The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-29 00:00:00

FENIANISM.

Mr. WHITESIDE asked when the papers relative to
Fenianism would be distributed to members.

Mr. C. FORTESCUE said papers had been laid on the
table, but ho could not say when they would be ready for
distribution.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
On the reading of the order of the day for the going
into committee on this bill,
Mr. BOUVERIE rose and moved " That the Represen-
tation of the People Bill and the Redistribution of Seats
Bill be referred to the same committee—that it be an in-
struction to the committee that they have power to con-
solidate the said bills into one bill."
The motion was put from the chair and agreed to.

Sir R. then moved that it be an instruc-
tion to the committee that they have power to make pro-
vision for the better prevention of bribery and corruption
at elections.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
instruction of the hon. member was in anticipation of a
debate. He hoped, however, he would not persevere with
it. The labour of sitting, perhaps, in. September and Oc-
tober to dispose of the Representation of the People Bill
and the Redistribution of Seats Bill was long enough,
without sitting into November to consider the question of
bribery. _ _

Mr. B. OSBORNE said the hon. member for Northamp-
tonshire deserved the thanks of all true reformers in
bringing forward the motion relative to bribery, which he
looked upon as the plague spot on the constitution.
If the Government were to get rid of their Re-
distribution of Seats Bill in order to consider the
best means to put an end to bribery and corruption,
they would then do something that was really useful.
(Hear, hear.) He knew very well what waiting for the re-
port of a committee on the subject meant—it meant this,
that nothing at all would be done. If, however, they
waited for a "convenient opportunity," they would wait
for a longtime. He hoped the hon. mmber would perse-
vere, and if ho divided the house he would give
him his
vote. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. NEWDEGiTE thought that whilst the subject of
dis
redistribution of seats was ruder cussion bribery ought
not to be lost sight of.
Mr. CLAY thought it was unavoidable t o
W
in-
definitely the consideration of such an import
important matter
bribery, and it was of the highest importance thatas
the
matter should be disposed of before the next election, a
nd
no one could say how soon that might occur.
Sir L. PALK also thought it highly desirable to consider
and dispose of the subject of bribery.
Sir G. GREY thought the law with respect to bribery
was now nearly as stringent as it was possible for a legis_
lative enactment to be. He thought that if hon. members
were in earnest the best course to adopt was rigidly to test
the efficiency of the law. He hoped that the consideration
of the bill for the amendment of the representation of the
people would not be impeded by the consideration of the
matter of bribery-
Bir H. CAIRNS said one member of the Government
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said the law with re-
',Peet to bribery was gravely and seriously defec-
tive, (gar,
that c: hear.) Now he should like to know
statement mPadeu b ll°ll was to be reconciled with the
just sat down, the right hon. baronet who had
was absolutely neces
Bsat
li rayh o: the subject.
the imrtance of de
, hear.) He felt that legislation
Mr. IL VIVIAN
a raw s°,s so deeply impressed with
with the question of bribery that
po dealing
he had given notice ofsi motion that a member who might
be found to have yes bribes
should henceforth be
disqualified from sitting in that h
the hon. bart.
with his me-
bribery was of itself quite sufficient o'crel:;squtheestihoonusoef
now proCeildng
an entire session, and therefore he hoped
would not impede the bill by

.
tion.
Mr. MOWBRAY thought the Government w
earnest in issuing the commissions appointedtaos not in
u
into bribery. Up to the present time, although aire
month
had elapsed since the Commissioners were appointed,
nothing further had yet been done.
Mr. STANILAND said, to show the necessity for
something being done to put down bribery, he knew a
borough on the east coast of England with about 1,000
voters where 700 received bribes—(cries of "Name, name'
—that the price paid on the average was £33 per head, some
of the independent electors had received as much as £6O
for their vote, and yet no petition had been presented to
that house complaining of such a state of things.
Mr. BARROW also supported the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL argued that the present
was not the proper time to consider the question with a
view of bringing it to a practical settlement. If the in-
struction meant anything it was to throwover the question
of reform altogether. _
Mr. WHITESIDE created considerable merriment by
remarking that if a little pressure were put on, the Govern-

went, who could settle and unsettle a constitution in a few
days, might as speedily frame a measure to suppress
bribery.
After some remarks from Colonel CROSLAND and Mr.
WYLD,
Mr. GIBSON said that if the subject of bribery had been
introduced into the bill the Government would have been
justly chargeable with departing from precedent. The
motion was a most effective mode of materially lessening
the chance of carrying the bill, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not be acting as a true friend to his own
proposals if he gave his assent to the motion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For Sir R. linightley's motion 248
Against it 238

Majority against Government ... 10
When the numbers were thus declared the cheers of
the Opposition were again renewed. There being some
impatient calls from the Opposition to have the numbers
read from the chair.
The SPEAKER again read the numbers, and declared that
the "Ayes" had it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving
that the Speaker should leave the chair, said that of course
Ministers would wait for the production of the scheme,
which no doubt Sir R. Knightley had formed, though he
had not communicated it to the house, for dealing with
bribery and corruption. When they had gone through
those parts of the bill which were legitimate portions of it,
and they had the clauses relating to bribery before them,
it would be their duty to give them a dispassionate consi-
deration, and if the hon. gentleman's proposal would suc-
ceed in dealing with that which was a great evil, the
Government would be glad to give him every assistance
in their power. But they would not, so far as depended
upon them, recede from the determination to prosecute
the bill during the present session.
Captain HAYTER (Wells) then moved the amendment
of which he had given notice, to the effect that the house
was of opinion that the system of grouping proposed by
her Majesty's Ministers was neither convenient nor equit-
able, and that it was otherwise not sufficiently matured to
form the basis of a satisfactory measure. In placing this
motion before the house, the hon. member, whilst dis-
claiming all factious motives, frankly avowed that he pro-
posed it in direct hostility to the Government. Hethe.n
examined the several groupings of boroughs contained
ttihoensb, and on theinsistedill,and grtohaunt
grounds
spoonf
want
of topographicalho oomogennesiitdyermam. -
mp oopnu lt at iaosnalaando
crude a
dl
am' t e
andre s ts,
immature, mea si
nu r e
principleo f the
G oe r
vicious-
berouas, unjustsatisfactotryo tshotetlebmoreonutg. hs concerned, and
wanodulddannogte
Major ANSON (Lichfield) seconded the motion, and
argued that the scheme of the Government was
it wouldasaltothbeer
without principle, sound or unsound, and that
• possible to make a good measure out of it.
Mr. BAGNALL (Whitby), while agreeing that the re-
presentative system was not in a satisfactory state, con-
sidered that the bill of the Government would only make
matters worse, and urged that a just distribution of seats
would include the enfranchisement of several important
communities that the measure left entirely untouched.
Mr. BARNET (Woodstock) pretested against the man-
ner in which the bill dealt with the borough he represented
in tacking it on to two other places in a different county ;
and Mr. S. BOOTH, who expressed disapproval of the mode
in which it proposed to unite Petersfield in Hampshire
with Horsham and Midhurst in Sussex, declared that the
feeling in the South of England was decidedly opposed to
such a "shunting" of seats.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not surprised at the
opposition of Captain Hayter to the Government scheme,
seeing that Wells was a place which must be wholly or
partially disfranchised by any Reform Bill, but he was sur-
prised at the shape which the hon. member's opposition
had taken. He then proceeded to contrast the provisions
of the Ministerial measure with the scheme shadowed out
by Mr. Disraeli on the second reading of the bill, and con-
tended that if the proposed groupings of small boroughs
were carried into effect the result would be to cure the
anomalous state of things under which those boroughs had
the same number of representatives as the most populous
constituencies, to destroy the system of nomination by
neighbouring landowners and the influence of local
cliques, and to render more difficult the work of corruption
at elections. If the motion before the house were carried
the reins of power might be transferred to gentlemen oppo-
site, but he warned them that they would not be able to
evade the question of Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. SANDFORD (Maldon) observed that, if the views
of the Solicitor-General pointed in any direction, it was to
the establishment of electoral districts. Arguing in favour
of the retention of small boroughs as the nurseries and har-
bours of refuge for public men, ho reminded the house that
among the members of the Government the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. Cardwell, and Sir G. Grey ; amongst
the members of the late Ministry, General Peel, Mr. Wal-
pole, Sir Bulwer Lytton, Sir John Pakington, and Lord J.
Manners ; and amongst independent members, Mr. R.
Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and Lord Cranborne, had all owed
their introduction to public life through the means of small
constituencies, and he held that if the bill passed it would
be fatal to the intellect of the house.

Mr. LOCKE opposed the motion as sinister in character,
and predicted that although the members for small and in-
significant boroughs like Wells and Caine might succeed in
defeating the bill, when next the question should be
brought forward, instead of being treated as infinitesimal
quantities, they would be swept away entirely.
Colonel BAETELOT criticised the operation of the bill
upon the representation of counties, and complained that,
by the introduction of leaseholders and copyholders into
the county constituencies, the effect must be to swamp the
rural element, with which the urban was not identical. He
pleaded especially that counties, or divisions of counties,
in the position of East Sussex, ought to have a third
member.

Major JERVIS having moved the adjournment of the
debate,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Go-
vernment have no disposition to prevent a full discussion
upon this question ; but I cannot help expressing my regret
at the motion for adjournment, because having listened to
the debate from the commencement, it does not appear to
me that it has been a debate on the principle of this bill,
Ibut almost entirely on points of objection that ought rather
to be discussed in committee. If, however, there is a desire

for the adjournment I trust we shall be able to proceed
with the debate to-morrow, for as all parties profess to be
agreed on the great importance of this question--all parties,
I hope, will be prepared to testify their sense of that im-
portance by facilitating arrangements which are intended
to bring it speedily to an issue. At all events that is the
view of the Government, and in that view 1 shall presume
to make an appeal to my hon. friend the member for
Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian), who has a motion on the
paper for to-morrow with referende to bribery at elections.
On the notice paper it stands alone, but I understand that
two or three motions have since been added, and of course
my
hon.
friend cannot be asked to postpone his motion
unless other gentlemen do the same. (The right hon.
gentleman on turning round discovered, amid some laugh-
ter, that the hon. member was not in his place.) I suspect
my hon. friend has been misled by the early hour at which
the motion for adjournment has been made, because I be-
lieve he was prepared to entertain the question so far as
to say that he would withdraw his motion provided other
gentlemen would do the same. Of ccurse lam not autho-
rised to commit him to anything in his absence, but I
would ask whether gentlemen who have notices for to-
morrow are willing to withdraw them if my hon friend does
the same ? ("No, no !") If they are not, of course the Go-
vernment are in the hands of the house, and I must in that
case fix the adjourned debate for Thursday. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELL—Perhaps the house will allow me to
express what my view is as to the position in which they
are placed with regard to this question. Ido not wish to
enter into any recrimination on the matter, but merely to
state what is the position of the house, and what I think is
the course we ought to take. Now, from the remarkable
manner in which, from circumstances to which I do not wish
to recur, those important measures for the improvement of
theincthetrheepreresreenatallytiohnasobf,en n
peoople have been brought before
discussion as yet on what may
be called the principle of the complete measure. (Cheers.)
I appeal to the fairness of both sides of the house whether
this is not the fact. A partial measure was in the first in-
stance brought forward by the Government. The propriety
of that course was contested, and after considerable discus-
sion, but a discussion confined to the partial measure, an-
other part of the scheme was brought forward by the Go-
vernment. Well, from the manner in which these measures
were introduced to our notice, and from the peculiar cir-
cumstances attendant upon the discussion which arose, we
were obliged to agree to the second reading of thepartial
measure, and that having taken place, there was a general
understanding on both sides of the house that when the
other moiety of the measure was brought forward it should
be placed in the same
tpositionerby g
as theod k
nfirste thanpart
of
by
the
mea-
sure found itself in, rah
wasave
p,
difficult concur-
rence of opinion.ene
to
e pursue, Tha That
and
ds
which
coursehieh
involved
considerable
n
sacrifice todmtahneyvheroyn.nmemempibicetrase;dsatnild perplexing
rl, on thei
e x winhg o le
position
b ar-
ing in mi
in which the house was placed with reference to what may
fairly be described as the most important subject
be
Ithathtinkco,ultdhe cbeomete
eounnredeer
that cceonnisd iderataiodne,pted. vit
Thewas,
spirit, and,
house acted with perfect good faith in that
therefore, when the question of the second readig of thee
seeondmoiety of themeasure was brought forward, 1 on th
Part of my friends expressed our intention to place it in
the same position as the first moiety. We have thus suc-
ceeded in having the complete measure placed before us,
but while I won't say it a condition that we should
we agree th'aty
read it a second time, was
hap-
pened that thenflaaounlseeaawnarse
perhaps, entofroonme
hcidreaumstnaonnctersolovietrso which,
wcohnodler.eaAdfi
tnegr nearly threer :ma:Ole:re ht
ahh , obliged 3. to agree to the se-
tvheerrwefaosred,ifsrcoumssethde asina-
troduction of the first bill,
theve had no opportunity
until to-night of considering
rereetht
oathat measure.
hiet
(Cheers.) Now, whatever influence I m.
friends I certainly exercised to induce may
possess with my
second reading of the Redistribution Bill, in might be put upon the same level as the Franchise Bill,
but I did so byassuring them--for Ithought I could repeat