The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-08 00:00:00

SCOTCH AND IRISH REFORM BILLS.

On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de-
bate on the Representation of the People B ill,
Sir JAMES FERGUSSoN moved the folbwing, of
which ho had given notice :—" That the order of
the day for the Representation of the People Bill,
Adjourned Debate en going into Committee,' be post-
poned until after the orders of the day for the Repre-
sentation of the People (Ireland) Bill (second reading), and
Representation of the People (Scotland) Bill (second read-
ing)." He slid he took this course with a view to induce
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) to allow the discussion on
the three bills to take place at the same time, or that the Eng-
lish Refor n should be withdrawn altogether for the present
session. If it was proposed to adopt the latter course he
wouli have had no objection to offer. Or, if the Govern-
ment omitted altogether to deal with the representation
of Scotland and Ireland, he, as a private member, would
not have deemed himself called to make any complaint,
because the Government might see proper reason for that
omission which might not be apparent to a private member.
He considered that the course proposed by the noble lord
was open to the gravest exception, for it proposed to intro-
duce an exceptional mode of legislation with reference to
Scotland and Ireland, which had formed a standing ground
of complaint in these countries. If the English Reform
Bill were passed, and that of Scotland and Ireland post-
poned, the two latter countries would be placed in a very
anomalous position, for a dissolution of Parliament
would follow, and the English members would be
returned under a new and different description
of constituency, while the Irish and Scotch members would
owe their election to the old system of franchise. Now,
this would be a grievance, of which the two countries in
question had to complain, and confining himself
to Scotland, he contended it would be a gross
injustice to Scotland not to increase the number of electors
when population had increased in that country. Suppos-
ing the Parliament dissolved without having passed the
Scotch and Irish bills, there must in common justice be
another dissolution the moment these measures had been
agreed to, and this would bring the houso to annual Parlia-
ments, and all the other more flagrant abuses of strictly
democratic assemblies. The Scotch an d Irish bills wee e
now postponed for three months. Did they believe that
English members would be able to discuss them in three
months, after the toil and anxiety of the discussion on the
English bill ?

Lord J. RUSSELL—The postponement for three months
was equivalent to a withdrawal of the bill.

Sir J. FERGUSSON continued—The last Reform Bill
had dealt kindly with Scotland and so much was that
the opinion of Scottish members, that the member for
Montrose moved an amendment on the ground that the
three countries were not simultaneously dealt with. In
conclusion, he begged to disclaim any party or factious
motive in bringing forward this question, and would state
emphatically that neither his object nor that of his party
was to embarrass the Government.

Colonel DICKSON seconded the motion, and on the part
of Ireland, complained that gross injustice had been
inflicted on the country by the course the Government had
pursued.
Sir G. GREY said that he had not heard the motion with
which the hon. member for Ayrshire had opened his speech.
Now that be had heard it, he was quite at a loss to compre-
hend what relation it had with the two speeches made in
support of it, or how the adjournment of the debate could
assist the object the hon. gentleman had in view, namely,
the earliest possible consideration of the bills for the amend-
ment of the representation of the people for all parts of the
United Kingdom. The hon. gentleman had fallen into a
mistake in assuming that as soon as a bill for amending the
representation either for the whole or a portion of the United
Kingdom, had passed, it would be the bounden duty of the
advisers of the Crown to recommend the Crown to dissolve
Parliament forthwith, in order that the new constituencies
might exercise their privileges. But the passing of the act
did not bring those constituencies into existence at once. A
very considerable interval must elapse before the claims of
persons entitled to registration under the new law could be
taken into consideration, and if this bill were passed before
the close of the present year, it would be impossible until
the close of the next year, after the registration had been
completed, that they could exercise their new privilege.
Sir J. FERGUSSON said that he did not mean to assert
that he believed a dissolution must take place, but that the
conduct of the Government led him to suppose that such
was their object, and would lead the country to think so
too.
Sir G. GREY said that the Crown might exercise its
prerogative of dissolution at any time; but even then the
new constituencies could not exercise their rights until a
considerable interval of time had elapsed after the passing
of the bill. (Hear, hear.) But he was not surprised at the
course which the hon. gentleman (Sir J. Fergusson) had
taken, especially after the debate the other night. There
was a desire now to change the issue proposed by the hon.
member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon): (Hear, hear.) Hon.
gentlemen, finding the absurdity of supporting that motion
—(no, no)—had devised that of the hon. member for Ayr-
shire (Sir J. Fergusson), and dropped that of the hon,
member for Rye. (No.) He could not persuade himself
that any hon. member of that house could seriously enter-
tain the motion of the hon. member for Rye as one that
would be conclusive. (Oh, oh.) After having affirmed
the principle of the bill, after agreeing to the second read-
ing—the principle being that there should be a reduction
in the county franchise and a reduction in the borough
franchise, for the purpose of admitting a portion of the
working classes to the franchise—he eould not believe that
hon. gentlemen could seriously entertain a proposition that
those rights should be withheld, and their consideration
postponed for almost as indefinite period, in order to liner-

tain with arithmetical precision the number of inhabitants
of a few boroughs contained in the bill, and from whi,•h, on
account of their comparative unimportance, it was proposed
to take one of their members, and transfer them to more
important parts of the country. (Hear.) The hon. and
learned member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) made a long and
able speech the other night, which might with more pro-
priety have been made in committee—(hear)—and he be-
lieved he had shown that Guildford wculd not be dealt with
fairly by the bill. But the hon. and learned gentleman
had taken anether course, and had chosen to put Guildford
in the van of obstruction. (Hear.) The census, in feet,
had nothing to do with the essential portions of the bill.
The reduction of the borough and county franchise did not
depend in the slightest degree upon the returns of the cen-
, sus of '6l. The only portion of the bill to which the census
could in any degree apply was that which related to the re-
distribution of seats, and that was only a small portion of
the bill. He (Sir G. Grey) might ask why the present ob-
jections had not been taken on the second reading of the
bill, and thus the time of the house have been saved.
(Hear, hear.) The same objections might have been taken
to the bill of the late Government—the only difference being
a difference of one year. (Hear, hear.) But the hon. mem-
ber for Ayrshire (Sir J. Fergusson) came before them inthe
character of an ardent reformer, who was dissatisfied with
the present state of the representation in Scotland. The
hon. member had asserted that in former Parliaments it had
been the uniform course to proceed par i passe with the bills
for England, Ireland, and Scotland.

Sir J. FE RGUSSON—I said exactly the reverse.
-- ---

Sir G. GREY said he had understood thohou. gentleman
to say that the Government had departed" from the•'usual
course.

Sir J. FERGUSSON—What I said was that in 1832 the
course of postponing one bill to another was adopted to the
great disadvantage of the country.
Sir G. GREY said the hon. gentleman seemed to think it
possible to go into committee one day on one bill and another
day on another. (Opposition cries of " Ne, no.") The hon.
member had not been in the last Parliament. If he had he
would not now have complained that the course taken by
her Majesty's Government was unusual. When the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks proposed his reform
bill he not only did not propose a reform bill for Ireland
and Scotland, but he proposed the second reading without
having given the slightest intimation to the house as to the
principles upon which the Government had decided with
regard to bills for Irelani and Scotland. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman went further, for he announced
that it was the intention of the Government, if the second
reading was acceded to, to go into committee before Easter,
and consequently it would have been impossible to have
asked the house that year to give a second reading to the
bills for Ireland and Scotland. With the expe-
rience of late years of the pressure of business on
the Government, he (Sir G. Grey) very much doubted whe-
ther the best mode of securing a full and ample considera-
tion to bills of this kind would not be to attempt less in one
session. (Opposition cheers.) If this bill should be post-
poned according to the desire of some hon. members oppo-
site, and taken up again at the beginning of next session,
accompanied by Scotch and Irish bills, there would be much
less chance of a due consideration of the Scotch and Irish
bills than if Parliament had assented to the bill for Eng-
land, and then, guided by that assent, had proceeded to the
consideration of the bills for Scotland and Ireland. He be-
lieved that course would be most conducive to the end pro-
fessed to be entertained by some gentlemen, but of this he
was sure, that if they were to adjourn the ceasideration of
the bill—to what day he really did not know—the effect
would be merely to interpose an obstacle to its further pro•
gress without asking the house to come to any decision
upon that question. He therefore asked the house, if they
really wished the bill not to be delayed for two or three years,
to express an opinion to that effect by a direct and unam-
biguous vote, and not to lend themselves to a motion whose
only object was to defeat a real and salutary amendment of
the representation of the people. (Cheers.)
Lord J. MANNERS rose for the purpose, not of advert •
ing to the speech of the right hon. baronet, so far as it was
made in reply to that of the hon. member for Lyme, but of
considering the answer it gave to the statesmanlike speech
of the hon. and gallant gentleman the member for Ayrshire.
The right hon. baronet assumed an air of injured innocence
and said the motion of the hon, and gallant gentleman was
merely a device to delay the progress of the bill. The right
hon. baronet must recollect that, so far as that side of the
house was concerned, no amendment proceeding from it had
yet been put from the chair. It was true that two important
amendments had been submitted to the consideration of
the house, one by the chairman of committees, who was
certainly not connected with the party on the Opposition
side of the house ; the other by an hon. gentleman who, in
making it, said it was the pride of his life to be the devoted
follower of the noble lord at the head of the Government.
Yet the right hon, baronet could look across the table and
talk of motions intended for delay and procrastination when
he knew as well as any man in the house that those who
were most anxious to defeat the bill sat on the benches im-
mediately behind him. (Opposition cheers.) But let him
ask under what circumstances it was that his hon. and gal-
lant friend felt compelled to submit the present motion to
the house. The right hon. gentleman told them, as an
earnest and sincere reformer, that he was convinced of the
impassibility of passing the three reform bills in the present
session. When did that truth first dawn on the mind of the
right hon. gentleman? Why was Pam liament summoned a
fortnight or ten days earlier than usual ? And why, when
Parliament met, was it announced from the throne that the
representation of the three countries was to be reformed ?
And why when the English Reform Bill had been intro-
duced were the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills also intro-
duced the same evening ? And why were those bills made
every night to follow the English bill upon the votes ? (Op-
position cheers.) It was clear from the first that it was in
the mind of the Government to reform the representation
of the three countries in the present session, and whose
fault was it that this session was so far advanced that in
the opinion of the Government it was now impossible to
fulfil that engagement ? (Hear.) Was it the fault of the
Opposition? lie should like to know when, in the annals
of Parliament, measures of such magnitude had been pro-
posed by the Government and received such a slight dis-
cussion as the financial bills of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ? If fault there were, and fault he admitted there
was, it was not the fault of the House of Commons or of
the Opp mition, but of her Majesty's Government, who from
their treatment of the business of the house showed that
they did not regard the reform of the representation of the
people in Parliament as the paramount question of the day.
(Opposition cheers.)
Mr. LONGFIELD hoped the house would adjourn
sine die
,the consideration of the English Reform
Bill until the whole question of reform could be dealt with .

Mr. INGRAM had heard with regret the statement o
the noble lord the member for the City of London, that he
was open to consider the propriety of extending the fran-
chise from £6 to £7, £B, or £9. He thought any increase
from £6 would effectually destroy the value of the measure ;
and he would rather see the whole question postponed until
another year than that such a concession should be made.
Mr. WATLINGTON saw no reason why legislation
should be pressed forward, considering the total absence of
feeling throughout the country in favour of the bill. He
thought the noble lord would act wisely in withdrawing
the bill, and in introducing another measure if he thought
proper at some more fitting opportunity, when the house
could have more accurate information before it.

Mr. ALCOCK said there was no supineness in the
country in reference to the Reform Bill, because there was
a belief that the house would agree to it. But if any
attempt were made to reject the bill, the feeling of the
country would soon be manifested in a most unmistakable
manner. _ _ _

Mr. C. BRUCE felt that justice to Scotland demanded
that the extension of Moo franchise should be made to that
country, and this could not be done if they now passed the
English Reform Bill.
Mr. BAXTER said the majority of the Scotch members
in that house were reformers, and no doubt wished most
anxiously for Parliamentary Reform ; but he should be
doing injustice to his own convictions, and he believed
would not be faithfully representing the feelings of the
majority of the people of Scotland, if he did not give his
most decided opposition to the motion of his hon. friend the
member for Ayrshire. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GEORGE, as an Irish member, considered that the
English and Irish bills should be presented to the house in
a united form. His opinion was that a Reform Bill could
not be passed for England without more or less affecting
Ireland, such were the relations of the two countries.
Mr. PEASE hoped the house would take Borno action in
this question, He had been for 30 years acquainted with
the working classes, and he was prepared. to. say from the
hear.) He believed the
knowledge he had of them, that even if this bill were to add
was small who would not
350,000 new electors to the constituency, that inspired him
number
hbneor
of
flatrbme wwheraidtenvger.nlas(Hseesar,
look for representatives amongst the educated and higher
ranks of society. He hoped, therefore, that house would not
endanger its reputation. and the confidence which the coun-
try had in it by postponing the consideration of this question.
Mr. STIRLING said the hon. member for Montrose
accused the Conservative side of the house with an attempt
to obstruct and delay this bill ; but he thought that ob-
struction had come as much from the Liberal side of the
house, and rather more so, than from the Conservative side.
So far from any attempt at delay on that side, very few
Scotch members had spoken on the bill. He hoped the hon.
member for Ayrshire would divide the house.
The LORD ADVOCATE, after disclaiming any inten-
tion of going into any argument upon the general question
of Reform, said that with regard to the arguments which
had been urged on the other side of the house upon the
motion for going into committee, they would have been
appropriate if the three bills had been incorporated into one.
As it was, however, he was at a loss to understand what
bearing they had on the question. He had listened to the
speech of the hon. and gallant gentleman the member for
Ayrshire, with the pleasure which a well connected cl4.s-
-course usually inspired, and only wished that it had 'oeen
devoted to a better and more consistent object. We great
argument he endeavoured to sustain was, that 'the three
bills should be considered together, but what relation had
such an argument with the question immeditAtely before
them? The object of the amendment whi th
oh e a.d-
journed debate was now considering was to! delay legis-