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

PliiCE.... 4d.
STAMPED sd.

they at once restored the qualification to the figure it
originally stood at, and such a proceeding showed, he
thought, the greatest desire on. the part of their hardships
to act with unanimity in p issing an act of such great
importance. There were three amendments, however,
which he would more particularly refer to, and the
first was that made with respect to clause
e, 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 l8.;2
ehoul.l 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
exorcise 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 carded by an almost over-
whelming majority, and tho 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 he
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 iu the
spirit of conciliation, thought it both prudent and proper
to support the decision the House of Lords had arrived
at. ("Hear, hoar," 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 was 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 boon fully discussed in
that house on former occasions, and doubtless
Again; but he would say that if the amen,.
adopted it would lead to a great onfranehesament,
because, doubtless, there were a great many persons
under the present system who never recorded their votes.
(Hear. hear.) But it was said the proposition would t
end
end
to personation and corruption—(ear, hear, and
cheers from the Opposition side of the house) —but it
must be 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.)
Ho 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, ho 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 plot. 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 H. 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. 11.
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
BRIGHT, who condemned it as a restriction of
electoral power, rind pointed out to those who, like Mr.
Mill, supported it more as a mode of representing every-
body the-, 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. Dieraeli's single plea
.for accepting it, he
replied that the commons hail erigiteely rejected the idea
by a largo 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 bad
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. Tho clause, he argued, would
extinguish the political life of tbo 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 ho 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 ho sat down.it nar-
rowly escaped a premature extinction. For a moment or
r
two no member rose to continue, and the Speaker
putting the question, when Sir J. C. JerVoise rose and
made some observations, which were understood to be
favourable to the clause.
Mr. 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
stion a measure of
disfranchisement, and ridiculing the sugge that 12
minority members would be of any avail in correcting the
democratic tendencies of the bill.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, who warmly sup-
ported the scheme, maintained that Mr. Bright'e oppoelesitictoon
to it proceeded from his desire to arrive at equal ral
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 sics time of
popular commotion, and that it would interest in polit
largo classes of intelligent men who now held aloof alto-
gether, and would lead to the representation of men as well
as of communities.
Mr. GOSCHEN argued that minorities were already
nted; that the plan would make members
over-represe
more delegates, and would lead to equal electoral districts
and personal as opposed to local representation ; ands
dwelt ea the injustice of diminishing the electoral phoowtb•ill.
the great towns which had done so much to pass t
Tho clause was supported by Mr. Novoll'gtt.°ouanod,. 3tibro.
Hubbard, and Mr. Gladstone deplored the deed:: i
Ming the
Government, though ho did not censure it,
admitting
difficulties of their position, and the moauf
which the House
might have to be kept in view by
pic4resud'tees(cirilb,yedt:os
could know little, but pointed outotthhhaaamtychittisovgeor,eiciilsrrsileidwilt,
would not be because the house d
Cd to WitiVo its opinion.
but because it had been mischievousiffero
t see-
fie insisted that if what
innovation.— which was suerr
limited in its application
and the other dis-
importance,
times, ono of which thought it so
as to lie practically of DO
n universal system of personal
corned in it the germ ofi
representation—were a( odfipte(l, it would have to be applied
u:momust lead to a reconstruction of
to the whole country,
himself personally the plan '
our electoral system.
which had mainly elected
would be beneficial, for the party
the constituency, but ho disclaimed
Lim was the weakest inthe House exce as the
in advance advance all desire to ei
orce on the injustice
ber for a majority. Ho dwelt with f . I .
inflicted on these great towns by curtailing them of their
electoral power, and urged that longer time should be
giver to rout:e'er so important a change, for it was only
nine days generalsinc bad been laid before the public. He
urged that the g 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
front 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 in the case of by-elections, Le urged the House not
to give these great 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 overloeked 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
represe
nta-
tion corresponding to the state of opinon
them, and the
argument on which he supported it was that the worship
was. a political superstition, and that the true
of numbers
oud 91 repregatotiP WM to represent a9uoarly as possible