The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-03 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

-- -
The SPEAKER took the chair at 2 o'clock.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.

Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress with a view of inserting Sheffield amongst the largo
towns to which it was proposed to give a third member.
A lengthened discussion ensued, which ultimately led to
the withdrawal of the motion, and the regular debate was
resumed on the proposal of Mr. Horsfall to giva a third
member to Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool.
The Cil ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
proposed to add Leeds to the list of boroughs returning
three members.
Mr. HADFIELD persisted in his desire to have Shef-
field included.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 122
_Against it
Majority —136
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. BERKELEY then moved that Bristol be added to
the
_ _

Mr. MONk:K advised the withdrawal of the proposal,
as he had a motion on the paper which would effect that
object in the end.
A lung discussion again ensued, when a division took
place on the question that Bristol be added to the list,
when there appeared—

For tho amendment
Against it
Majority against

~ 18G
~ 235
--99

.
The proposal that Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool,
and Leeds each for the future send three members to Par-
liament was then agreed to, and on the proposal that the
clause, as amended, stand part of the bill,
Sergeant GASELEE moved that certain words be added
to the clause, in order that each of the boroughs be divided
into two wards, ono to return two members, and the
other one.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the amendment, and several members on the learned ser-
geant's side cf the house suggested the withdrawal of the
amendment, but the learned sergeant refused to do so.
The proposal was then negatived without a division.
Mr. BRIGHT said he should like to know from what
source it was proposed to take the members which had been
given to the four large boroughs. He believed it had al-
ready been proposed to give a member to Salford, but
now he had heard it was proposed to take that member
away, and, in fact, he believed it was the intention of the
Government to take four members from foul; of the smallest
boroughs it was proposed in the first instance to enfran-
chise. It was a shuffling of the cards and nothing more.
He believed it was an unfair course to adopt, and before
the clause was finally agreed to ho hoped the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would state exactly what he proposed to
do.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
became necessary to find four members for the four large
towns, and therefore ho must find them in the schedule of
boroughs it was proposed to enfranchise. it was in the
schedule of the bill, now on the table of the house, that
the four members must be found.

—Mr. GLADSTONE said Salford was not in the schedule.
It had already been decided that Salford and Merthyr
Tydvil should return two members instead of one, and a
resolute resistance would be made to prevent a recon-
sideration of that enactment. •

Mr. AYRTON said he thought the time was fast ap-
proaching when the committee would have to ask itself
whether they intended to pass the bill at all. It
appeared to him that the fault would be on his side
of the house. A number of seats had been given by the
hill for redistribution, and the Government had proposed
a plan which ho thought ought to be looked upon as a
whole. They had, however, taken ono view of the matter
which it was now proposed to alter. Ho did not see
why the house should bo overborne by Lancashire
(Hear, hear.) He thought the best thing they could do
would be to go to the Government schedules, when they
could fully go into the question. If it was determined to
go on as they were going at present, ho despaired of ever
bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should bo prepared on Thursday to state what modifica-
tion the Government proposed to make in the schedule.
He thought the suggestion of the hon. member for the
'rower Hamlets .was avory sagacious one, and ho hoped the
house would see the necessity of. adopting it.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR hoped on the Thursday the Govern-
ment would see the necessity of adopting the grouping of
the boroughs as proposed by the hon. member for Wick,
(Oh, oh.)
The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part
of the bill.
Mr. NEATE then moved the following new clause, to
follow clause 17, viz.:—" Whore any corporation, lay or
eccesiastical, shall be entitled as owners in their own right
to lands or tenements of freehold tenure in any
county, and such lands or tenements shall be
let at rack - rent, and the rent recoverable
therefrom in any ono county shill be such as would give
to each member of such corporation, according to the
rules or statutes of such corporation, a suns of not less
than twenty pounds as his annual share thereof, then
every member of such corporation shall be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote at the
election of a member or members to serve in Parliament
for such county."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
clause introduced an entirely new principle, and there-
fore he hoped the hones would hesitate 'before they adopted
it. As he thought it was unnecessary, he should oppose
the proposal to embody it in the bill,
The clause was then rejected.
Mr. HIBBERT then moved the following clause :
It shall not be lawful for any candidate, or any one on his
behalf, at any election, to pay any motley on account of the
conveyance of auy voter to the -poll, either to the
voter himself or to any other person, or for any person to
receive from any candidate, or anyone on his behalf, any
money on account of such conveyance ; and if any such
candidate, or any person on his behalf, shall pay, and any
such person shall receive, any money on account of the
conveyance of any voter to the poll, such payment shall
be deemed to be lin illegal payment within the meaning of
" The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854."
The house was engaged diseneging the dome up to

in April last, in the cases of Col. Nelson and Lieut. Brand,
in which he laid down the law as regards dm proclamation
of martial law, and al;) to the statement of the Homo Sec,-
retary in March last, that the Govornment at that moment
did not intend to proclaim martial law in Irolaud, and
hoped their would to no necistity for it ; and moved a re-
solution affirming that the lions.) would rogard ill; gal
proclamation of martial law in any part of the Unfted
Kingdom.
_ _ .

Mr. W. E. FORSTER, after expressing an opinion that
tho resolution, as regarded the United Kingdom, was
slightly superfluous, went on to diteuss. the proclamation
of martial law in the colonies in cotinexien_ with tho Ja-.
maica outbreak, and Lord Carnarvon's cireuhr to the Colo-,
nial Governors, which he fully approved; and, comment-
ing en the charge, ho drew the inference from it that
martial law was necessary!neithor to the suppression of
such disturbances nor to the after-punishment of the
offenders.
. _ _

Mr. HARDY, in opposing the motion, argued that it
would be most unwise to put on record a resolution which
,might hamper the Crown and the Executive in grave
emagencies, which it was 'to be, hoped and it was very
probable would never occur, on the authority of dicta
which were contained, not in a judicial decision, but in a
charge to a grand jury, and which ho pointed out wore
delivered with great diffidence by the Chief Justice.
Mr: MILL, acknowledging that the charge had not the
force of a judicial decision, insisted that it confirmed all
that he and-his Mends had contended-for—that for ra?n-
military persons there was no such thing as martial-law;
and that those who acted on the law of necessity in grave
emergencies could not get rid of their responsibility to
answer for their conduct to the ordinary tribunals by the
mere proclamation of martial law.
Mr. HEADLAM characterised the resolution as the de-
claration of so many truisms,, and after remarking that ho
remained of the opinion which ho had given to tho De-
fence Commissioners some years ago, when he was Judge
Advocate, that no change in the law was necessary, ho put
Mr. O'Reilly in this dilemma :—Either the proclamation of
martial law was legal or illegal ; if it was legal, it could
not be made illegal by a resolution of the House of Com-
mons, to which no court of law would pay the smallest
attention ; and if it was illegal, what was the necessity for
the resolution ? After all, the distinction between inertial
law and the law of necessity was merely verbal.
Mr. CARD WELL, concurring with Mr. Mill in his state-
ment of the law, advised the withdrawal of the resolution,
and it was accordingly withdrawn, after some observations
from Captain Jervis and Mr. Hughes.
On the motion of Mr. BRETT, an address was agreed
to for a copy of the proceedings of the Simla court martial.
On the motion for going into committee on the Sale of
Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, Mr. MURPHY moved
that it be referred to a select committee, and, after a short
debate, carried his motion on a division by 92 to 71.
The house went into committee on the Land Contracts
(Ireland) Bill, but Lord NAAS objected to go on with it,
and a motion to report progress was carried by 118 to 37 ;
and the further progress of the Mines, &c., Assessment
Bill was delayed by a similar motion, carried by 101 to 63.
On the third reading of the Attorneys, &c., Certificate
Duty Bill, its rejection was moved by Mr. HUNT, and on
a division the bill was thrown out by 87 to 66.
Some other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock.