Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-04-13
The British Reform Bill.


an exceedingly able debate in the House OF
Commons, on the evening Of the 23d, upon a
motion of Mr. Ulsraeli that the so-called
Peoples Reform Bill be passed to its second
reading. The general principles Of this
measure have already been stated with sutti-
cieut clearness to enable the reader to COM
prehend its provisions. We have now To fol-
low it in its progress through parliament
When the Candidate left, an amendment
was offered by Lord John Russell, and upon
this amendment it was thought the Ministry
would be defeated-albeit counting with their
supporters, for this time, the chief OF the op-
position, Lord Palmerston. His Lordship's
amendment is rs follows:
That this house is Of opinion that 1t is
neither Just nor polite to interfere, in the
manner proposed in this bill, with the free
hold franchise as hitherto exercised in the
counties in England and Wales; and that no
establishment of the franchise will satisfy
this house or the country, which does not pro-
vide for greater extension OF the suffrage
in cities and boroughs than is contemplated
in tho present measure
Lord John backed up these propositions
with telling speech. The House was crow
ded to excess, aud the audience are said to
have listened with unbroken attention to its
close. His Lordship contended that the bill
before the House destroyed ancient privileges
without providing adequately for new claims.
Presuming the present qualification as form,
ed on occupation tenure, or rs modified and
to some extent enlarged by the various iran
chises proposed in the government measure,
he insisted upon the eXpcdlency both OF reduc-
ing the minimum of the borough franchise,
and of retaining some distinction between the
borough and county qualification. The ques-
ton, he contended, ought to be decided up
OH the responsibility of the administration.
1t was for the Cabinet Ministers to take the
initiative and bring forward a measure, but
it remained with the House to decide wheth-
er the principles on which their bill was
founded were to be accepted orrepudiated.
With regard to the present measure, he de-
clared that he considered it to be u noxious,
injurious and Il dangerous measure. His
own advocacy of electoral reform dated FROM
1919. and while discaiming all party
or selfish motives for the step he was now
taking, he relied upon the antecedents OF his
past career and the success Of the Reform
Act of 1882, as giving him title 10 authority
in resisting proposition which he consider
ed so delusive and unsatisfactory.
Lord Stanley, on the part Of the Govern
ment combatted the positions here assumed,
contending that the proposed amendment
was ingeniously framed so As to raise false
issue, and attract II majority of votes, while
carefully avoiding to challenge an unbiased
verdict upon the second reading of the bill.
The real question was, not whether the meas
ure should pass into law. but whether politl-
cal power should pass into other hands. On
this basis he consented to accept the issue
of the present discussion, and stake the fate
of the bill upon the ultimate result. Lord
Stanley then noticed successfully the various
objections urged against the measure.
The trainers (he said) had been charged
with refusing the just rights Of the work king
classes, but upon analysing the various fran
chises created by the bill, he maintained that
wide and liberal provision was made, by
which every man who chose to exercise u
moderate degree of industry and thrift, could
easily obtain his due share OF franchise
privileges. What the bill did not do was,
that it did not admit the working classes to-"
unfortunately and in body, in whcl
case their numbers would overbcar ana
swamp the votes of every other class OF the
community. Two tests, he submitted were
available in the determination OF fitness tor
electoral privileges. One was based upon
education. which, being as yet new and I'M
tried in the constitutional system, had net
been included in the bill. The other con-
sisted of moderate property quallhcat'on'
and this was the presiding principle: inter
preted in most liberal spirit wherever
electoral rights were conceded under the pro-
visions of the measure. Lord Stanley then
yindicated the government proposition with
regard to the treatment Of small boroughs,
the novel elements introduced INTO the couh.
ty constituencies, and the identification OF
the county and borough franchises. The
measure brought forward by the government
was, he contended, practicable, safe. and
equitable. Nor did it deserve to be stigma
TIED as trivial or inadequate. The new
flO occupation franchise would add 100000
to the electorate, and the savngs-bank,
dodgers, and professional clauses would fur
nish another 100000. lie denied that the
British constitution was aristocratic; 1t was
more essentially middle class. On that sys-
TEN the country had been governed during
periods of heavy trial, and raised to It's pre-
sent pitch of power and property. 1t was IN
accordance with this principle that the MN
istry had framed their present measure tor
Parliamentary reform"
Whether Ministers will resi- ign in the event
of a defeat of the Bill, or not, Is mooted
question with the London journals. a mere
probable proceeding, in the event supposed
will be a dissolution of Parliament and an
appeal to the country" in which case .po-
pular agitation of the most formidable DIM
ensions is incvitable.-N. J. Courier.
HOSIERY AND GLOVES.
lust received by ". \. BERkLEl, very