The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-29 00:00:00

THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

The house then went into ;ornmittee on the SCotch
Reform Bill.'
On clause 9, •
Mr. GRAHAM moved an amendment, the effect of
which was to divide Glasgow int, three divisions, eac h
returning one member in opposition to the proposition of
the Government, which also divided Glasgow into three
parts, but allow the electors only to vote for two par-
sons.
Mr. DISRAELI said before the discussion proceeded
further ho wished it to be clearly understood that the
effect of carrying the amendment would be to rescind the
proposition that had been already adopted by Parliament
with respect to triangular representation.
Mr. SMOLLET-T said he should give his support to
the amendment of the hon. member opposite. He
believed that the triangular system was bad, and he• felt
for the future that the representation of Glasgow would in
the next session be found very much to have deteriorated.
He thought the third of the three-cornered members would
be the worst one of the lot—(laughter)—as he moro than
likely would be the mouthpiece of some trades' union.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought it would b) very una ise
to revive the question of the representation of minorities,
which occupied so much time last year on the English
bill. He thought the system would get a fair trial under
the English bill, and therefore he hoped the house would
accept the proposal of the hon. member for Glasgow.
Mr. LOWTHER hoped the committee would reject the
amendment.

Mr. NE.WDEGATE said if G!asgow was divided into
three wards, each ward returning one member, there would
be no representation of the minority at all. As the opinion
of the minority was to be respected, he hoped the house
would reject the amendment.
M. MILL argued in favour of the representation of
minorities as an act of
justice entirely apart from party
considerations, but
Mr. BRIGHT, on the other hand, warmly condemned
it, characterising it as an odious innovation, eminently dis-
tasteful to the English constituencies to which it had been
applied, and certain to produce chaos in all electioneering
organisations. He denied that the principle had been de-
liberately adopted by the house last year. Originally it
was rejected by
a majority of 140, Mr. Disraeli (as well as
Lord Derby) being among its most earnest opponents.
But when the bill came down from the Lords with this
and other amendments (all of which the Commons struck
out), the Government persuaded the. House to accept it
rather than offend the Lords atireoke them to post-
pone the bill. •
Colonel L. LINDSAY claimed that if great towns were
to be exempted from this princ • iple it ought not to b) ap-
plied to counties..
Mr"devoted adherence" to American institu-
tions,tl3rLig whichihdt a lde'll in
r. °RPrPig°llBitfigthe contradictedamenasmo amendment,
lly attributed
as
obring to
Ilr
down on himself the condemnation of the chairman, and
Mr. Liddell retorted that, at any rate, Mr. Bright seemed
an admirer of American manners.
Mr. CARDWELL eulained that having last year voted
in favour of the represeation of minorities, he now sup-
ported the "voting by war4',:.fon the same ground as Mr.
--L...
Gladstone, that it wils, ant expo littint which deserved try-
ing
Mr. DISRAELI reminded the committee that the cou-
troversy lay not between the minority -Oinciplo and the
present system of voting, but between the minority prin-
ciple and a new plan, totally unknown to the Constitution,
which had never been proposed before.
Mr. HORSMAN replied that the metropolis was divided
into wards in 1832, and Sir G. GREY added that the bill of
last year divided the Tower Hamlets.
On a division Mr. GRAIIA.M'S amendment was rejected
by a majority of 59-244 to 185.
A second division was then taken on an amendment
proposed by Mr. Bouverie as to the boundaries of Glas-
gow, which resulted in a tie of 112 on each side. The
Chairman, taking into consideration that a second oppor-
tunityht up.
would be afforded of debating the point on the
thus leaving the bill
ged to, the actual appli-
cation being post-
ponedcun
atoai
ol scheduler,atnerct unaltered.
Clause
utt s decidedebh Clausese
oa wiu
tonul9rivl
esi wastat3,lpropositionsp str
ith haneer
ceni Apbalyreg
oersut: t 0
l
of the Government to
combine the counties of Peebles and Selkirk was agreed
to, after a short conversation, Mr. lioncreiff being the only
dissentient.
Mr. CRAUFURD proposed that the member thus ob-
tained should be given to Aberdeen, but his motion meet-
ing with but small support, he withdrew it, and the Go-
vernment plan of conferring the member on a group of
Borderelkirk,
was boroughs,
agree cod
to.istin
_Hayrick, Galashiels, and
Selkirk,
The next discussion was on a motion by Mr. LAING to
combine the counties of Ross and Sutherland.
ns g of
&Lord R. LEVESON-GOWER made a spirited and effec-
tive speech in defence of Sutherlandshire, which, though
its electors were only obout 120, had a population (25,000)
larger than that of some counties and many boroughs re-
presented by two members.
Sutherlandshire also found powerful advocates in Mr.
BOUVERIE and Mr. HORSMAN, who urged the committee, if
it desired to get through the bill before Whitsuntide, to
accept the Government plan as a whole, and to discounte-
nance the amendments of private members, which now
spread over 20 pages.
Mr. DISRAELI resisted any further disturbance of; the
electoral arrangements of Scotland, and opposed also on
its merits the proposal to disfranchise a constituency ex-
tending over a large tract of country and representing a
considerable population.
Mr. GLADSTONE also protested against the disfran-
chisement of Sutherlandshire. Population, and not the
number of electors, he maintained, had always been the
test hitherto, and he hinted that to depart from the Go-
vernment plan might lead to the reopening of the English

scheme.
-Oa the guggeetivA 91 lir. Prue, %Mug IyaN, §O-