On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    No. 4/ft, March 26, J859.1 TEE LEADER. 3...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    ¦ —¦ .. W. • . ... Imperial Parliament. ...

    Sbvmer applied himself principally- to a refutation of the arguments employed by Mr . Bright in his Reform speeches out of doors . Looking at the position of the House of Commons in the practical workin ^ of the Constitution , he said he thought it had encroached Very much uponthe two other branches of the Legislature , and , if we were to have a House of Commons Working harmoniously with thenvthe landed and agricultural interest must be represented strongly . A moderate measure of reform was all that was required , and , with the exception of the disfranchisement ( as it was called ) of the borough freeholders , which he condemned , he . ' thought this to be a measure which deserved the support of the

    adjournnient of the debate .- —The Chancellor of the Exchequer- appealed to the private members who had notices on the paper to allow thedicussion to proceed without interruption , and the resumption of the debate was ¦ . ¦ then fixed for the following evening . ^ The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o ' clock . Tuesday ,, March 22 . MARRIAGE WITH A KBCEASED WIFK ' s SISTER . In the House op Lords Lord Wodeiiouse moved the second reading of the Bill to Legalise Marriage with a Deceased Wifc ' s Sister . Before noticing the objections to the bill , he pointed out that clergymen who objected to perform these marriages were not obliged to do so by the present bill . As to the religious , question , he would only say that , after a careful examination ; the verse in Leviticus was , he thought , in-favour of those who supported the bill . He then passed to the opinions of the Archbishop of Dublin , the Bishop of London , the Bishop of St . David ' s , and the Bishop of Manchester , who had

    exof electors * especially by the withdrawal of their ' second votes from borough freeholders . He could not accept a measure whose fundamental principle was so objectionable . The alterations which the Government had proposed to introduce in committee in his opinion only made matters worse . The reduction to 10 / . of . the occupation franchise in counties , vras , to his mind , simply a method of extending territorial influence j while the various " fancy franchises " in boroughs , which the lion , member examined in detail , were ; he contended , either altogether delusive , or replete . . with inexplicable : and be \ vildering anomalies . What was wanted was the greatest diversity in the classes

    represented , and if the qualification for the borough franchise were lowered to 5 / . or 6 / ., it : would , in sorne towns at least , let in the working class es * He was not prepared to consent to an extensive disfranchisement of small boroughs , which admitted to representation large classes not connected vfith land , commerce , or manufactures ; but , with an uniform franchise , it would be impossible to maintain these small boroughs ; its effect would be merely to increase the influence of land and property . He should vote for the resolution . — Sir E . B . Lttton followed in an address of great brilliancy . He inquired , if the bill were taken out of the hands of the present Government , into whose hands would it fall ?

    The inheritance , he replied , must lapse to a party who had spent twentj ' -five years in decrying liberal votes arid abjuring liberal opinions . In spite of their temporary union , the party were still agitated by the quarrels of years ; and if they were seated in Downingrstreet to morrow ; the quarrels of years would go with them . The vote which affirmed Lord John Russell ' s amendment would practically decide that the Reform Bill should be read a second time that day five j-ears . The resolution was framed as a party movement , but could not be regarded as an expression Of public opinion . When the bill was framed public opinion was confessedly in abeyance * and ever since every attempt to excite agitation had

    totally failed . What the ; country seemed . to ask if the issue of public meetings cbuld be taken in evidence—was something which did not appear in the amendment , and was not recognised in the speech of Lord John , which no Whig Government would propose , and no Government of any complexion hope to carry . Re vie wing the provisions of the measure , the right lion , baronet insisted that they offered a liberal and impartial extension of the franchise , and that if any imperfections ' , existed they could ; be amended in committee , He did not believe that the lowering of the borough franchise from 10 / , to 51 * would be a disadvantage to the Conservative cause m that house . On the contrary , he believed it

    wouki be indirectly advantageous to it . What constituted the power of a party ? It was the cultivated intelligence , the moderation and good sense of of its members . All these advantages would be gained more by a 10 Z . constituency than by a 5 h constituency . ( Hear , hear . ) The worst enemy of the moderate reformer was not the Conservative gentleman , but the demagogic adventurer . ( Hear ,, hear . ) It was by the demagogic adventurer that the upright reformer was outbid . ( " Hear , hear , " and cheers . ) To replace the upright reformers in . this house by the demagogic adventurers would be your loss and our gain , because they would not be the same formidable competitors for power : they

    might make a violent opposition , but they could never unite to form the Queen ' s Government . What he had pointed out would bo the result of placing numbers not under the control of property , but under the control of ignorance and passion , ( Hear . ) This , then , would be their gain j but ho was far from wishing to see such a result . He did not wish for the sake of European freedom to see the great liberal party Ithus morally damaged . ( Hear , ) That brunch of reform which related to the redistribution of seats had been , with pome exceptions , deliberately postponed in tlio Government measure ) , and nil reforms would bo worthless that diminished the dignity and power of the Houso o . f Commons , which was riot a popular , but a deliberative assembly . In that respect it differed from all their . iVee colonial locislaturos . Whatever other privileges they might .

    possess , they could ' not even discuss ' the aucstion ot their own defences , mueli . loss intcrforo with foreign policy . Take oven tlie Amorioan Assembly . Tlio House of Representatives scarcely over touched on foremn politics , unless in the easo of a question of the tariff or public money . Ask any cand d American , and lie wouhl say that oven in domestic affUIrs they looked to tlio Sonato fora , guiding intelligence . The reason was that the House of Representatives had become what some Hon . gentlemen opposite wanted to make the House of Commons . ( Hear , hear . ) In the attempt , to popularise i , t , it had boon lowered so near tlie level of the masses that the masses ceased to respect it . As yet , it was not bo lu England . Tlie wisest and best in England could still turn with interest to their ilebatcsj thci proudest potentate of Europe might yet tremble

    pressed themselves strongly in favour of the bill ; and , as last year only seven of the bishops voted against it , he inferred that the opposition would not be ver 3 ' strong on the present occasion . He thought that the ordinary objections made against the bill on account of the disturbance it would create in family relations were groundless . In order to maintain the present system an imperative necessity for it ought to-be proved , and he did not think this had been or could be dohe . r—Lord Duxgannox moved that tlie bill be read a second time that day six months . Heohjected strongly to the bill , as tending to destroy all the most sacred relations of social life . He denied that these marriages were either

    desired by or prevalent among the poorer classes . Not one woman in fifty was in favour of this bill , as was manifest from the numberless petitions signed by women all over the ' country . He asked them , in the name of the women of England and for the sake of preserving the moral purity of English homesj not to legalise these marriages . —Lord Albemarle voted for the nieasure because lie thought it would prevent gross immorality on . the part of the poor . ^ -The Bishop of JExetur regretted that "from his age he was incapable of taking a prominent part in this discussion . In answer to the list of Bishops cited by Lord Wbdehouse , he asked how many Bishop ' s had there been from the beginning of the Church

    against it ? He should oppose the bill solely on religious grounds , and maintained that it was solely a religious , and not a social question . — 'Lord St . Leonahrs asked why was Scotland omitted from the bill ? . Why , too , should Irelanu be excluded ? A worse bill was never submitted to the House . Hy t h is bill , if an Englishman married his . sister-in-law , the marriage , although good in England , was not good ' ill either Scotland or Ireland . And what , then , became of the rights of property , succession to peerages , & e . ? What became of the status of the woman , who iti one division of the United Kingdom was a wife and in the other two a mistress , and whose children were legitimate in England , but bastards in

    Ireland or Scotland ? la a social light , it would lead to very great evils . —The Bishop of St . Asavu opposed the bill because he thought it contrary to the law of God .-T-Lord Liiwoub intended to vote in favoui' of tl » e bill . —Lord Cuanwokth opposed the bill on purely social grounds . —The Bishop of Cork supported the bill . —The Bishop of Oxford denied that the principle of the Dill was either to be found in the Old or New Testament . He explained the steps that had been taken by the bench of Bishops in 1835 in legalising marriages of this kind that had been contracted up to that time . He asserted that , from inquiries he had caused to be made , he was convinced that this bill was not desired by the poor , but by the middle classes , and he besought their lordships not to relax the laws of this country in . accordance with the wishes of those who desired to exchange morality for 'license . —The Bishop of Caki . isiuu , from his own experience , knew that these marriages were desired by the poor , and not only among tlie poor , but among other classes . He had felt i t lately his duty to cull upon one of his clergy to vacate liis living on account of having contracted one of these marriages . — -Lord Wodkhousk replied , and , on a division fur the second reading , the numbers woro— Contents , 39 ; non-contents , 49 . So the Bill was lost . ' , Sonic bills were forwarded a stage , and their lordships adjourned at half-past ten . TUB JUJiVORM HII . L . In tho Housu of Commons , the adjourned debate was resumed by Mr . Wilson , who opposed the measure on the ground that it was in reality n step in retrogression from the principles laid down in tho Act of 1332 . Public opinion had demanded , nnd public man of all parties liad expressed their readiness to concede , a largo extension of the franchise . But tlio present bill contained provisions calculated to reetrlot tho franchise und diminish tho number

    House . r—Aldarinan Salomon's cosnplairie . l that the bill did not pay sufficient regard to the claims of the working classes . No Reform Bill could bd considered satisfactory , or ever bo passed without danger , which did not give a larger share of political privileges to the working classes than was contemplated in the Government measure . —Mr . Lii » i > Er , r , maintained that the franchise ought to be conceded freely but not indiscriminately . The selection was made , he arg-ued , with sufficient liberality , an j yet with all necessary caution , in the bill before the House . — Sir C . Wood considered the bill so objectionable and

    obnoxious in its principles that he would prefer no bill at all . He insisted that the identity of franchise in town and county was a dangerous one . Was it to be applied , he asked , to Scotland and to Ireland . ? Although he did not desire an indiscriminate admission of the working classes to the franchise , and was not prepared to make them the ruling class in the country , he thought that , considering : how much they had improved of late years , it was high time that they should have some voice in choosing representatives , and he contended that the Government measure did not contain an adequate provision for

    their admission . He therefore concurred m the resolution . The resolution left it open to the Government to adopt the course it suggested , of lowering the franchise in the boroughs and of altering the provision regarding tlie borough freeholders , and if they refused , they would be responsible for the consequences . — - Mr . HoRSMAX delivered a speech that was received with repeated shouts of applause frorii tlie Ministerial benches . He condemned the . amJeud-inent as a party manoeuvre , and predicted nothing hut disappointment and dissatisfaction from its success . He had promised his constituents to give alt impartial consideration to tlie new lieform Bill . If the bill , Avas good , he undertook to accept it ; ami if bad , to try

    and amend it in committee , and not to reject it until the failure of their attempts at amendment had become apparent . The present time was peculiarly fit for the . construction of a good measure ; the Liberal party enjoyed a large majority in the House , and could mould the bill nearly into what shape they liked , and he warned all reformers to walk Warily , and not throw away the advantages of their position . This he thought they would do by carrying Lord John- KtisselPs amendment , which he regarded as tantamount'to a rejection of the measure . The present bill would , he was convinced , be rendered as exteasive in range and liberal in its provisions as any prudent reformer could require by a few short and

    simple amendments in eoinmittee . This was an unanswerable reason for ' preforming going into coniT mittee to rejecting the bill . If the party on that ( the'Opposition ) side of the Houso were ready to assume the Government , and were desirous of turning out the present Ministers , it would , he thought , be a more direct and manly course , more magnanimous . and more elevated , to put the question upon its true jssuo . Heavy disasters—which the lion , member described and lamented in emphatic termshad overtaken the Liberal party through previous errors in oboying factious motives , instead of following a sound and magnanimous course of p 61 iey . He exhorted them to act , on the present occasion , in a nobler and mor , o patriotic spirit . — Mr . A . Miu , s felt disposed to agree with the propositions laid down in tho amendment respecting tho county franchise and the extension of tho suffrage in tdwns , But these points could bo determined in

    committee , and jt was quite needless to throw over tho bill and frustrate / ill legislation on this question perhaps for many years to como .- —Mr . IIuouscskn strongly supported tho amendment—Mr . Ninvpisoa . tk said nothing' should induce him to assont to tho principle of tho bill , and therefore ho must oppose tho second reading . I To regretted to find lunisolf at variance with tho loaders of the party with which ho hail no long acted , but could notaeeopt tho principle of a bill founded upon an equality of tlie county and borough franchise . This principle ¦ was dlstastoful , as it appearod , to members on both sides of tho House . As a Conservative , ho was nlto-Kethcr opposed to a bill in wliioli a grout principle was sacrificed for a party gain . — -Lord R . Okcu , doiqiuIocI tlio provision for depriving tho . froeholdors xn boroughs of their county vote . TJio whole reform question had , ho observed , boon too much nru'iicd in tlio ahopkoeplng interest . — -Mr . Wilson moved the

    No. 4/Ft, March 26, J859.1 Tee Leader. 3...

    No . 4 / ft , March 26 , J 859 . 1 TEE LEADER . 389

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 26, 1859, page 5, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_26031859/page/5/