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

y•) --7

. . ,
' ..
- t
,i-
-..,.1,.. ,•• .
t 1' .
....„.,....71/1i ' ..
• • , .. . .
• _tew-c.
../7 4 %
-T, ,c • c1:1-11- . /,i://'
tt •
t-s '
cji,,; . ..> ,
- ~:gt!..41-.4 - ,N. ...„- ~----„-,,. „. ,
~. 4, , ~...,
1. WS r---- 44 • . ~;.• . - 00 • • '. - ktl,)!"
.„,,:y;;,...:-..Th %Vl*
..-,t ---
dirr.;7c:: ,- ','-'...' ~ , •S• -,,
~-,AL .''''' cs. l''-'-t...., --,- ...,..
i,..,1.
-.,',:•'..t ,"
.......
\ ~...... . •C. i',.,-, ,v,:a.:*--,_____, %a I li: T, . ~/ipiJ.N. 4014.,„ •:itig,.., .:Inzoirr.:o '''' ig '..:.
......... .............................
..,:- .
---
N.,::L':-.F,%:.,,,,:,,„„..,'"
t •
...

/ '4,07

~-

they at ouco restored the qualification to the figure it
originally stood at, and such a proceeding showed, Le
thought, the greatest desire on the part of their lordships
to act with unanimity in rissing an act of such great
importance. Thom wore three amendments., however,
which he would more particularly refer to, and the
first was that made with respect to clause
which diminished the amount of the copyhold or
leasehold franchise; and as their lordships were of
opinion that the matter 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 amendment 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
exereise and register his franchise. Tho clause laid it
down that in constituencies returning three mem-
bers no person should vote for more than rico 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. (Rear, hear,
from the Government side of the house.) Although he
did not approve of the principle, yet in regarding the
manner in which the bill had boon 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 it way originally introduced by the Govei n-
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 lead to a great enfranchisement,
because, doubtless, there were a groat many persons
under the present system who never recorded their votes.
(Rear. hear.) But it was said the proposition would tend
to personation and corruption—(hear, hoar, and loud
cheers from the Opposition side of the house)—but it
must bo borne in mind that that objectionable state of
things occurred at present. (Hear, 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 ono
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 better.
The house thou proceeded to consider the first amend-
ment of the Lords in clause 3, the effect of which was
to make the voters iu the now 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 R. Palmer, supportedby Mr. Lowther,
and ultimately disagreed with.
On the next amendment—the omission of clause 5, which
reduced the copyhold and leasehold qualifications to .£s—
division took place, and the clause was restored, on the
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 than, 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, lie
replied that the commons had originally rejected the idea
by a largo majority, and insisted that on a point affecting
their own constitution the vote of the House of Commons
was of mote 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 to suspend its decision until the idea
had become more familiar. The clause, he argued, would
uld
extinguish the political life of the country; it wo
nullify the boon conferred on the four great towns,
each
of which would for the future in all divisions ou great
political questions be represented by ono member. He
avowed that had he 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. Beresford Hope,
who supported the clause, and when he sat down it nar-
rowly escaped a premature extinction. For a moment or
two no member rose to continue, and the Speaker was
putting the question, when Sir J. C. Jervoise rose and
made some observations, which were understood to bo
favourable to the clause.
orted it, and replied to Mr.
Mr. C. BUXTON also supported
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 measuatre of
disfranchisement, and ridiculing the suggestion thl2
minority members would be of any avail in correcting the
• democratic tendencies of the bill.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUCrESSEN, who warmly sup-
ported the scheme, maintained that Mr. Bright's opplectoral
osition
• to it proceeded from his desire to arrive at equal e
districts and the concentration of power in the hands of
the great towns. Arguing the question entirely from 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
L large classes of intelligent men who now hold aloof alto-
gether, and would load to the representation of men as well
as of communities.
• Mr. GOSOHEN argued that minorities were already
over-represented; that the plan would make members
mere delegates, and would lead to equal electoral districts
and personal as opposed to local representation ; and
of
dwelt oa the injustice of diminishing the electoral piolowberill
the groat towns which had done so much to
hre.
Hubbard, Th e clause
and wmars.
GsulapdpostrotneaddbaypioMrodr. Nthe
w ddeelinitiseontanodf
the
Government, though he did not censure it., admittingconsiderations
difficulties of their position, and that ma
of which considerations
the House
might have to be kept in view by
could know little, but
would not be because the House had
to
waiveits
opinion.
but because it bad been pointed out
tthhhenamtd fit
clangeases
caitsrrimeidndi t,
ted by two different sec-
innovation—which was suppor
limited in its application
Ho insisted that if what
of which thought it so
Pnlale'sudescribed as a mischievus
tions, ono Lance and the other dis-
'mpor ,
as to be P
p it would have to be applied
fodfnonaintedu,niversal system of personal
were
a must load to a reconstruction of
corned
nint-actiotenliti_eenglejYrnoi
to the whole country, and
To himself. personally the plan
party which had mainly elected
weakest in the constituency, but ho disclaimed
him was the
11 desire to sit in the House except as the mem-
nflo.r the .
iwonuoraudl de:act:col
advance
oeberaanloilseYisatle,
'her for a majority. Ho dwelt with force on the injustice
inflicted on those groat towns by curtailing them of their
oand urged that longer time should be
given to l
considerpower, so important a change, for it was only
n
days since it had boon laid before the public. He
Oeot days
urged that the general minority was already represented
by the small boroughs, and that if it were desired to give
representatives to the minorities in the large towns, the
seats ought to be taken from the small boroughs and not
from the majorities. Protesting strongly against the re-
presentation of persons as opposed to the representation of
communities, and showing how absurdly the plan would
work iu the case of by-elections, ho 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
those plans was to give to these conimunities 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
end of representation was to represent as nearly as possible