, apart from the value of the prey. If
a new tax is to be imposed on the ratepayer, nothing is
more certain than that it must be for a purpose entirely
and to every jot and tittle in accordance with his
wishes. Unless ratepayers are quite agreeable, and unless
they first agree among themselves, it will be simply impos-
sible to make them maintain a school. They have carried
this point as to the higher institution, the Church itself,
and the school follows as matter of course.