New-York tribune., 1873-05-17
BRITISH TOPICS.
,re rpou THE ENGLISH CAPITAL.

TIIE
LONDON, May 1.-The annual debate in the
Uonse of Commons on Female Suffrage occurred yester
day, and the annual vote taken, with result not
materially differing from that OF Last year. What hr.
Jacob Brighps bin proposed would be regarded by tho
Woman's Rights party IN America as very moderate
instaIlment of the wishedfor reform. 1t would II
adopted give the elective franchise to unmarried women
and widows who themselves householders and rate
payers The names such persons are one OF their
advocates remarks already the ratebook they vote
for guardians OF poor for municipal councillors, ana
for school boards they eligible oyerseers' ana are
in many anxously sought as members OF scnoo'
boards; but when q member OF Parliament mas 70 oe
elected they unable TO vote. The removal OF tns
disability Is all that the most advanced agtators III
England have yet asked Parliament TO grant III may
seem moderate but resistance 10 1t Is OF tho most
resoute kind and its prospect OF adoption seems as re-
moto AZ when Mr. Jacob Bright first brought forward
four years ago. t may be desirable to state that MI
Jacob Bright and Mr. John Bright are two distinct per
SONS and American papers which have been IN tne
habit of quotingr John Bright as an advocate OF ths
measure are mistaken Mr. John Bright ia not an adVo-
cate Of it, opponent OF IT, and though he does not
think IT worth while TO oppose 1t In public, his adverse
expressions In cohversation are known TO De
forcible. In Parliament, the present leaucr oI
the opponents Of the bill ia Mr. Bouverie, the candd
friend" OF the Government as Mr. Bernal O5Dorhe
called him, their damned good-nlured friend; Whch
1s, naSteu 10 uiothti'h' onn Hs"J
be printed without dash between the two as 1t was
OF him that the author political Portraits" said he
had often proved the superiority OF his sense OF puohc
duty personal feelings, when the personal feel
ings were those Lord Russell or Mr. Gladstone MT
Bouyee is one OF the surviving wings, and may be
surnmariy described man who s for leaving Things
as they are being sadly convinced that there s no pres
ent prospect OF making them what they were lie thinks
the Foundations OF Society are undermined by Mr Ja
cob Brghts bill so measures 0f the last ~ years
have, in Mr. Bouverie's opinion, undermined lnose
foundations that is a matter of wonder "Sociey has
ANYTHING left TO upo1 and the force OF the objection
TO this other particular measure Is somewhat I'm
paired Beside which another Guardanof the Founda-
tions is OF contrary opinion. This Is Mr. Henley, whom
the writer have Just quoted draws the most hard
headed and the hardest hitting Of Tory sguires-the
obstinate old fellow who declared with reference TO
some dreaded bill that whoa every means OF opposition
had failed would lie down on his back If he could
do nothing else and shout Fudge Mr.. Henley, never
theless, announced himself yesterday rs convert 10
the present He had always voted against IL
hitherto but he should support 1t now, because the
municipal franchise had been given 70 women ana the
Foundations Of Society had been destroyed by that
and he saw no reason for distinction between the
municipal and parliamentary franchise. THIS Is
notable convert and on strength OF this aud of an
increased minority the womens party look upon the
event OF yesterday as great success. Tue majority
against the bill fact rather less than was last
being 6I, whereas III was tneu ~,
Of their supporters increased by H. while their lu
placable opponents poed just as before.
None OF the party leaders spoke either side.
Beside Mr. BOuyere and Mr. Henley, the only speaker
OF real eminence Prof Pawcet who was OF course
for the BILL and put the argument for it in the strongest
way 1t is capable Of being put Mr. Bruce, the Home
Secretary among its opponents speaking not as
member OF the Government but in his individual char
acter heard lady who goes for the bill declare that
his speech was "abomnsbe" am willing 10 take her
word for IL. What she meant that her views
differed from his. Mr.. Beresord Hope rldcued the a
tation as fictitious, and Mr. Knatchbul Hugessen with
characteristic perspcaey, found argument against
the bill in the fact that God had created difference be-
tween and women-a statement 1t would certainly
be difficult TO dispute. Altogether, L reason 10
suppose that the has either gained much or lost
much by Yesterdays discussion and division Though
yet perhaps "bazng question:, II Is sure TO get
hotter as years 20 on Its advocates will certainly
renew their efforts. NJ: Dsrael Is understood to be
ready take up this-or any other-measure as soon
as it holds out hope OF party advantage He voted
for IL once and expected 10 speak for IT, but did
his way taking much trouble in Its present
stage. During yesterdays debate ho sat impassve on
the front bench responding by sign nor word to the
eager expectations which agitated the ladies' gallery.
memorial, letter, had been sent him. numerously
signed and urgently entreatlng him say something
the bill but 10 these entreates he proved OBJ
duratc. His name however Is among the Yeas. With
him voted two his former colleagues in the Cabinet
Mr. George Ward Hunt his Chancellor OF the Exchequer
and Stafford NOrthcote, Secretary for India in '67
and 'Gs, afterward member OF the High Joint Commis
son together with two othOr prominent members of his
Government Sir Charles Adderey and Lord John Man
ners Mr. Cory who voted for the bill last year, is
dead on the Liberal side, Mr. Gladstone may as We all
know, find the time arrive when his mind Will begin TO
undergo OF those processes OF conversion which the
history OF the Irish Church bill has made somewhat IA
Xaefa hp thpr nsa nary TOD
colleagues Mr. stansfcd alone voted for the BILL Mr..
Bruce and Mr.. Cirdwell against Other members OF the
Cabinet followed the example Of their chief aud voted
neither way.
We had phrase at one time during the Rebellion in
America describing certain courts "orgGnZ d 70
vict" shall be apply it to the tribunal before
which the Claimant trial FOR perjury. 1t
would be too emphatic II it were understood TO mean
anything than that the court berays sometimes in
public strong bias against the accused which AT least
Of its members Is believed to have expressed In pr
vate. When the Claimant brought up with Mr..
SkipwOrth for contempt some tune since, he offered
among others extraordinary excuse for his strong
language the Lord Chief Justice He alleged that
the Lord Chief Justice had spoken OF him in private
rank impostor.p He offered 70 prove that he had.
dare say he could have proved IT, but the opportu
nitv of proving IL denied him IL matter OF
remark at the former trial that the proposes
sions OF the Judge presided very clearly
against the Claimant Probably they turned the scale
in the decision Of many a nicely balanced point The
same thing happens The court shows remarka-
BILE promptitude in overrung points made by tho pris
oner's counsel remarkable mind with the
leading counsel for the prosecution. and even certain
spirit OF goodeowshp with the witnesses on the same
side. There a manifestation OF q similar kind
first day OF the trial, when Mr.. Guord Onslow, NJ
p was ordered OF by the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. onslow is of the Claimants bail, aud naturally
HI. A. tha far