New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-12
THE ENGLISH ELECTION
MIR. DnIcHr's srrrcm Ar prnnNou,u

I OfUpr THW
eral candidates for the representation OF
Messrs. Dixon and Muntz--addressed donsey crors
meeting OF the electors In the Town Hail. on the ann
most enthusiastic reception given to the boooraX
| gentleman aud his colleagues w -
Mr. j. s. Wright, who presided, having briefly once
Mr. j. Jafffay moved the following resolution:
That with the view OF defeating the operation On a.
hh e 6rce gaT cT and 81 certain The
Munz-this meeting is Of opinion that the plau ycte
proposed by the Liberal Association should receive s
UNANIMOUS support Of the Liberal electors" The Rsv
Charles Vance at great length seconded the resouti
which was unanimously agreed to.
Mr. Bright on rising to address the meeting, was \,
eeiyed with great cheering. He said referring 10 M,
charge that he had opposed the Reform act although ~
there were left in It. Wien tie Bill passed only p four eS
plete and perfect clauses, such as the Government a.
feIed TO the House. Out of CT clauses Al were males
ally altered 10 OF them were borrowed from Mr. Glad
stones bill Of 1906 Only four passed as the Gov |
what those clauses were The first was the clause Wild
gives the title OF the bl the second the claus
which dsfranchsed the borougis OF Lancaster, Var
mouth Reigate and Totnes the third wac clause III
any elector; and the fourth Temporary %
vision for the registration OF some divided counties
boroughs. (Laughterl should Ike TO ask you lIop
that bill would have been made worth one single farthx
II somebody had not voted against all the evil parts
It as it first came before the House. Ichesn3
The Reform bill of 1882 refused the franchise to any Oce
pier whose rates were paid by his landlord unless 10
adopted precisely the same principle. The Reform bill
1881 excluded by this principle "a 900 occnpsss 81 go and
first proposed than $4,000 occupers who were under M
$40 value The 1900 occnplers originally excluded y
the Reform bill Of 1892 were afterward admitted ~
single clause which Sisr,s az my tho mo'o hin and
Rs compoSna Act Of 1851 ce
When the bill of last year brought in asked tie
oyernment-that is asked the Chancellor Of the Ex.
chequer now the Prime Minister, how he intended 70
settle the question OF the compound householder above
I'm DO Won intend TO insist upon this difference thai
Willie the compound householder above $40 value is adj
ed ,G'S so a. This IS monsro@s propSson "a
which this Parliament surely will never consent, aud
did he say 20 me in replyi think have his exact
words He said that he would settle all TINS comfortably
enough that he would do equal justice But what hs
really equal injustice to both classes ana hs
had the audacty to say that he would repeal my eaass
In the Act OF lS5l-a clause TO which LORD Russell had
consented, which Sir W. Page Wood had drawn mp, winch
had passed both Houses without as Ses h gwen
cluded The present Prime Minister sald lhst hs
der. whether above or below 49, shonld have
vote unless he paid he luli amount OF MS ihtes.
There were three ways out OF this difficulty, ana " "
sonetmes convenient TO have way OF getting
ont Of a difficulty. Laughter.I lie might nave had
pure household suffrage, without any reference 90 ahs
rhateyer which, of course would have been the best.
He might, according 20 the motion MADE IN tne iiose
Mr Herbert extended the operation OF my clause
which operated upon the "a O and might have EXTENDED
it 10000 aud justice would have peen doHe; or ~
might have done another thng. when ne arc hoi,S
agreed to do and which be did, which was 10 apoSs
the system Of compromising altogether ana wc
was the least wise and the most harsh ana te most
fable Of the different propositions oneteo 70 i
The GOverment-Mr Dsrae IS me are
solely responsible for that mesSurg hsen lar II, tha
would have been lnfllcleu hdU ApAN az
hands Of the Liberal party; aud believe may say with
confidence that IL the grievance reIneule VIII
of the House lCheersl The bill. until the compromising
clause abolished. would have had tins strange eI
under $40 would have been admitted to the fran
cse because there he system Of compromising neyes
zeal for freedom bearing no less renOwn Tor us services
to the Liberals Of England % Sns S bs S a. pro-
posed would not have enfranchised IN all Engand sna
Wales more than $4,000 voters IN Doroughs. Ihe pn
hat amendment addeO, ana tnat pfOFrU
agreed to- enfranohised times many as the bI
WAS as Originally era and had az said to yoI&e ara
now a very unlucky party In Birmingham, tnere 20
Excluded by the Reform bill Of 1882 have been
admitted by the bill OF 1867, whereas In IN
are equally excluded by the bill OF 1851. viii not ask
You what you would have said but what DO you thn1
teri Why he would have said and with some show VI
truth that II had not made my protest ssst hs as
ess of the unenfrancsed people OF BInn ss
inc case stood the House OF Commons. 1t was Gbso-
lntely impossible for any Reformer TO prevent tile abe
sion OF Parliament and it has beenl extraordinary
grievance in many places, and IN none mas II Oeeb great
or grievance than the population OF this town Hear
Turning then 10 the consideration OF the minority
clause the honorable gentleman proceeded; ~ it nos
parted FROM and that the principle Of the law as passed
last is n the teeth 81 an r
years past. Loud cheers There are believe, seven
are empowered to send to Parliament three
members each, and there are also six
the city Of London four; but in all these
cases except city OF London, where one eecor may
IL this principle is good principle, why not have 1t all
the constituency Hear, hear Is the general
policy of the great boroughs SO much dsked that
necessary cripple them Let them suppose that you
adopt the principle throughout all the constuen
ces, what would happen In places where there Is on
presume, II the minority is TO be represented
you have that Of faced man who can sut
two parties aud look two was at once-loud anghter
Hobbies at once in a division in the House. Con
tnued laughter And what are you TO DO In
seats CIearly on give one to the minority, borough
is neuraEed and is il the position of many boroughs Of
IL would return one man TO say aye" and another
say no." therefore, the borough would count for moth
tins clause was proposed the House OF Commons u was
rejected by majority Of IA against IT. cheers Well,
what became Of things there The House OF Lords
es % ny S TS
In doing very little Laughter ana cheers Ihey daed
in it, and made it little worse aud pretended to do
something against the popular cause; and Lord Cairns
was passed as il now stands did say about
iti lie said it would represent the minority in Dor
ough, which would include the most Intelligent portion
OF the constituency. Cheers and aughter ~ be true
political action is 10 prove himself the most Intelligent.
then there many OF our opponents whose intelligence
@aSr Of pary think asked o 81 san n a.
candidate for place which generally considered
Tory aud was asked TO come In under the minority
clause would give me feeling OF disgust that can
hardly put into words would not stand sit for such
V Commons and Ger M, Vi ~ '" a5ds e o liz
House as the representative Of the constituency
small portion oil the constituency that never had the
right 10 have voice, and never woud have had butss
Of Lords into bill for the reformOf the House OF Com
mons. Cheers There were great men-lnen for whom
clause hate the clause less, but think have the
tu VI