The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-06 00:00:00

REPRESENTATION 01' THE PEOPLE BILL.

Tha house then went into committee on this bill, the
debate being resumed upon the following new clause
moved by Mr. Lowe : —" At any contested election for a
county or borough represented by more than two members,
and having more than one seat vacant, every voter shall
be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of
vacant seats, and may give all such votes to ono candi-
didate, or may distribute them among the candidates as he
thinks fit."

Mr. LEFEVRE opposed the clause, denying that it was
either expedient or necessary that minorities should be
represented, and he objected to it further on the ground
that it was based on class legislation.
Mr. GORST said the amendment was a matter of in-
difference to the leaders and popular members in the house,
because they were certain of being returned to the house,
but with the members of his own standing the matter was
not so unimportant, and they feared the demoralising effect
of Wing compelled to make themselves popular with the
lowest class of voters.

Mr. MORRISON concurred in the propriety of the new
clause, and the ameulment he hail given notice of was
only to establish another mode of carrying it out.
Sir J. COLLIER strongly objected to the clause.
ADDERLEY also objectel, b,causa it sought to
establish au arrangement altogether new and ua-
known to the constitution.

Mr. 'FAWCETT said he should support the proposal of
the hen. inem'oer for Caine, because he wished that mino-
rities should ho represented in that hottio. Ho denied
that those persons in favour of the clause were those who
proposed to give as much power to the minority as the
majority. That he altogether denied that it was never
thought or intended that such a state of things should
exist; and with respect to the amonluent to the clause
standing on the paper in the name of the hon. member (Mr.
Morrison) without saying whether he should vote for it,
ho thought that the proposal to adopt the arrangement in
places returning two members would in effect give as much
power to the one as to the other. Ile hoped the proposal
of the hon. member for Caine would be adopted, because
it would lead to the trial of a system on a small scale,
which in some 20 or 30 years would be the system in com-
mon use. (Hear, hear.) He supported the proposal be-
cause he felt it would give to every class of opinion that
fair and just proportion of representation to which they
were entitled.

Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the house would accept the
amendment of the hon. member for Caine, because it would
then receive atrial as an experiment, the result of which ho
felt would be most important.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the clause ontho ground that it
was one of the most violent attacks onrepresentation ever
debated in that house. (hear.) lla had ben quite content to
m arch along in the path 3 of ancient representation —(hear
and in what the Government had oroposedthoy hal done so
The hon. member for Caine hal, in almost agonising terms
besought the house to adopt his proposal, because it was
the only mole of escaping the danger to which the hour
was fast hurrying. Why, in only 8 or 10 constituencies re-
turning three members it could only be of any effect, and was
that to be the great safeguard to the constitution ? (Hoar,
hoar.) if you abstracted a snow-ball from an avalache,
would that prevent the impending danger—(hear, hear)
—and the proposal of the hon. member for Caine was just
about as sensible and secure. (Hoar.) Ha denied that the
proposal would work as the right hon. member anticipated
and if it was only put into operation in such a place
as the City of London the result would satisfactorily prove
that the proposal was visionary in the extreme. Ho was
surprised how such a person as the hon. member could
have brought forward such a measure, especially as no
member in that House was more opposed to what he called
sudden changes and revolutions. (Hear, hear.) He
did not care one straw about the proposition with
respect to the bill with which they were now
discussing, but it would destroy all that was living and
en .rgetic in every constituency to which it was applied.
(Hear, hear.) He looked upon it as one of those crotchety
and dreamy propositions which they heard so frequently
in that house, and therefore he hoped the committee would
reject it.

Viscount CRANBORNE approved of the proposition,
and he could not but express his gratification in wit-
nessing the appearance of the hon. member for Birming-
ham in a new part, viz., a defender of our ancient consti-
tution. (Ilear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. J. S. MILL strongly supported the proposition,
and said the strong conservative speech that they had just
heard from the hon. member for Birmingham was doubtless
as great a surprise to the house as it was to himself, be-
cause it was the fiat speech of the right hon. gentleman
with which he was bound to say he could not cordially
Concur.

Mr. HENLEY opposed the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho had
already expressed his views on this matter without re-
serve. Ile thought it very unwise to adopt so vast a
change to produce such little consequences—to en-
counter such great dargers for such srnall results. If
the principle was only to be applied to boroughs returning
thrse members, that appeared to him to be futile, as it
would most undoubtedly have to be applied is places re-
turning two members, arid why not? He must de-
cline in the mouth of July to reconsider the whcle
question of ll,form in favour of a system that was in
opp)sition to the customs and manners of the country.
(llear, hear.) The whole principle was against
the sound principles of representation in such a
country as England. If the principle was adopted
it would produce a stagnant representation and a
feeble executive. (Hear, hear.) The representation
of minorities he had looked upon al a scheme to
get crochetty men into fault. They had been
successful to an extent, and ho did not think it
would be right to legislate in order to increase their num-
ber. (Hear, hear, and loud laughter.) Tho noble lord
the member for Stamford had said that monarchy was
dead, that the aristocracy was doomed, and democracy was
triumphant. (Laughter.) He bogged leave to doubt that
saying, because democracy could not be triumphant until
the clause of the hon, member for Caine was adopted.
(Hear, hoar, and laughter.) He for one was not disposed,
even if democracy was triumphant, to change the whole
spirit of representation in this great country.
Sir G. GREY said he was in favour of the amendment
to the new clause as proposed by Mr. Morrison, but before
that could be moved the clause now under discussion must
bo read a second time. On that understanding he should
vote for the second reading of the clause 9f the hon. mem-