? PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT UPON LIMITED VOTING IN THREE-MEMBERED DISTRICTS. In the House of Lords, July 30, 1867. The reform bill being under consideration Lord CAIRNS moved an amendment, to come in after clause eight of the bill, as follows: "At any contested election for any county or borough represented by three members no person shall vote for more than two candidates." In supporting this amendment he explained that there would be at least eleven constituencies to which the plan proposed by it would be at once applicable, and he foresaw that if there should be a further alteration in the distribution of electoral power the great probability was that such alteration would go in the direction of increasing those three-cornered constituencies. This consideration made him more anxious that some proposition of this kind should be adopted. He then proceeded at length to present the reasons which had occurred to him in favor of his amendment, and to answer and repel certain objections which might be urged against it. A debate followed, in which the amendment was supported by Earl Russell, Earl Spencer, Earl Stanhope, Earl Cowper, the Earl of Carnarvon, Lord Houghton, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe; and was opposed on behalf of the administration by the Earl of Malmesbury and the Duke of Marlborough. Lord Denman suggested that the proposition should be made the subject of a separate bill. Upon a division the vote stood: For the amendment....... Majority...... 142 51 91 Lord CAIRNS then proposed the following additional clause: "At a contested election for the city of London no person shall vote for more than three candidates." The clause was agreed to. The London Times the day following contained an elaborate and powerful editorial in support of the proposition and in commendation of the action taken by the House of Lords. It declared that that House had "by a single vote covered many errors and justified the opinions of its warmest admirers. Such a triumph of reason and truth," it continued, "may well startle us, accustomed as we have been during this session to the rapid growth of convictions." "The idea of modifying our electoral machinery so as to secure in three-membered constituencies the proportionate representation of both the great divisions of party has made its way by its inherent justice. The verdict of the lords has been decisive, but we do not believe that it in any degree outstrips the independent opinion of the House of Commons, still less that it is at variance with the deliberate judgment of the country. It has been everywhere confessed that the adoption in one form or another of the principle of cumulative voting was essential to maintain the character of our institutions, and that through it, and through it alone, could the redistribution of electoral power (which all prescient statesmen regard as inevitable) be reconciled with the preservation of our representative government." "The arguments on behalf of the proposal advanced by Lord Cairns were overwhelming. He himself treated the question in the succinct dialectic style, of which he is a master, and the chain of his reasoning was perfect. But he did not stand alone. In fact every one who took part in the discussion, with the exception of the ministers who represented the Government, was on his side. It mattered not whether, like Lord Russell, they spoke from the front bench of the Opposition, or like Lord Stanhope and Lord Shrewsbury, they avowed themselves faithful supporters of the administration and resolute to do nothing which should interfere with the success of the bill; whether, like Lord Spencer and Lord Cowper, they expressed the views of independent Liberals; like Lord Carnarvon, they argued from the position of a thoughtful Conservative; like Lord Stratford, they uttered the sentiments of a man above party; or, like Lord Houghton, confessed their sympathy with pure democracy, the result was the same. One and all saw in the proposed representation of minorities a suggestion consonant with the strictest principles of justice and equity, and therefore to be depended upon as stable when artificial securities must prove worthless." "It is only necessary to remember that the House of Commons consults and deliberates as well as votes to see how necessary it is to the due performance of its functions that it should contain members representing all sections of the community. The power of decision can never be endangered by the proportionate representation of minorities, but the deliberate formation of opinion is exposed to great hazard if the moderating influences of dissenting minorities be excluded. Parliament itself must be improved by the addition of such men as will be chosen by the wealthy and intelligent merchants and manufacturers who are now unrepresented in the largest towns, and of the members who will be returned by the Liberal minorities of counties. The effect of Lord Cairns's amendment on the members for three-membered constituencies must be equally beneficial, and its consequences on the constituencies themselves will prove of transcendent importance. The voters who are now hopelessly outvoted and whose political energies become feeble by disuse will start into fresh vitality. Enfranchised in deed, and not merely in name, they will be animated by the consciousness of power. They will be brought into direct relation with the Legislature." "The Lords have shown their independence and their foresight. At a point of the highest importance in the history of the representative institutions of the country they have been faithful to themselves and to their duties. On minor questions they have shown themselves too ready to defer to the decision of the ministers of the Crown, but when the character of the future government of the nation was at stake they asserted their own judgment against all attempts to betray them to a false position." In the House of Commons, August 8, 1867. On the order of the day for the consideration of the amendments made by the House of Lords to the reform bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. DISRAELI, said that the Cairns amendment "had been opposed on the part of her Majesty's Government in the House of Lords with all the authority that a Government can fairly exercise over a deliberative assembly; but he was bound to say that it was carried by an overwhelming majority; indeed, he must confess that it was almost unanimously carried by the House of Lords, because, when the minority was told, he observed that it consisted almost entirely of the members of the administration." He therefore, in deference to this strong expression of opinion by the House of Lords, advised a concurrence in the amend ment. Subsequently, the same evening, when the amendment came up for distinct consideration, Mr. BRIGHT moved to disagree with the amendment of the Lords. He expressed surprise at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his former speech when the same matter had been previously before the House. He wished he could find a suitable word to express his contempt for the proposition without expressing in the slightest degree anything that might be offensive to honorable members on his side of the House. But the member from Westminster (Mr. Mill) and his friends thought that the plan was in some degree an approach to the principle of the plan under which everybody should be represented and under which such things as majorities and minorities in election contests should hereafter be unknown. [Hear, hear, from Mr. Mill.] Now, he thought those gentlemen who were in favor of Mr. Hare's plan were not in the slightest degree bound to support this plan. There was no intention in the country at present to establish Mr. Hare's plan, and the carrying of this proposition would be an unmixed injustice to the boroughs affected by it. The proposition was not likely to lead to the plan of Mr. Hare, but probably to have a contrary effect by reason of the ill will it would create in these large boroughs and in the country. The change proposed to be made was a fundamental change. There was no precedent for it in parliamentary history. It affected fundamentally the power of not only the constituency but of every individual in it. The alteration proposed had not been asked for. During six hundred years the principle of election by the majority had prevailed in the selection of members of the House. He suggested that the House at least suspend its decision in favor of the proposition until it had been a longer time before the country and a fuller opportunity afforded the constituencies of making up their minds upon it. He cited the cases of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. They had been entitled to two members each, making eight altogether. By the bill they were each to have one additional member, and under the plan proposed there would be eight on one side and four on the other upon important public questions, and of course the four on one side would neutralize four of those on the other. Assuming that party ties were adhered to these four great constituencies would be so emasculated and crippled that they would have but four votes to bestow which would affect any of those great questions to which he had referred. The assigning of additional members to those boroughs upon this plan would not increase but would actually diminish their power in the House. He could speak, he was sure, for Manchester and for Birmingham, that the great majority of the constituency and population of those towns would be opposed to the proposition that additional members should be given them, if given under this crippling and injudicious clause. Mr. BERESFORD HOPE declared himself unable to rise to the heights of democratic Toryism which had characterized the speech of the honorable member for Birmingham, [Mr. Bright.] Was the case of Birmingham miserable above that of all other boroughs? Birmingham was the seat of one of our great staples; Stoke was another. He himself was the majority member for Stoke, and his honorable colleague was the minority member for that borough. The Conservatives were entitled to one member, but he was of opinion that from their wealth, position, intellect, and numbers the Liberals of Stoke were likewise entitled to send a member to Parliament. Well, one Conservative and one Liberal were returned by the borough. Would the honorable member from Birmingham say it was humbled in consequence of that circumstance? So far was he from taking such a view that he had refused to be concerned in bringing down a second Conservative member because he believed it would be tyranny to do so. There were, |