The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-09 00:00:00

M 2

//.97

...
• M. .
V,
...-,-,..;;;...;,-,,, •.. ' *
• • N.-. 4.-.-.'; w.t.i.t.,.:,., .1.- r - -
.. , ....,1 \ •*; A 7 Ira" -..- , 41, ' '
-...,• . '
' -
• I -
rk
...,,, i
L .1 Alri
- --
. .151/4,
i'.,' -'",,, • - ,
k .
.\ .1 .
...- •% ft.;', I, ' dt."--i'l ..-t11.1.• ...H -f
-,:,---- ,i....t&t, O'
..„.,)•11, r. 4". ' --' , ...d". 'IA - cc
______l ,_i ,- . . \ ,
4. 't...,,, ... 0.: \...i: -
- --_- -:( 1. • , /i- " _ A.,
• • - --.,..+,.%.:. ~,., ..„ ,
"'• -:,..• -NT
,n.i
l,
;;.,..,,,lok .7...-e ..1.-,' 7, L V f 0“,,.. 0 ..w,
_oßorr. ---✓ _
.__
\ -.344,• . -
.2.= --
'. e4f4 ...
16 '
I ' #,
, ,
...,.......--- 44
'-.5..::'''.-.2}.•*-7'" ' _94' i -

THE v SUN, LONDON, FEIDAY EVENING, AUG UST 9, 1867.

TEWES RACES, Friday and Saturday,
August 9 and 10.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST
RAILWAY.

sons why the Commo,is should be averse from
altering the opinion they originally expressed upm
this point. The arguments certainly remained
the same, but any doubts which they might have
entertained that the real object of the experiment
was to neutralise the general effects of the enfran-
chisement effected by the bill must have been
removed by the candid avomals of those by whom
the obnoxious amendment was made. Without once
more going into the general merits of the question,
it must be admit to 1 that, under the proposed Aysteln,
those constituencies which, in consequence of their
suj)posed importance, have received three members,
would have been much better off if they had been
left:with two. If the minority should succeed in ob-
taining a representative, he might be said to pair
with one of his colleagues, and, as Mr. Bright sug-
gested, the practical effect would be that Manchester,
with its three members, would have less weight in
Parliament than the adjoining borough of Salford,
with two members. Arguments, however, had no
weight with men who were prepared to follow Mr.
Disraeli into any lobby into which he might be
pleased to lead them, and the result was that the
house by a majority of 49 alsrmed a proposition
which but a few weeks since it negatived by the
much greater majority of 140.. A proposal to except.
the City of London from the operation of the
amendment was. negatived by a somewhat larger
majority; and the house then, after a brief debate,
rejected the amendment providing for the employ-
ment of voting papers.

minorities should be agreed to. Before this amend-
ment came on the Conunsns had sufficiently vindi-
cated their independence by summarily rejecing
three alterations of the Lords of small importance.
Mr. Bright proposed the rejection of this amend-
ment in a speech which, extremely weak as a piece
of argument, was exceptionally strong as a piece of
declamation, and a debate ensued remarkable until
Mr. Gl.dstone rose only by a singularly able speech
from Mr. Knatclibull-Hugessen, who dispozed of
Mr. Bright's contentious with a debating power for
the Foss ssion of hich no one had given him
credit. Mr. Gladstone spoke under the convic-
tion of defea'. His forced laugh showed the
passions he tried to smother, and the singular
self-contradictions in which he involved himself
exhibited the mental confusion which his irrita-
tion had induced. Once or twice rising into a
passage .of eloquent declamation, he kept for the
most part in a tedious level of hysterical emotion,
exhausting himself and wearying the house only to
deliver a speech which it would have been well for
his reputation if the reporters had conspired to
suppress. We cannot attempt now to put in their
due juxtaposition the extraordinary jumble of con-
tradictiods which the right hon. gentleman's speech
exhibited. Now he was calling the principle a new
and now an old one ; now he was declaring that
minorities had no right to representation, and now
insisting that minorities are already represented in
virtue of the excellent arrangements of our old con-
stitution ' • now be said that Arundel and lloniton
represented the minority of Liverpool and Man-
chester, and now he declared his desire to disfran-
chise Arundel argils Heihiten,
_whilst still refusing
direct representation-tb -.th-Ose 'minorities ; now he
professed his desire to accept the bill as a settle-
ment, and now he -insisted that the redistribution
scheme was so imperfect that, leaving the represen-
tation of minorities clause out of the question, it
could not be tolerated for a single year. As Mr.
Lowe, in his short and telling speech, said, Mr.
Gladstone answered himself. And Liberal mem-
bers, half convinced of the justice of the principle
by Mr. Bright's failure to find any decent objection
to it, may well have been satisfied by Mr. Glad-
stone's painful failure that it deserved their cordial
support. By a decisive majority the house adopted
the amendment relative to the three-cornered con-
stituencies, and by a still more decisive majority
affirmed the enfranchisement of the minority of the
City of London, against which Mr. Crawford natu-
rally made his protest. We regret very much -to
have to record that the other and equally important
amendment of the Peers was rejected by a majority
as decisive as that which adopted the clause for the
representation of minorities. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer sought to conciliate opposition by
confining the use of voting papers to the counties,
but the Commons would not have them even in this
limited shape, and so the disfranchisement of the
old, infirm, and timid is continued. Mr. Bright
cannot prevent two-fifths of the electors of Bir-
mingham from returning a candidate of different
opinious to his, if they will only take the trouble
and incur the risk of recording their votes, but he
can still make that expression of their wishes in-
convenient and perilous. If he cannot gag them
by a majority of voters he can practically do it by
the machinery of a mob. The question now is,
What will the Lords do? We assume that they
will accept the bill in the shape in which it is re-
turned to them. One of the amendments upon
which they laid most stress has been accepted ;
and as for the voting papers, if the Government,
whose child the plan was, is content to sacrifice it,
their lordships will hardly peril the bill by insisting
upon retaining it.
POST.—The result of the proceedings in the
House of Commons last evening will surprise most
persons and give satisfaction to comparatively few.
It will astonish those who have hitherto been under
the impression that members of Parliament re-
corded their votes in accordance with their political
convictions, and not in blind obedience to the arbi-
trary dictates of a party leader, while it will shock
those who regard the fundamental institutions of
the country as something too sacred and too valuable
to be overthrown or bartered away at a moment's
notice for the mere sake of effecting a compromise.
Notwithstanding the immense majority by which
the House of Commons disallowed the principle
that minorities in certain constituencies were entitled
to special provisions to enable them to return re-
presentatives, it last evening reversed that decision,
not because its opinion was changed, but because it
was deemed expedient to obey the bidding of a
Minister who, on the same issue on a former occa-
sion, had given it precisely different advice. The
amendment of the Lords, limiting the number of
votes to be given by electors in constituencies re-
turning three or more members, was agreed to at
the close of a debate in which Mr. Bright made one
of the most powerful speeches delivered during the
present session. The other amendments made by
the Lords, with the exception of two or three of a
mere verbal nature, were rejected. That of the
Marquis of Salisbury, introducing the system of
voting papers, though modified by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, so as to apply alone to county
elections, was rejected by a majority of 52 in a
house of 469 members, inclusive of the Speaker and
tellers. It was known that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would in the first instance state
the course which her Majesty's Government was
prepared to take with respect to the amendments,
and this circumstance, no less than the importance
of the issue to be raised, brought together the
fullest house that probably ever met on the 7th of
August. Mr. Disraeli's statement was brief and to
the point. In the three material amendmentswhich
had been effected by the Lords, her Majesty's Go-
vernment, he said, were prepared to concur. These
amendments were the omission of the clause intro-
duced by the House of Commons lowering the elec-
toral qualification of copyholders in counties, the
insertion of Lord Cairns's provision for securing the
representation of minorities, and the introduction of
the clause enabling electors to record their votes by
means of voting papers. A fourth amendment, Mr.
Disraeli reminded the house, had been made by the
Lords, but subsequently withdrawn—that raising
the lodger franchise. To that amendment, had it
been insisted on by the Upper House, her Majesty's
Government would have found themselves obliged
to advise the House of Commons to refuse its assent.
In conclusion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer jus-
tified the course taken by the Government, on. the
ground that the Upper House had attacked none of
the fundamental priutiples of the bill, that they
dealt with it in a conciliatory spirit, and that it
therefore became the duty of the Commons to defer
to the opinion of the Lords in those minor points on
which it differed from their own. In order, how-
ever, to estimate the true nature of the concessions
which Mr. Disraeli asked the house to make, as well
as the spirit in which they were conceived, one was
unavoidably compelled to recall not only the course
taken by the House of Commons, but by the Go-
vernment, in dealing originally with those parti-
cular subjects which were once more put in
issue by the Lords' amendments. The copyhold
franchise in counties was lowered in obedience
to the wishes of the majority of the House of
Commons, though contrary to the inclination of
the Government. The proposition to restrict the
elective powers of voters in constituencies return-
ing 'more than
ontw two
a division, by
b
wasy a vehemently op-
posed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
was rejected,
majority. The suggestion of voting papers-was in
the first instance made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. It was supported by him and his col-
leagues when brought in a substantive form before
the House, but was nevertheless rejected. It there-
fore appears that in counselling moderation and
concessions to the !louse of Commons in respect to
these three important amendments, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was, as regarded two of them, ad-
vising the house to withdraw the disapproval it had
expressed of his own particular policy. Of time
conciliatory spirit manifested by the Lords, it was
not inaptly observed by Mr. Gladstone that it was
evinced chiefly, if not exclusively, in dealing with
those proposals which emanated from the Govern-
ment. Amendments which owed their origin to
members of the Opposition had not, as he pointed
out, been treated in a spirit which most persons
would have been inclieel to regard as one of conci-
liation.. The House proceeded to the consideration
of the amendments in a spirit which clearly indi-
cated that it was unconvinced by the reasoning of
its present recognised chief. Sir .Roundell Palmer
proposed the rejection of the modification made in
the bill by the Lords respecting the electoral quali-
fications of persons occupying chambers in the uni-
versities, and his motion was carried without a divi-
sion. The House next dealt with the amendment
restoring the copyhold franchise as fixed by the
Reform Act of 1832, and, after a brief discussion,
this amendment was disagreed to on a division. by a
majority of 47. It is rather singular that it was by
precisely the same majority that the House of
Commons originally introduced the clause which,
after being erased by the Lords, it has now once
more restored to the bill. Next in order for dis-
cussion stood the amendment limiting the number
of votes to be given in constituencies returning
three or POre Inernberph There were many rea-

ARRANGEMENTS i CHEAP RETURN TICKETS
front London to LEWES each day. Fares: Ist clam,
11s. ; second class. Bs. ; 3d class, ss. 6d., by trains from
Kensington 745, Victoria 7.55, London-bridge 8.0, and
Croydon 8.25 a.m.; returning from Lewes at 7.50 p.m.
These tickets aro only available for the trains above
specified, and on the day of issue.
Fast trains from Victoria 16.33, London-bridge 1045, and
Croydon 11.5 a.m., at ordinary (Ist and 2.1 class) fares ;
returning from Lewes 7.0 p.m. on the 9th, and 5.30 p.m. on
the 10th August.
EXPRESS TRAINS, Ist and 2d class, from Victoria
9.55, London-bridge 10.0, and Croydon 10.20 a.m., at
REGULAR EXPRESS FARES. EXPRESS RETURN
TICKETS are available to return the same day, or
day following that of issue, and by any train or by the
SPECIAL EXPRESS TRAIN,- leaving Lewes direct for
Croydon, London-bridge, Victoria, and Kensington at 7.0
p.m., on the 9th, and 530 p.M. on the 10th August.
FROM BRIGHTON by Ist, -21, and 3d class trains, at
10.30 ' 10.55 a.m., and 12.5 p.m. ; returning from Lewes
5.35 p.m., 6.50 p.m., and 740 p.ni.

LONDON AND NORTH-
CALEDONIAN RAID
WEST COAST EC

WESTE:

RN AND

FMAYS.
)UTE.

Improved THROUGH SERVI(
EUSTON STATION and the PR
SCOTLAND.

1E of Trai
:NCIPAL

ins. between
TOWNS in

WEEK DAYS. SUNDAYS.
CIS. CMS. CIS. (MS. (MS. (Ms. 01S. Uls.
12 12 12 12 121 2 3 1 2 12 3
London ;1. TM a.m. a.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.
(Euston) dp 9. 0 10. 0 11.20 8.40 9. 0 9.15 8.35 8.15
p.m. p.m. p.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m.
Preston...ar '2.33 3.23 6.10 1.56 3. 5 3.28 1.56 3.28
Carlisle
Edinburgh 9.10 12.45 7.10 9.30 9.40 7.10 9.40
Glasgow
Stirling
Perth ..... 12.20 11.20 9. 0 11.55 9. 0 11.55
a.m. p.m.
Dundee
p.m.
Aberdeen 3.45 ... 12.35 ... 4.10 12.35 4.10
Inverness
v. Dunkeld. 9. 0 ... 2.45 ... 7.20 2.45 7.20

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CRANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.

PETITION.

The Marquis of CL A.NRIOARDE presented a petition
relating to a gentleman who had been seized in a British
vessel by the Spanish authorities, which vessel had been
legally sent from a British port. This captive had been
confined for nearly a twelvemonth. He instanced
the case of the Abyssinian captives, and urged
upon the House that Spain had no more right
to retain this gentleman and other persons in cap-
tivity than that semi, or rather total barbarian, the
Emperor Theodore, had.
THE CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

The 10.0 a.m. Morning Express stops 20 mina
Preston to allow passengers to dine.
Conductors in charge of the Through Luggage
from London to Perth by the trains leaving Euston t
a.m. and 9.15 p.m., and to Glasgow by the train leav
11.20 a.m.
On Saturday Evenings passengers are not booked by the
9.15 p.m. train further north than Edinburgh and Glasgow.
W. CAWKWELL, General Manager.
Euston Station, August, 1867.

;es at

travel
110.0
Log at

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY.

PARIS EXHIBITION.

NOTICE TO MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS.
Arrangements are now made for the CONVEYANCE of
ARTIZANS, with their Wives and Families, Factory
Hands, and other workpeople through to PARIS, at
REDUCED FARES, by ordinary Third-Class Trains
Daily, on production of the authorised form of certificate
from their employers.
Forms of certificate, and information as to the trains and
arrangements, can be obtained on application to the book-
ing clerks at any of the principal stations.
By order,
W. CAWKWELL, General Manager.
Euston Station, July 25, 1867.

CONTRACT FOR MOP HEADS FOR THE ROYAL

MARINES.

Contract Department, Admiralty, Somersot
House, August 1, 1867.
THE COMMISSIONERS for EXECUTING
the OFFICE of LORD HIGH ADMIRAL of the
UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN and IRE-
LAND do hereby give Notice, that on TUESDAY, the
13th inst., at Twelve o'clock at noon, they will be ready to
treat with such persons as may be willing to CONTRACT
for supplying and delivering into her Majesty's Victualling
Stores, at Deptford, all such quantities of

• _
MOP HEADS
as may from time to time be demanded, for the use of tho
Royal Marines, under a Contract for Twelve Months cer-
tain, and further until the expiration of Three Months'
warning.
A pattern of the mop heads may be seen at the Royal
Marine Office, Now-street, Spring-gardens, between the
hours of Elaven and Two o'clock.
No Tender will be received unless made on the printed
form provided for the purpose, and which may be obtained
on application in the Lobby of the Department of the Con-
troller of Victualling, Admiralty, Somerset House, where
the conditions of the contract may be seen.
. No Tender will be received after Twelve o'clock at noon
on the-day ;of treaty 5 and it will not be required that the
party tendering, or an agent on his behalf, should attend
at the office on the day of contract, as the result of the
offer received from each person will be communicated to
him and his proposed-sureties in writing.
Every Tender must be addressed to the Secretary of the
Admiralty, and bear in the left-hand corner the words,
"Tender for Mop Heads," and must also bo delivered at
the Department of the Controller of Victualling, Admiralty,
Somerset House, signed by two responsible persons, en-
gaging to become bound with the person tendering in the
sum of £lOO for the due performance of the Contract.
By Order,
ANTONIO BRADY, ._
Registrar of Contracts and. Public Securities.

DEAFNESS. The ORGANIC VIBRATOR—
WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR " ITS USE.—
It fits into the ear, not perceptible, relieves singing
noises in the head, and enables deaf persons to hear at public
assemblies. Conversational Tubes, Cornets, Trumpets, and
every other kind of hearing instrument. Numerous testi-
monials _for inspection. -S. and B. SOLOMONS, 39, Albe-
marle-street, Piccadilly.

TEA IS CHEAPER THAN EVER.
lc 61., 25., 2s. 61. per lb. are the prices at which
PHILLIPS and CO.,
Tea Merchants, 8, King William-street. City, London, E.C..
are selling good and fine
BLACK TEA.
A. price current post free. 40s worth carriage free to any
Railway Station or Market Town in the United Kingdom.
All goods carriage tree to all parts of London.
Observe— PHILLIPS and Co. have no Agents.
Sugars are supplied at market prices.

TEE T H.—Messrs. G A B R I E L.
(ESTABLISHED 1815).
NEW PAMPHLET, FREE BY POST FOR FOUR STAMPS,
Explaining the Painless System of Dentistry, and
self-adhesive Teeth without springs,
AT MODERATE CHARGER.
*a* 64, LUDGATE-HILL, CITY,
5.5 Harley-street, Cavendish-sqaare, London.
*,* 134, Duke-street, Liverpool.

The Lord DE MAULEY moved the second reading
of the Church Rates Abolition Bill. He stated that he
regretted a more able speaker was not to propose the
second reading of a bill on a subject of such vital
importance to the public. In this matter he was
influenced ,by no acrimony, no party spirit, no
wish to be obstructive, but he was desirous,
and had given this subject the preference, that there should
be a settlement of this church rate question, especially as
the new Reform Bill, when it came into operation,
would introduce a class of persons to whom
church 'rates would bo most obnoxious. He thought
that it was possible that a compromise might be
entered into between the opposing parties, but in the
meantime lie believed that this bill would strengthen
the authority ,of the Church, and do away with much
of the hostility and animosity which now ex-
isted against Churchmen. It was most desirable that
some settlement and conclusion on this subject should bo
come to as soon as possible.
Lord DELAMERE moved that this bill be read a second
time that day three months. lle said that it would be
found that where there was a majority in a parish
in favour of church rates the rate was passed, but when
there was a minority it was not. Now, by this bill they
were proposing to sweep away the only law which pro-
tected the church with regard to church rates,
and they were told that because the church
had done so much they must now do away with the very
inadequate law which belongol to it and protected it.
He then animadverted upon the lib.3rties at present en-
joyed by the Dissenters, and although he did not deny
that the Church of England was opera to every
one, yet if they liked to take advantage of it they ought
not object to pay for it. If Quakers wore to pay for ships
of war andother warlike impleinents, why should not Dis-
senters pay towards the Established Church ? If total abo-
lition passes through both houses, it would be impossible
to maintain the present system in Scotland. Personally
lie, would give the greatest amount of conscientious
liberty to every denomination of religiouists ; but he cool d
not do otherwise than protest against a m ensure which
was calculated to depreciate the position of Churchmen,and
filleted the words of Mr. Gladstone as to the inadvisability
of carrying out what the bill proposed. He finally urged
upon them the amendment which he had just proposed.
Lord ST. LEONAIIDS objected to the bill on the
ground that it was preposterous to take away the legal
right which the Church had to levy a church-rate. When
afterwards it was collected it would only be a gift or a
dole which was given in exchange for the abolishing of a
legal right.
Lord RUSSELL was understood to support the bill,
but beyond a few disjointed words and fragments of sen-
tences his lordship's romarks from first to last were almost
wholly inaudible.
After a few words from Lord HARROWBY, to the
effect that it would be better not to raise the rate com-
pulsorily,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said the Church
was not averse from a compromise on this subject, and
why it had not been carried out before was simply because
the terms offered to the Church wore such as she could not
possibly accept. He should certainly vote against the se-
cond reading of the bill.

The Duke of MARLBOROUGII was not prepared to
deny that there were some serious grievances under the
present system, but they were bound to remember that the
promoters of the bill did not propose a fair solution or fair
compromise of the question. The question with them was
simply one of establishment or no establishment. At pre-
sent he feared there was little chance of a compromise, for
the Dissenters seemed by their measures to aim at the
abolition of the Church with the church-rates.

After a few earnest words from the Bishop of Oxford,
deprecating such a sweeping measure, and a brief state-
ment from Lord Taunton that ho should vote for the se-
cond reading of the bill, and from Lord Romney that ho
should voto against it,
The house thou divided, when there were for tho bill—
Contents
Non-contents

Majority

The bill was therefore lost.

In committee on the Banns of Matrimony Bill a discus-
sion arose, in which the Bishops of Gloucester and Ox-
ford opposed the first clause, and Lords Granworth and
Houghton supported it. Lord Derby suggested an omis-
sion of the clause, but Lord Houghton preferred to divide
the houso, which was accordingly done, when there ap-
peared for the clause—
Contents
Nun-contents
Majority
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the bill
passed through committee.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Courts of Law (Ireland) Bill was road a *second time.
Several bills were advanced a stage, and the other orders
of the day having been disposed of, their lordships ad-
journed at a quarter-past 8 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
—Bourton on the Water Railway (Abandonment, &c.),
Newcastle upon Tyne High Level Hoist, and Waterloo
and Whitehall Railway (Extension of Time).
CHARTERHOUSE ESTATE BILL.

The.
Ei spbßi IEI
swEa
Ns r oir aAdTams eNc o nodF t i
Tm
Mr. BAZIJEY presented petitions against the use of
E PEOPLE BILL.
voting papers at tho election of members of Parliament.
Mr. BAINES presented similar petitions from Leeds.
Mr. NEWDEGATE prosonted a petition from Bir-
mingham, signed by 4,000, in favour of the amendment
made in the House of Lords on the bill with respect to the
representation of minorities.
tition from the city of
Mr. CRAWFORD presented a pe
London, signed by the Right Hon. the Lord Mnyor,
against the amendments made in the House of Lords in
this bill. Tho petition emanated from a meeting hold that
day in the Guildhall.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from
Birmingham
signed by 15,000 persons, against the amendmeers and the
nt made in
the House of Lords, with respect to voting
pap
reprosentation of minorities.
Mr. TORRENS presented a similar petition from a moot-
ing held in the Hanover-square rooms last night.
Mr. FOSTER presented a similar petition from Brad-

ford.
On the motion for the consideration of the amendments
made in the House of Lords to the Representation of
People Bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
gratulated the house on the prospect of the • passing
of one of the most cony, rehensive measures over
sent out from the House of Commons. It
of the
was
satisfactory to know that, with the exception
qualification for the lodger franchise, the House of Lords
had accepted the provisions of that house for the extension
of the franchise. It was exceedingly satisfactory to know
that, when the House of Lords became better acquainted
With what had tap plao ig 019 110509# c9allupo,

rttleM.... 44.
STAMPED sd.

_~

all classes in a c4nmunify. As to the antiquity of our -
present system, this was one of the improvetnen6 of
modern civilisation, from which great- results might bo
expected.
On a division, the Lords' amendment-was carried by
253 to 201.
The next amendment was consequent;-on the last, awl
provided for the case of the city of London, restricting
the number of votes to be given by each elector to three.
Its rejection was moved by M. Crawford, seconded by
Afiermen Lawrence, but on a division it was ratified
by 25?. to 188.
Severe.; unimportant amendments were agreed to, and
the voting imper clause was the.v. taken.
The CtIAI4CELLOR of the E KCIIEQUEII, with a view
to -facilitating a compromise, pruposed to omit boroughs
from its operation, but
Mr. GLADSTONE declined to accept it, and moved that
the house disagree with the tuner Intent.
The clause was supported by Mr. Hardy, and opposed
by Mr. Dodson, Mr. Torren:, ?Ix. Villiers, and Mr. 13,1glit,
who urge 1 that it would lead wholesale' manufacture
of fictitious votes, to fraud, and intimidation, and spoke
with groat dissatisfaction of th.• machinery provid,d by
the Lords; by Mr. Mill, who declared that. he would pre-
fer no bill at all to ono saddled with such a condition;
and by Mr. Newdogato.
Mr. DISRAELI'S amendment was agreed to, but on a
division the clause was rejected by a majority of 52-2 a
to 206.
Another clause, containing further arrangements for
giving the borough franchise to the resident members of
the Universities, was struck out by 188 to 161. The
other amendments were disposed of, and a committee was
appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords
for disagreeing with their amendments.
The Army Reserve Bill was road a third time and
passed.
Some other orders were forwarded a stage, and the
house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

they at once restored the qualification to the figure it
originally stool at, and such a proceeding showed, ho
thought, the greatest desire on the part of their lordships
to act with unanimity in pissing an act of such great
importance. There were three amendments, however,
which lie would more particularly refer
.to, and the
first was that made with respect to clause
5, which diminished the amount of the copyhold or
leasehold franchise; and as their lordships were of
opini-n that the mitt,r as settled by the Act of 1832
should not be departed from, her Majesty's Go-
vernment were of opinion that the house ought to
accept the amendment. The next amen lment that had
been made in the other house was that their lord-
ships had re- introduced a clause which had
been rejected in that house, viz., a clause as to
the manner and mode in which the voter should
exerejso and register his franchise. The clause laid it
down that in constituencies returning three mem-
bers no person should vote for more than two can-
didates. That clause was carried by an almost over-
whelming majority, and the Government felt that in con-
sideration of the almost unanimous voice of the House of
Lords that decision ought to be deferred to. (Hear, hear,
from the Government side of the house.) Although ho
did not approve of the principle, yet in regarding the
manner in which the bill had been discussed and
carried, and her Majesty's Government acting in the
spirit of conciliation, thought it both prudent and proper
'to support the decision the House of Lords had arrived
at. (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial side of the
house.) The third amendment related to a clause
which had been omitted by that house from
the bill when iewas originally introduced by the Govern-
ment—he meant the clause relating to voting papers.
(Hear.) He was not about to enter into the merits or deme-
rits of such a proposition, it had been fully discussed in
that house on former occasions, and doubtless would bo so
again; but he would say that if the amendment was
adopted it would load to a great enfranchisement,
because, doubtless, there were a groat many persons
under the present system who never recorded their votes.
(Hear. hear.) But it was said the proposition would tend
to personation and corruption—(hear, hear, and loud
cheers from the Opposition side of the house) —but it
must be borne in mind that that objectionable state of
things occurred at present. (Hoar, hear.) Under all the
circumstances her Majesty's Government had come to
the conclusion, in consideration of the conciliatory
tone in which the House of Lords had dealt
with the bill, to recommend to that house the acceptance of
the amendment of the House of Lords. (Loud
cheers from the Ministerial side of the house.)
He therefore invited the house to enter at once
into a consideration of the amendment, and
hoped that the result of their deliberations would be
satisfactory to both branches of the Legislature and the
country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE congratulated the House that one
formidable difficulty, viz., that relative to the alteration
of the lodger franchise had been got rid of —(hear, hear)—
and he readily bore his testimony to the courage and deci-
sion with which the Earl of Derby acted on the occa-
sion. However, he thought the amendments made by
the Lords were of a reactionary nature, therefore
the less they said about the conciliatory spirit in which
the bill had been discussed in the other house the bettor.
The house then proceeded to consider the first amend-
ment of the Lords in clause 3, the effect of which was
to make the voters in the new boroughs pay the borough
rate as well as the poor rate.
After a short discussion, the house disagreed with their
lordships' amendment.
Another amendment in the same clause, inserted to give
votes as lodgers to resident graduates and undergraduates
was opposed by Sir IL Palmer, supported by Mr. Lowther,
and ultimately disagreed with.
On the next amendment—the omission of clause 5, which
reduced the copyhold and leasehold qualifications to
on
the
.£s—
division took place, and the clause was restored,
motion of its author, Mr. Colville, supported by Mr. H.
Vivian, by a majority of 47 235 to 188.
The next amendment was Lord Cairns's clause for the
representation of minorities, the rejection of which was
moved by
Mr. BRIGHT, who condemned it as a restriction of
electoral power, and pointed, out to those who, like Mr.
Mill, supported it more as a mode of representing every-
body tint", like Lord Cranborne, as a corrective of the
democratic tendencies of the bill, that it would create such
ill-feeling in the country as for a long time to prevent the
consideration of any comprehensive scheme such as Mr.
Hare's. To Mr. Disraeli's single plea for accepting it, ho
replied that the commons had originally rejected the idea
by a large majority, and insisted that on a point affecting
their own constitution the vete of the House of Commons
was of more authority than that of the Lords. The scheme
had never been asked for by any constituency, it had
never been discussed in the country, and the least the
house could do was t 9 suspend its decision until the idea
had become more familiar. The clause, he argued, would
extinguish the political life of the country; it would
nullify the boon conferred on the four great towns, each
of which would for the future in all divisions on great
political questions be represented by one member. He
avowed that had ho suspected the house would sanction
this scheme he would have voted against giving these
towns a third member; and, after showing that it would be
inapplicable to by-elections, caused either by the death or
the appointment to office of some member for a minority,
he concluded by a powerful denunciation of the scheme
as utterly inconsistent with constitutional principles.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Boresford Hope,
who supported the clause, and when ho sat down it nar-
rowly escaped a premature extinction. For a moment
as
or
two no member rose to continue, and the Speaker w
putting the question, when Sir J. C. JerVOiSe rose and
made some observations, which were understood to be
favourable to the clause.
r. C. BUXTON also supported it, and replied to Mr.
Bright that it would rather stimulate the political life of
the country, as by giving minorities the chance of carrying
a candidate it would lead them to take a more active in-
terest in politics than at present.
Sir C. RUSSELL opposed it as a member for a three-
cornered constituency, characterising it as a measure of
disfranchisement,, and ridiculing the Suggestion that 12
minority members would be of any avail in correcting the
democratic tendencies of the bill.
KNATOLIBULL-HUGE3SEN, who warmly sup-
ported the scheme, maintained that Mr. Bright's opposition
to it proceeded from his desire to arrive at equal electoral
districts and the concentration of power in the hands of
the great towns. Arguing the question entirely front a
non-party point of view, he pointed out that the clause
would open a channel for introducing into Parliament men
of eminence who might have lost their seats in times of
popular commotion, and that it would interest in politics
large classes of intelligent men who now hold aloof alto-
gether, and would lead to the representation of men as well
as of communities.
Mr.
sGOSCHEN argued that minorities were already
over-represented; that the plan woul make
dist districts
and personal as opposed to local representation
er
dwelt oa the injustice of diminishing- the electoral ptioiewvil.f
the great towns which had done s;fim.. usechwtdo_r.,st;
.2.. and Mr.
The clause was supported by
Hubbard, and Mr. Gladstone deplored the decisionthe of the
Government, though he did not censure it,
difficulties of their position, and that mafnywlcioienhstitriartoiounsos
might have to be kept in view by
could know little, but pointed outtthllileannitd
god its mind,
iofeittaNtivere carried it
would not be because the liouz
to
waive
its
opinion.
but because it had been
He insisted that if whatP°laresudes.
rted by two different sec-
cribed as a mischievous
innovation—which was supi.)o
lions, ono of which and the other dis-
thought it so limited in its application
n universal system of personal
as to be practically of no importance,
corned in it the germ ofd
oBpted, it would have to be applied
representation—
aand roust lead to a reconstruction of
' to the whole cot:fel-7,
ro himself personally the plan
our electoral sy
would be beneficisatle,To:r the party which had mainly elected
weakest m t.ho. constituency, but he disclaimed
him was the
I neo all &sift) to wit La the House except as the mem-
binrafLovrn, mniority. He dwelt with force on the injustice
inflicted on these great towns by curtailing them of their
electoral power, and urged that longer time should be
gluon to consider so important a change, for it was only
nine days since it bad been laid before the public. He
urged that the general minority was already represeuteil
by the small boroughs, and that, if it were desired to give
representatives to the minorities in the large towns, the
seats might to be taken from the small boroughs and not
from the majorities. Protesting stron,ly against the re-
presentation of persons as opposed to the representation of
communities, and showing how absurdly the plan would
work in the case of by-elections, he urged the House not
to give these groat towns, the centres of political thought
and energy, so powerful a provocation to agitate against
the bill.
Mr. LOWE replied to Mr. Gladstone, pointing out nume-
rous inconsistencies in his arguments, and reminding him,
in answer to his complaint of want of time for considera-
tion, that as far back as 1854 he had been party to a bill
containing the same plan. Both Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Bright had been misled by the fallacy that the majority
was the constituency. They overlooked the minority alto-
gether, and there was no reason why the representatives
of minorities should be mere delegates or less local repre-
sentatives than the members for majorities. The aim of
these plans was to give to these communities a representa-
tion corresponding to the state of opinion in them, and the
.argument on which he supported it was that the worship
of numbers was a political superstition, and that the true
OLld representation was to reprosont 84 g-9 ray as possiDle

~~

~~.