The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-31 00:00:00

TIIE HOUSE LAST NIGHT.

The House of Commons last night mustered in
force, and seemed to be in a very vigorous humour.
Even during a long list of uninteresting questions—
except, indeed, some which related to the increase of
the cattle plague—there was a continual stir and
animation ; and as soon as the committee on the
Reform Bill was reached, that which for want of a
better word may be termed the liveliness was still
more marked. The stage of the bill was the clauses
of the part which relates to the redistribution of
seats, and Clause 8 stood first for consideration, its
object being the disfranchisement of the peccant
boroughs of Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, Totucs,
and Reigate. This Mr. Disraeli sought to postpone
in order to add to it a preamble or recital of the
grounds on which the disfranchisement proceeded,
but in a degree the House rose in rebellion against
him, several gentlemen protesting against delay,
and, in fine, the right hon. gentleman was con:.
strained to read his addition in manuscript, and put
it into the hands of the Chairman. After this there
arose a vivacious debate, the question being whe-
ther it was just to punish not only the inno-
cent section of the electors in the indicted
boroughs, and more, to obstruct the enfranchise-
ment of those new voters whom the present bill
would create ; or whether suspension of the writs
for a period more or less long would not bs suffi-
cient, thus showing consideration for an electoral
posterity which might be supremely pure. This
view, or something akin to it, was most strenu-
ously urged by Mr. Bright, who spoke no less than
three times ; showing himself in the novel position
of disagreeing with, replying to, and almost re-
torting on Mr. Gladstone, who, with characteristic
vigour and precision of argument, declared for
total and immediate disfranchisement. Then Mr.
Bright was absolutely in temporary fraternisation
with Mr. Lowe, who was almost pathetic ill his
pleading for those voters in embryo who would be
brought into actual existence by the bill, and whose
very conception he had tried so bard to prevent.
Besides, Mr. Bright took occasion to interpolate
a suggestion at this particular opportunity to
divide the bill into two, and send up the fran-
chise part of it to the Lords at once. To this the
house--which as usual, whenever corruption and
bribery are the theme, was in a state of virtuous
excitement—responded by a rattling chorus of
" Noes," and the proposition was heard of no
more. The discussion had been somewhat con-
fused, it not being quite clear whether the imme-
diate question was a motion of Mr. Howes to strike
Great Yarmouth out of the recital of the clause—
that is, the part which stated the result of inquiries
by committees and commissions into the corruption
of the accused boroughs—or a motion of Sir George
Bowyer to strike out the recital itself, which would
virtually have been the nullifying of the clause. At
length the point was made clear, and Mr. Howes'
motion stood first for decision, and attempts at
speaking by some of the more feeble members were
greeted by that long-drawn-out and sustained yell
which is to be heard in perfection about seven
o'clock. Mr. Disraeli did calm the tumult while he
spoke, Mr. Bright's third speech was a little roughly
used. When the question was to a very large
gathering of members, the shout of approval of dis-
franchisement was so decided, that Mr. Howes did
not press a division, and his proposal lapsed. More
resolved, Sir George Bowyer dared a division on the_
question of the excision of the recital, which resulted
in its being carried by 325 to 49. This tribute to
the principle of wholesale punishment of consti-
tuencies proved tD be so corrupt as absolutely, as
was asserted in the debate, to demoralise the most
honest and conscientious men into being bribers,
was marked with the usual demonstration of
triumph. Nevertheless, the minority, small as it
was, having the House mostly to itself, went on in
its endeavours to save the boroughs which were
still left directly condemned, and the omission of
Lancaster from the clause was moved by Colonel
Wilson Patten, whose motion WIS supplemented by
an amendment by Mr. Baxter, that the writ be sus-
pended for a time to be afterwards decided upohen.
There was much comparatively quiet- talk on t
point, appropriate to the lean condition of the
House at that time. Judging from the sharp-
ness and sustained character of the discussion, it
seemed as if the proposition was not as hopeless
as at first even its originators confessed it to he ;
and at any rate they were encouraged sufficiently
to go to a division, which ended in the rejection
of the amendment by 159 to 87. The clause as
was then put and carried, one solitary
amended
" No" being uttered against it. When the next
clause, which reduces in certain boroughs the num-
ber of members to one, was called, the discussion