The Sun. — London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

meeting was, I believe, held on the 23d. The opinion was sought, not to ascertain the right of the Crown, but I should rather say the right of the people of London to enjoy quiet and peaceful recreation in the parks, which are kept in such beautiful order for the purpose. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl then inquired why, after we had obtained that opinion, we did not forthwith proceed to strengthen the power of the Crown. Earl COWPER explained—What he meant to have asked was, why was not such a proceeding taken if it were in tended to adopt it ? The Earl of DERBY—Let me remind the noble earl of the circumstances of the case. This opinion was given only a few days before the end of the session, at a period when there was still considerable excitement prevailing, when the leaders of the Reform League had announced their in tention to try the right for which they contended by action at law, and when the Government had told them they would be afforded every facility for so doing. That was therefore not a time—looking forward as we were to the adoption of those proceedings—for vindicating or strengthening the powers of the Crown by introducing ameasure which could not have been passed that session. (lear, hear.) But I am asked why was not the measure introduced early tnis ses sion. Well, what had occurred ? Large demonstrations — exhibitions I will not say of physical force, but exhibi tions of numbers—had taken place, for the purpose of influencing the mind of the Legislature. The first of these, attended by about 25,000 people, took place in November. But they did not claim the right to meet in the park, on the contrary it was admitted that they had no right to do so. They asked the permission of the Gcvern meat to hold their meeting in the park, not as a right, but as a favour. The Government assented to the meeting being held on Primrose-hill, and eventually it was held in the grounds of a private nobleman, who was not a very strong Reformer. (A laugh.) There was a subsequent meeting, and did the promoters of it say they would hold it in Hyde-park ? No, they determined to have a proces sion through the streets, which took place, and the leaders delivered their harangues in the Agricultural Hall. Those processions were extremely inconvenient. They interfered with the traffic and business of the metropolis ; but we were advised that neither in the processions nor in the meetings was there anything to warrant our interference, and I must say that the inhabitants of London were singu larly apathetic on the occasion, for when some danger and risk was apprehended they did not i respond in the slightest degree, nor was there any offer on their part of special constables for the protection of property. We had no reason to believe that the right of (the (Crown would be disputed by an attempt to hold a meeting in the park; we had every reason to believe that the leaders of the move ment would proceed to have the right they claimed tried by action at law, and it was not until a period very closely approaching the time of holding the late meeting that we found there was an absolute determination on their part to hold the meeting in Hyde-park in defiance of the Go vernment. Upon receiving that intimation we were not without hope that the intention might, after all, bo aban doned. In a few hours we received petitions signed by more than 16,000 persons, praying that we would take steps to prevent the processions passing through the streets, and otherwise to protect property in the city of London. That course we were unable to take, because, as I ex plained to some of the memorialists, the law did not enable us to interfere with any peaceable and orderly. pro cession ; but if there was any apprehension of violence either from those who formed the procession, or from that mixed rabble which would be very likely to accompany it, we should be happy to avail ourselves of the services of the peaceable inhabitants sworn in as special constables to protect their own property and the peace of the town. When it became apparent that there was a very strong dis position on the part of the leaders of this movement to hold this meeting, whatever might happen, we had to consider very carefully what course we should pursue ; and then it was that by the advice of the Cabinet, and after consulting the law officers, it was determined that my right hon. friend should issue the notice to which so much reference has been made, warning all persons—not exactly in the lan guage used by the noble earl—" that the use of the park for the purpose of holding such a meeting is not in confor mity with the object for which her Majesty has been pleased to open the park for the general enjoyment of her people. Now, all persons are hereby warned and admonished to ab stain from attending, aiding, or taking part in any such meeting, or entering the park with the view of aiding or taking part in such meeting." The noble earl said some thing about their being warned not to attend the meeting at their peril, and inferred from that notice that it was in tended, whatever happened, to stop the meeting by force. The object of the notice, however, is very obvious. It was to warn the parties attending, more especially the leaders, that they would subject themselves to legal con sequences, and that they would be committing an illegal act, a trespass, if after they received that notice they persevered in holding the meeting. In order that there might be no question about it, that notice was served upon sixteen of the principal persons who were expected to take part in the proceedings ; and they were thus personally warned that they rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against as trespassers if they proceeded to hold the meeting. It was intended, and it is intended, to take legal steps for vindicating and establishing before the public the rights of the Crown. (Hear.) It is intended to adopt such proceedings as the law officers may recommend against ono or more of those individuals, in order that no question and no cavil may arise as to the right of the Crown, and as to theirhaving committed a trespass. (Hear.) Then arose the very difficult question as to how we should act in case the meeting was held, and I certainly did not think it necessary or expedient that, on the Friday even ing when my right hon. friend was questioned in another place as to what course the Government would adopt, he should then publicly and openly declare to all parties who might be concerned that the Government had no power to do anything except after notice to proceed against them as trespassers. I did not think it expedient to say to those gentlemen, " You may hold the meeting with perfect im punity," and thereby give them encouragement to hold it. I preferred, and the Cabinet preferred, to leave the question to the Government as a matter of discretion to be dealt with according to the circumstances which might arise, and not to give public notice that whatever might happen, it was not our intention to take any step whatever. But the notices which were given to to the police, for which the noble earl has moved, but which ho does not wish me to produce, were in substance that they should take every precaution in their power against any violation of the pub lic peace, but as long as the meeting was conducted in a peaceable and orderly manner, they should not do anything which should risk a collision with the people. (Hear.) We knew the extent of the power that wo had, and when the meeting took place the question was, "Shall we send two or throe policemen to each of the ten leaders of this meet ing, and let a policeman place his hand upon the shoulder of each of them, and desire them individually and severally to leave the p ar k ?" M y no bl e an d l earne d friend when he gave his opinion foresaw the danger which would ar i se i n the event of any attempt to arrest individuals. It. was probable that if such a course had been pursued a rescue would have been attempted, the police, brought int o co lli s i on with 10,000 or 20 000 peop le , would very likely h ave b een overpowered, and ' it wo uld have been necessary to call upon the military force, of which there was enough at hand to put down any riot, but which, thank God, it was no t necessary to call out in con sequence in the first place of the forbearance of the Go vernment, and in the next of that to which 1 am anxious to do the fullest credit and justice, the orderly, peaceable, and admirable behaviour of the vast crowd in the park. But had we any right to calculate upon that orderly be haviour? With the recollection of the year before should we not have been abandoning the most sacred duty we had to perform if we had not had at hand an ample force of police and military ; kept standing out of sight with a view to avoid any excitement, but at the same time ready to prevent any such disgraceful scenes as characterised the meeting of last year? Happily it was not required; but over and over again I say that I consider as nothing the temporary violation of the undisputed rights of the Crown in comparison with the risk which might have been in curred if in the exercise of that which was strictly within the limits of our power, we had brought about a collision between an infuriated mob and a large force of military and police. (Hear.) I have given your lordships, tothe best of my power, the details of the course which we pursued, and the motives upon which the Government have acted ; the certainty on the one hand of the rights of the Crown, and the certainty on the other of the extreme difficulty of en forcing those rights. It is not for the purpose of establishing those rights that we have introduced a bill into the other bouse,but only to provide effectual means of enforcing them. I think no noble earl will contend that it would have been advisable for us, as soon as the notice of this meeting was issued, a short time before the period at which it was to be held, to have said that we did not possess sufficient power, and would therefore bring in a bill to remedy that defect, and to put down this special meeting. In my opinion, the course pursued by the Government has not been vacillat ing—has not been uncertain. It was decided upon from the beginning, after anxious consideration, and after taking the best opinions that we could get. Although the course which they have pursued may have subjected them to some slight humiliation in the public eye, as apparently having sanctioned or allowed a violation of the law, I rest entirely satisfied in my own conscience that that course was the one most conducive to the real interests of the country, to the preservation of order, and to a full and due considera tion alike of the rights of the Crown and those of the people. (Cheers.) Earl RUSSELL maintained that the conduct of Ministers nad exposed the dignity of the Crown to unparalleled con tem. pt. Of M r . W a lpol e 's abilities he entertained a very high opinion, but, under all the circumstances, and notwith standing the course adopted with respect to the late meet ing, he was glad that the right hon. gentleman had re signed. What the Government oug ht to have done was to have dealt frankly w i t h the people, and to have informed them what was th e rea l state of the law. In his opinion the meeting in th e p ar k s m i ght safely be . n left to the discre tion of the people th emse l ves, and he hoped the Govern ment would not proceed with their bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that as the law stood no other course was open to the Government than that which they had taken ; and Earl GREY censured the Executive as haying acted throughout the whole affair with utter want of judgment. He admitted, however, that the parka ought not to be perverted from their proper uses into an arena for political or religious discussion. Lord CAIRNS could not agree with Earl Russell, that in order to vindicate the law they should abandon the rights of the Crown, and leave the whole thing to the discretion of the people. In the event of a collision, who was to settle the question ? As to the proclamation issued by the Home-office, the Government were bound to make known their approval or disapproval of the meeting. The discussion was continued by Lords Dudley, Gran ville, Cardigan, and RomillY, and the Duke of Rutland, and eventually the motion was withdrawn. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took took the chair at four o'clock. THE SALTERS' COMPANY. Mr. MAGITIRE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention had been called to the proceedings of the Salters' Company of London in connection with the management of their property in Magherafelt, county Derry. Lord NAAS said he bad no official information, but he had been informed that there had been no very great in craase of the rents on the Salters' Estate in Ireland, neither had there been any violation of tenant right. GREENWICH HOSPITAL. In answer to Mr. Smint, Mr. CORRY said he could not give any definite an swer with respect to the re-establishing a girls' school at Greenwich Hospital. THE ARMY OF RESERVE. Col. GILPIN asked the Secretary of State for War whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to proceed with the plan for raising an army of reserve proposed by the right hon. member for Huntingdon on moving the army estimates this session ; and if so, when it was likely to be proceeded with ? Sir T. PAKINGT ON slid it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the plan. He would give to morrow for taking the necessary vote, and he hoped to bring it on without delay. COLONIAL BISHOPS. Mr. CARDWELL asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was the intention of her Ma jesty's Government to introduce in the present session any measure on the subject of colonial bishops, or of clergymen ordained by colonial bishops ? Mr. ADDERLEY said it was the intention of the Go vernment to bring in a bill for that purpose. THE DUCHY OF L UXEMBURG. Mr. LABOUCHERE asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of her Majesty's Government considering it advisable to join in any European guarantee with regard to the neutrality or the future political position of the Grand Duchy of Luxem burg, before the country was committed to any such guarantee the nature of the obligations in which it may involve us would be explained, and this house be given an opportunity to express an opinion upon the expediency of undertaking them. Lord STANLEY said the best answer he could give was to state that the Conference held its second sitting that morning, and although it was not the usage to make known the proceedings of such meetings, yet he might say substantially that an arrangement had been come to that left little but formalities to be transacted; and he hoped that the opinion he expressed about 10 days ago, that the Luxemburg question was in a fair way of settle ment, would prove correct. In that hope he was very sanguine, and he felt he might say practically that at that moment matters had been satisfactorily settled He had to congratulate the house and the country on the result of the Conference, and he had to state that it was to the moderation which animated all parties that the calamity , of an European war, which a fortnight ago seemed immi nent, had been averted. (Loud cheers.) With regard to the question of guarantee England was one of the parties to the treaty of 1839, which guaranteed the Duchy to the King of Holland, and all that was to be done in conference was not to narrow the arrangements then made, but to adapt them to the altered state of the Duchy in consequence of the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation. In a few days, if all went on as he anti cipated, he should be able to produce the whole of the papers connected with the subject. (Cheers.) THE REFORM BILL. Mr. GLADSTONE asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer, under the law as it will stand, if the present propo sals of the Government should bo adopted, would the compound householder at and above £lO be enabled to come and continuo upon the register without ceasing to _ _ be a compound householder? In the event of his paying, in pursuance of his claim, any " rate duo in respect of the premises," would he be entitled to deduct the sum so paid from the rent payable by him to his landlord ? What was the meaning of the words (in No. 4 of the pro posed amendment to clause 31) "rate due in respect of the premises ;" and, in a case where the owner had already paid the composition rate, with the occupier claiming to bo enfranchised be liable to pay the diffefence between the composition rate and the full rate ? And whether by the terms of the third clause, requiring that the person to be registered shall have been an inhabitant occupier for twelve months, it was intended to require that he should have resided during that period ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was some absurdity about the first question, but he would say that there was no intention to deprive compound house holders of any of the privileges they at that moment possessed under the act 11 and 15 of the Queen, as the moment they became rated they ceased to ha compound householders. With respect to the second question, the person would certainly be so entitled. With respect to the meaning of the words men tioned, it meant the rate due to the landlord at the time the claim was made. The occupier would not be called upon to pay the difference alluded to; and with respect to the "inhabitant occupier" and " resident," ho looked upon the terms as identical. Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked the Chancellor of the Ex-- chequer whether it was the intention of the Government, by omitting all the words after " rated' in the first lice of clause 31 of the Representation of the People Bill, to prevent the application of clause 1 of the Compound Householders Act (11 and 15 Vic. c. 14) to compound householders under £lO ; and, if so, whether it was intended to deprive compound householders under £lO of the right which the above-mentioned clause gives to compound householders at and above £lO of being regis tered and entitled to vote upon claiming to be rated, instead of being obliged, by clause 30 of the Reform Act (2 Will. IV., c. 45) to be rated for a year before becom ing a voter ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the clause would apply to both cases, therefore it was not necessary for him to say more, as the other portion of the question was founded on contingencies that might never occur. . Mr. FORSTER asked for a more explicit answer. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, by a general clause in the bill all the existing rights of those affected by the bill were strictly preserved. HYDE PARK. Mr. NELTE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who wore the persons on whom notice was served that they would be proceeded against as trespassers or otherwise if they held a meeting in Hyde-park ; what would be the nature of such proceedings ; and whether instructions had been given to the law officers to institute, and that without delay, such proceedings against the per sons served with such notices. Mr. WALPOLE said the notice served was the notice issued, and signed by himself. It was served on the Ist of May on Mr. Beales, Colonel Dickson, Bradlaugh, Mane°, Merriman, and Howell. It was afterwards served on Lucraft, Perfitt, Cooper, and several others. Instructions had been given to the law officers to prepare proceedings, and the matter was now under their delibera tion. Under such circumstances he thought it would ill become him to say more at the present moment. NEATE asked whether it was intended to proceed with the Park Bill before the report of the law officers was received. Mr. WALPOLE said the bill was not dependent on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Whether he proceeded with it that evening would depend upon the de bate on other matters. THE HYDE PARK RIOT. In reply to Mr. LowE, Mr. WALPOLE said the riot occurred at Hyde Park on the 23d of July, 1866, and th ) opinion of Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Bovill was given subsequent to the proceeding. The opinion was received by the Government on the 28th of July last year. THE REFORM BILL. The house then went into committee on the bill in clause 3. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the amendment to the clause. Mr. HIBBEKT said he thought that would be a convenient moment for him to proceed to lay his amendment to tho clause before the house. lie proposed that the following words should be added at the end of the clause :—" Provided that where the owner is rated in respect of a dwelling house instead of the occupier, the occupier may claim to be rated for the purpose of acquiring the fran chise, in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions in and subject to which au occupier may claim to be registered under the Act of the 14th and 13th Victoria, in reference to compound householders of a clear yearly value of not less than .ElO ; and all the provi sions of the said Act shall apply accordingly." Mr. BRETT reminded the house of the concessions which the Government had already made, and character iseerthe conduct of the Opposition as intended to destroy the bill altogether. Mr. MILL deprecated making any distinction between voters above or below £lO, and predicted that if the clause were amended as proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer it would lead to renewed and indispensable agita tion. General PEEL complained that the house had drifted into committee without any adequate discussion of the principle of the measure. Mr. CILADTONE said the hon. an 'learned gentleman the member for Holston had made an appeal to the com mittee which he was unwilling to pass by in silence. The hon. and learned gentleman claimed great consideration for his party on account of the concessions which they had already made, and he laid down the principle that those concessions ought to be reciprocated. (Hear, hear.) But what were the great concessions to which he referred? The first was the giving up the dual vote, but he forgot that it had been denounced by the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Oxford, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself stated that he could not find a single advocate of it upon the Conservative benches. The hon. and learned gentleman also referred to the reduction of the residential qualification from two years to one year, as another great concession; but he seemed to forgetthaton that they forced that point to the issue of a division, and were beaten by an overwhelming majority. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was evident the hon. and learned gentleman entertained very strange ideas about concessions. He mentioned a third con cession—the lodgerfranchise, totally forgetting they had not as yet obtained that franchise, and that the Chancellorof the Exchequer when asked to say on what form he would be wil ling to give that franchise, had entirely declined to do so. But 1 wish to say a word upon the concessions. Thera are certain questions—and they are very numerous—upon which the authority of Parliament is so high, and its credit with the country is so unimpaired, that we may very safely say that whatever is agreed on one side of the house or the other, would be accepted by the country. That is not the case with respect to the subject of Parliamentary Reform. My belief is, that were the arguments of the hon. gentleman to prevail, were all the gentlemen on that side of the house to move in the direction indicated by my hon. friend the member for Haddingten, and to leave the compound house holders in the position proposed by the bill, the only effect would be to produce out of doors a more vio lent reaction, and that no credit which any member possesses, or at all events no member sitting on this side may possess with his constituency, would in the slightest degree avail to recommend such a measure to the country. When the hon. and learned gentleman says that the object of my hon. friend's motion is to reject this bill, and when he naturally upbraids me in the character usually assigned to the hon. member for Birmingham, of a " bug bear" to the country, in the working out of the formal re sults which may follow, I do not complain in the slightest degree of the hon. and learned gentleman on that account. I should not have complained if he had spoken iu much more severe terms than those he has used, but certainly I may be permitted to say, as was said by the hon. member for Old ham—" Our desire is not to reject but to improve this bill" —(hear, hear)—and at the same time to say there are mat ters upon which with a view to its improvement we feel it necessary to insist. If there be one condition by which more than another, ty which at any rate many of those who sit near me are, together with myself irrevocably bound, it is this—that it would be not only an offence against policy, but it would be an offence against faith, were we to ac quiesce in the passing of a measure in respect to which we entertain nothing less than a conscientious belief that it would fail as a durable settlement of the question. Conse quently I hope the hon. and learned gentleman will see that there are real barriers in our way, which restrict very much the liberty of choice that we might possess, in deal ing with one of those questions, of which this house is entirely master, and on which the country has formed so distinct and decided an opinion. My hon friend the mem ber for Oldham said, and I think 'rely justly, that his ob ject was to improve the bill ; and it appears to me that my hon. friend is perfectly justified in the occasion which he has chosen in endeavouring to effect, at all events, the first step towards that improvement, namely, by resisting the insertion of the words, which, as far as I can vouch, will very greatly deteriorate the bill. The right hon. gentle man appears to me to be under a total misapprehension, both with the effect of the vote at which the house arrived on the 12th of April, and likewise to the techni cal rules that bind the house in a committee upon a bill. There is no technical rule whatever that could bind this committee from reversing at any moment it might think fit any decision that may have been come to at an earlierstage. But the question is not about the reversing of the vote. The vote of the morning of the 12th of April went the length of asserting in its full breadth the princi ple which I believe to be sound, true, honest, and best prin ciple of the bill, namely, that no artificial barriers shall be set up by Parliament in the giving the franchise to those whom Parliament think to be of a class fit to obtain the franchise. (Hear, hear.) The house declined to say, as I invited them to say, "We will have no distinction between rated and non-rated—we will take no cognisance of the question whether personal rating obtains or not ;" but be cause the house has declined at that early stage to prefer what I grant was a very broad principle, the hon. gentle man thinks he has got an affirmation for all the substan tive features of the Government proposal relating to per sonal rating. But nothing has been decided upon that point. According to the vete of the committee on the 12th of April, cognisance was promised of personal rating at the later stages of the bill, if they were to be consistent, and the hon. member for Oldham grounds his amendment upon such cognisance—he does not propose a distinct re solution for personal rating. lam not going now to dis cuss that. proposition, but what my lion. friend proposes, and that which we are called upon to vote to-night, is, that, notwithstanding the present law and practice, and notwithstanding that we have at this moment upon our registers tons of thousands of men who are never person ally rated at all, we are now to be called upon to insert words in the bill that will alter and reverse our present legislation, and lay down in a restrictive sense this broad principle—that no class of men are to-be allowed t., come upon the register except through personal rating. The question to-night is whether we shall insert the words which will introduce into our elective code new restric tions which have been abolished ever since the act of Sir William Clay. (Hear, hear.) In the present condition of the public mind that is a very great question indeed. If that question is not very accurately understood within these walls, I think it is very considerably un derstood beyond these walls. (Hear, hear.) And Ido not wish to be responsible for introducing at this time of day any restrictive propositions and principles as to the elective system of the country. Now, I come to a point in which I confess I am not able to agree with my hon. friend, who says the proposition of the Government is a great improvement upon its former pro position. To enter into that controversy would be rather an invidious course. It would be like discussing the ques tion between two persons of extremely ill-favoured coun tenance, to decide which of them nature had been most 'bountiful to. (Laughter.) It would take some time to ex plain exactly the curious variations in the three plans which the Government have successively laid before us 'for dealing with the compound householders, for, practi cally, above three-fourths of the persons about whose en etf hrnaeenecs between i whole,se m e t h n i t s wt willhe s e a r b e et n wa o ov w pe ry lan f s, a i conc e rne d; s r ubiect descript i onbt u o t on l eotfhrti remark , adr n ikf fpeoornn the qualification. When the first of these propositions was submitted to us, it was comprised within the 34th and 35th clause of the bill, and I contended at the time that the 34th clause imposed a fine upon the compound house holder of £lO. My hon. and learned friend the member for Sheffield, in guarded and mild language, described my observations as "a series of pettifogging cavils." (Laugh ter.) Another gentleman, a friend of mine, whose lips have never been opened in this house except to utter words of mildness--I mean the hon. member for Derby, said, "As to the fine, it is all nonsense." (A laugh.) My hon. friend was at the time "among the children of the mist," as Sir Walter Scott calls them ; and I do not think, under such circumstances, we ought to be called too rigidly to account with regard to the precision of the language. If we were here for the purpose of indulging in and gratify ing criticism, the member for Richmond and myself might have had some feelings o f ex t raordinary fulness an d breadth of mental luxury-on the extraordin a ry admis sion that the pettifogging cavils an d th e nonsense w hi c h we are supposed to have promulgated expressed the view of political economy which is now to 133 adopted by the Government as the basis of their proposition. The general characteristic of the first resolution was that the compound householder was to be subjected both to the labour and uncertainty of claiming to be placed on the register. The present proposal was that the compound householder was to recoup himself from his landlord for the entire sum he might pay in the form of rates; but then he was to cease to be a compound householder. I may say that I hold the imposition of a fine is an injury and a grievance. It is a much greater grievance and a much more serious burden that this house should take upon itself to interfere in all the arrangements of landlord and tenant, according to which arrangements three - fourths of a borough population, in consequence of the immense con venience, have compounded and should make change in the tenure of their dwelling-houses the condition of their obtaining the franchise. I do not seek to disguise the question —the intention might be very well considered if we were here engaged in endeavouring to censure what has been done. We are not here for that purpose, but to consider what is good for the country. And I confess that, with respect to what is good for the country, the public mind is sensitive and irritated upon this question; and I do not think it would be possible to invent a pro posal savouring more grievously of class legislation. (Oh, oh, and hoar, hear.) But there is another difference between this and the third plan of the Government. The Government propose to go back upon the worst condition of the compound householders. Is theta conces , sion? Is it to be paraded by the right hon. gentleman as one of the instances of conciliation from that side which are to be reflected from this ? I know of no explanation of that extraordinary stop except this—that they find it necessary in consequence of the further enlargement of the constituen cies, and reducing the two years' residential qualification to one year, to give a c , orrespon ding concession to the opponents of enlargement of the franchise. This blow is struck at the existing privilege. That is really the state of the case; and Iwill now refer to the answer given by the right hon. gentleman to me earlier in the evening. I think that' answer was totally incorrect. The right hon. gentleman appeared to me to be under misapprehension as to the exist ing state of law and fact. • I asked him whether the old compound householders—that is to say, compound house holders above—were to be allowed under the proposal of the Government to come upon the register, and still to be allowed to remain compound householders. The right hon. gentleman goys my words are not clear. I admit they are THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 10, 1867. technical words, and that I was not speaking with legal precision. The right hon. gentleman said that the com pound householder would not lose any of the privileges that properly belonged to him under Sir William Clay's Act ; but the bill in its operation and effects upon the compound householder would deprive him of his present privileges. He was, by the bill, to claim to be rated personally, and the owner of the house Was to be released from all liability. The equality between the voter above £lO and the voter below £lO was gone, so that they were going back instead of going forward. The right hon. gentleman, I think, did not perceive the seriousness of what he proposed in rela tion to the compound householders above and below £lO. The right hon. gentleman had made a liberal admission when he said the compound householder paid in form of rent to his landlord the whole rate, and he says that I, too, entertained and expressed that opinion. Now that is a proposition, as far as my memory serves me, that I have never asserted. The question was one which had been considered by a court of law. An hon. gentleman said, " The compound householder has taken the necessary means to pay the rate by paying it in the rent." To pay it in the rent was the form most convenient to him, but by this bill he would be required to pay it in a form the least convenient. He (Mr. Gladstone) con tended that it was not for Parliament to erect a flimsy barrier between man and man under the plea of setting up securities. All over the surface of the country a vigorous expression of opinion had been given on this subject. In every great town there had been manifestations of public feeling on it during the last four weeks. There was not one of those towns, including Sheffield, where this arrangement for the compound householder had not been indignantly resisted. The hon. member for Oldham was in favour of sweeping away all existing acts for compounding ; but the Small Tenements Act, which had been in operation for 20 years, had been voluntarily accepted by 5,000 parishes. This was a strong evidence of public confidence in the measure. If the Small Tenements Act were repeated what would be the result except to introduce that pure and simple house hold suffrage which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) said could not be tolerated. It was impossible for the house to make the repeal of this and similar enactments a practi cal part of their present deliberations. It was convenient for landlords and compound householders those acts should be maintained. Nothing could be more convenient than that a man dependent on weekly wages should be enabled weekly to dispose of every charge made on him. There was by this arrangement an economy of labour, which was as valuable as an economy of money. (Hear, hear.) It was a great advantage to him to have the payment of rates in cluded in the rent. It would be very difficult for the work ing man to save up those small sums and pay them all at once. The working man could not always keep money in hand to meet the demands of the tax collector. (Hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone) would now give his view of the ele ment of the sums paid by the occupier of a house to his landlord. The occupier, in the first place, paid his rent, and then a composition rate. The landlord had a bonus of 10 per cent. for collection of therates. This was an advan tage to the landlord, and entailed no charge on the parish. But by the present bill that 10 per cent. was to be thrown into the sea. At present the landlord received some compensation for the deficiencies of the insolvent tenant. The landlord's share in the composition ranged from 25 to 33, 60, and in some cases to 75 per cent. This was much larger than the compulsory assessment under the Small Tenements enactment, which gave 0n1y25 per cent. Could there be a doubt, then, that to remit this would be a ffne on the landlord ? He compounded at present for some houses that were occupied, and for some that were empty. lie took from the solvent tenants in occupied houses enough to pay the composition rates for insolvent tenants and for empty houses. Under the bill the occu pier would take from the landlord everything he had paid. He (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to have a distinct and specific answer to this question—lf the solvent occupier of a £lO house sought enfranchisement, paid his full rate, and with drew from the tenement, how was the landlord to be in demnified for paying the rates of the insolvent tenants and of the empty houses out of his own pocket. (Hear, hear.) Enactments unjust to the landlord might be passed, but it would practically be very difficult to oppress him. He had arms which could not be taken out of his hands. The injustice which you attempted to perpetrate upon him he would by an easy process transfer to the tenant. The land lords would never consent to pay that fine—they would break up the composition. They would raise the rent and throw a double burden on the occupier. The whole scheme was a moat ingenious device to make the landlords the enemies of popular enfranchisement. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to conceive of anything more mischievous or injurious, it would not only break up all the arrangements between landlords and compounders, but by a perverse in genuity it would bring both parties into direct antago nism. (Hear, hear.) Some would say they were pro moting the privileges of the compound householders. But were the landlords to be sacrificed for that purpose? Cer tainly not ; they had a perfect right to discourage any attempt to give, at their expense, those privileges to the compound householders. The whole . scheme would lead to this inconvenience, that contracts be tween landlords and tenants would have to be unsettled from year to year. It would lead to great soreness, from that to anger, and thence to opposition to law and order. The hon. member for Hels.ou looked at this"as a great in-' convenience. Ho said it was a test of public virtue, but it was no such test. Hundreds of large property holdets would avail themselves of this means of acquiring influence. By taking out wholesale orders from the Post-office, and send ing them round by a steward to get signatures, transacting the whole business and paying every farthing, and con verting men into ratepaying householders without there ever being the smallest difference in any process connected with their tenure, under the name of a Reform Bill, the rotten boroughs of ancient times would be revived. This was a perfectly original method of accomplishing that ob ject, but it was once the mischief of which when once in troduced would with difficulty be removed. His hon. friend proposed to take his stand on the act of Sir W. Clay, but then he must say that ho wasastonished at the superfluity of fears which possessed the designers of the bill, when they were not content to take their stand upon that act. What really was Sir W. Clay's act? He granted that the act had in three or four towns, through the aid of registra tion agents and societies, led to the signing of 5,000 oreven 10,000 names, and that so many names had been inserted on the register in consequence; but that was not the pur poses of Sir W. Clay. H is p ur p o se was the same as that of the Government, to enable occ upiers to obtain enfranchise met individually. to a imu Sir , aWnd Clayhosufficientcient thos e o b s t ac l es very wisely re d uce d t h e obstacles had been found. He would like t o know 'whether at thi s moment there were 500 vot ers on the register i n th o w h o l e country that had been enfranchised by indi v id ua l compli minm anco with the act of Sir W. Cla y. Ile did not believe there were 500. Mr. BRIGHT—Not 100. Mr. GLADSTONE —He took a lar ge and liberal estimate and he challenged contradiction. Why did the Government not trust the act of Sir W. Clay? Would not that have done for them? Well, but it was said that there were others on the register. Certain l y , and they were supposed to b e enfranchised by the act of Sir W. Clay ; but the number of householders quoted by the hon. member for Oldh am ( Mr. Hibbert) had not been enfranchised by th a t act. He as serted with some degree of indistinctness in his informa tion as to proportions, so far as he could learn, from the small number of householders who had co me upon the re gister since the passing of Sir W. Clay'e Act, by far the larger majority had been placed upon the register in utter disregard of the conditions of that act. They never claimed, they never paid, they never tender e d —neither the one nor the other. They complied with no conditions at all, but parish officers— benevolent and philanthropic as they might have been—(a laugh)—or strong political partisans, as he was afraid it was often the case, sometimes by the vigorous exercise of benevolence shovelled them by thousands on the register. (Hear.) That was the way that enfranchise ment, for the most part, happened under the act of Sir W. Clay. Even then what did this act do ? It did this. The total number of male occupiers at and above £lO was, he thought, 639,000. Of these male occupiers 95,000 were compound householders; and th ere f ore 544,00 0 were direct ratepayinFinhabitants. The 514,000 ratepaying house holders yielded 78 per cent, of the voters, and the 95,000 compound householders yielded 27 per cent. of the voters. (Hear, hear.) Was that too many ? Why did the Govern ment not take Sir W. Clay's Act ? Now, really, could they desire anything more than this to be able to trumpet to the country that they had enfranchised with unparalleled generosity 100 men, and yet to enjoy the comfortable con sciousness that out of that 100 72k per cent. would never come upon the register? He did not think it was neces sary to take all this trouble to provide additional securi ties. (Laughter.) Their humane minds might have been spared the sympathy he was sure they would all feel with all the torture they were going to inflict upon the compound householders. They might have accepted these provisions in the act of Sir W. Clay, and might at the same time have gained both the objects of a vast nominal enfranchisement, and the more vital object of a very narrow real one. (Hear hear.) But the present state, he mu s t say, of the compound householders was not the praise, but the opprobrium of the electoral law—(hear, hear)—that out of three compound householders who ought to be on th e register only one could find his way there, and th a t by accident, by lottery, by the particular inclina tion and di spos i t i on of the overseers ' of his parish, and not by his own efforts, nor in proportion to the measure of his political capacity. He had so much respect for any vote of that committee and so much desire to attain, if it were pos sible, a settlement that would meet the substantial claims of the country, that if it was considered necessary to main thin this phantom of personal rating—for such it was, in his estimation—if it were considered ne cessary to maintain the decencies of what was called the principle of the bill, let the compound householder send in his claim, but do not fol low up the claim by the really preposterous condition of requiring to c h ange the tenure of his dwelling. He might be wrong, and he excited a cry of disapproval when he said that in his opinion it bore the character of a most odious class legislation ; but it was his most conscientious con viction. (Cheers.) He wanted to know how gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite, or on the benches around him, would rec e i ve an Act of Parliament w hi c h made their access to the franchise depend on their changing the tenure of their houses. If they would repel it, and treat it as an insult and an injwy, which they lyQuld, let them be careful as to the estimate they might be disposed to form of the feelings of the people. It seemed to him that they ought to avoid above all things the suspicion, which he was afraid they were likely to incur, of dealing falsely, and pretend ing to make a large enfranchisement, and at the same time of taking care to give a small one. His own opinion was that they might do anything with the people of England if they wore treated honestly and above-board ; but fraud, dis simulation, circuitous methods, would have no effect. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) Ho spoke of legislative fraud ; they might call it what they liked. Ho was afraid plenty of people would be found who would em ploy stronger words. He did not use tho word in any personal sense ; he gave gentlemen opposite the same credit with regard to their motives, intentions, and rules of personal action as he claimed for himself. Ho would, how ever, withdraw the word "fraud" altogether. Any ad justment of provisions in anAct of Parliament which should produce upon the public mind, as these provisions were now widely producing, the impression and the conviction that Parliament was paltering in a double sense with the people of England—professing to give that which it meant in sub stance, as to the far greater part, to withhold—instead of being a settlement of the question of Reform, would be a blow to the honour and credit of the Legislature, and a serious injury to the institutions of the country. (Cheers.) Lord J. 3IANNEns and Mr. 3finsti supported the amend ment. Mr. GREENE, in a humorous speech, recommended the Opposition to withdraw their hostility to the bill, and predicted that if they did not they would be defeated by a large majority. Mr. WHITBREAD urged that the proposition, if agreed to, would be tantamount to inflicting a fine on the land lord, who, in his turn, would recoup himself by raising the rent on his tenant. Mr. KENDALL supported and Mr. FAWCETT opposed the amendment, the latter arguing that its immediate effect would be to fau the flames of agitation out of doors. After some observations from Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. J. B. SMITH expressed his intention to support the amendment, chiefly on the ground that as the house was about to admit a new class of voters to the franchise they were entitled to make terms with them, and to say that if the compound householder did not discharge all the duties of citizenship he was not entitled to all its privileges. Mr. LOWE commented upon the unsubstantial principles . . . . upon which the bill was based, and asked with what show of consistency could the Government insist upon the per- sonal payment of rates when they were ready to admit the lodger, who bore no portion of the public burden, and discharged none of the duties of citizenship. Mr. BRIGHT —1 shall neither entertain nor weary the house with any condemnation of the acts under which land lords compounded their rates. We have had a good deal of that, and my hon. friend near me has been particularly strong upon it. lam willing to accept the fact that in 170 boroughs in England and Wales the practice of compound ing exists, more or less; and I agree with the right hon. member for South Lancashire that it is something in favour of the system that gradually, under a permissive bill, not less than 5,000 parishes in England and Wales have adopted the system ; and I am unwilling rudely, without knowing enough of it, to condemn it for the purpose of framing an excuse fora measure which, taken in connexion with that system, I hold to be ono of the most extraordinary, and one of the most unequal and one of the most unjust that was ever offered to the English House of Commons by any Ministry. (Laughter and cheers.) Gentlemen must re member that, whether they on that side of the house, or whether I and those on this side of the house may be right, this is a very serious question we are discussing ; and con sidering the mistakes you made last year you must at least be a little modest. (Laughter, and hear.) You may fairly, at any rate, consider the arguments which may ope rate against your present views. Now, will the house fol low me just a little on this ono point ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, in answer to questions from Scotch members, that in the Scotch bill the franchise will be so arranged that it will be practically household suf frage throughout all the boroughs of Scotland ; the only question will be that the franchise will not be extended to the persons under £1 rental whose rates aro not paid by the occupier. In fact, I believe occupiers are not rated in any way below .£4 ; but above £1 to every person who pays his rates the franchise will be given. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that he made no statement in regard to the £4 line. Mr. BRIGHT.—I did not intend to say that the right hon. gentleman had made such a statement. 1 only said that he proposed in Scotland to extend what ho called the principle of the bill, and what followed was merely an explanatory remark of my own. (Hear, hear.) By and by a bill will be introduced for Ireland, but no promise will bo given in regard to the ;node in which the franchise will be arranged. Irish members tell me that in that coun try, to a point of .£1 rating, the rates are paid by the laud lord—(hear, hear)—and to above £1 half the rate is paid by the landlord and half by the tenant ; and I ought to have said further, that in Scotland half the rate is paid by the landlord and half by the tenant. In England there are 29 boroughs that will be practically about in the same position, and in which the franchise will be very largely extended ; so that we have the principle of the bill of the right hon. gentlemen applying, I presume, to Ireland, but certainly to Scotland, and certainly to 29 boroughs in Eng land, without the enormous and moat unfortunate limita tions which the same bill will apply to 170 other boroughs in England and Wales. 1 do not believe the right hon. gen tleman or his Government would have proposed this plan if they had known when it was first thought of that this result would be attained. i am inclined to agree with the right hen. gentlemen the member for Caine (Mr. Lowe) that this is a misfortune attending their bill which the right hon. gentleman probably wished did not exist to so great an extent as it was now found to do. But I have main tained from the beginning of these discussions that there is no real difficulty in accommodating this matter, and being equally just to all the boroughs. It seems t o me something , like a pedantic perseverance, by which the Government or the right hon. gentlemen, for he appears to be the Govern ment—(laughter) —stands by a proposition which I believe ho would not have made if he had seen the return which the Secretary to the Treasury obtained some time ago, and which he must know as well as any man in this House knows, that it is utterly incapable of defence, and that it never can subsist for a single Parliament as it now is. I am not now pleading for any particular point to which you extend the suffrage; I am pleading only for equality and fairness in this matter--(hear, hear)__and I say you cannot afford—notwithstanding what my hon. friend said, that Parliament has no right, and cannot exercise the power without injury to itself and the country—to pass a bill guilty of such enormous inequality and injustice. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) If any hon, gentleman says there is no inequality, let him stand up and show it to be so. I argue that the remedy is simple and very easy, and that that remedy to a very large extent will be found in the amend ment to this clause which has been proposed by my hon. friend the member for Oldham. The words which the Chan cellor of the Exchequer propoSes to introduce are objected to because they proven t the subsequent adoption of the amend ments, and we are really on these words discussing that amendment as if 4 were not re a ll y b e f ore us. 1 say there are 29 boroughs in England and Wales which under this bill you treat with great liberalit y, and there are 170 which you treat with a niggardliness, and I say with an injustice which will be found to be intolerable, and which I believe it is not statesmanlike or right on the part of the house so to treat. (Hear, hear.) If you were to adopt the proposi tion of the hon. member for Oldham, I will tell the house what would exactly follow. if you take population for population in the 29 boroughs and in the 170 boroughs, you would find that the number of electors that would ultimately come upon the roll in the 170 boroughs would not vary more than three per cent, from the number that would come on the roll by this bill in the 29 boroughs ; and if it can be shown that the proposition of the member forOldham would so balance the whole case with that jus tice you are now dealing out to the 29 boroughs, I ask the house whether it is not worth while, when you wish to settle a matter which has disturbed you for many years, to persuade the Government and the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to accept the proposition of the hon. member for Oldham, and thus make what we all know it would be, and what we all know the present plan will not be, a just and final settlement of the question. (Hear, hear.) I have sometimes given honourable gentlemen opposite a little advice. (L aughter.) I shall not give them any advice to-night. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) But I may make one or two remarks to them which may not be without some force. (Hear, hear.) I think I have shown that reason demands some change in the proposition of the Government. (No, no, and hear, hear.) Hon. gen tlemen have advanced so far that that terrible spectre of household suffrage has no terrors for them. Hon. gentle men opposite from Scotland even can regard it as ad vancing on them without fear ; and English members on that side of the house have now learnt that, after all, it is not a thing greatly to be dreaded. The change that has ceme over you has been more remarkable than I have wit nessed before since I have had a seat in this houss. (Cheers and laughter.) But you will forgive me mo if I wonder at it. (Hear.) Then, having made that change, what I w an t you to d o i s to carry i t ou t into action, so that at least y ou may no t h ave ma d e a sacr ifi ce o f this con cession for nothing. But if I turn to the bench below me bore, the gentlemen who sit on it, with some others at this end of the house, have also, I presume, made some change. (Hear.) They have advanced, I am told and believe it, though Lord Russell has for many years held that house hold suffrage was a wise foundation for the franchise. See ins, then, that all those who have been accustomed in past times to follow his standard are quite willing now to assist hon. gentlemen opposite in establishing that basis for boroughs, if the house is unanimous for household suf frage, who should eve not act upon that conviction ? My hon. friend near me (dr. J. B. Smith) says they ought to pay less poor rates. If we wore discussing poor rates his observation would be pertinent, but it is the very opposite in a discussion of this matter. The people of Birmingham have a right to claim the same just and equal treatment as will be given to those of Stockport and Sheffield. There may be men who are willing to follow Ministers in any pro position they may make—(cries of " Question" from the Ministerial benches)—but I should be ashamed of myself, and I hope the hour, if it should ever come, when I defend a measure like this, so unjust —(oh, oh)—to the great majo rity of the tolY Ilnglancl and Wales, may be the last when I shall stand before the Parliament of this country. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches, and cries of " Oh, oh.) Let me remind the house that if I speak of the people of Birmingham in regard to this matter, it is because I am necessarily more familiar with the facts of that town ; but the same arguments may be used as to the 170 towns to which this bill applies. Nov, what was done at Birming ham ? An act was passed in 1828 by the rich people of the parish, for the objects and purposes of the parish ; it was not an indulgence to the people. But what are you about to do ? You are about to inflict a penalty—(no, no)—you aro about practically to exclude 36,000 male occupiers iu Bir mingham, from the accident that they happen to live in a town where 40 years ago their forefathers thought it desir able to establish a plan for the payment of rates, which has been sanctioned almost universally by Parliament, and which is now in practice iu 5,000 parishes in England and Wales. Does any man deny that you are practically ex cluding them ? (A crylof " Yes.") You deny it. I think I heard that cry from the brother of a Cabinet Minister (Mr. J. Hardy), whom I see before me. If you do not prac tically exclude them, why nut freely admit them ? (Cheers.) Why object to the amendment of the hon. member for Oldham, if you do not know that it would to a large extent admit them, and that by rejecting the amendment, you would to a largo extent exclude them. The hon. gentle man (Mr. J. Hardy) evidently does not know where he is going. (Laughter.) The other day he wont down to a banquet at Wakefield. (No, Derby.) Well, Derby, a place equally appropriate. (Laughter.) The hon. member was asked to answer to the toast of " The House of Commons ;" and what did he say ? (Laughter.) He wished the managers of the feast had given him something that he could under stand, " The Army and the Navy," or " The Bishops and the Clergy of the Diocese." (Loud laughter.) Ho said if he had ono of those old toasts that he would have known where he was, but having been given the toast of " The House of Commons," he mall:- did not know what he was doing, or where he was going, for the house was upon a track which he did not understand. (Great laughter.) Now, the hon. gentleman must be a little tolerant to me, because lam trying to make him understand it. (Cheers and laughter.) I would only ask one question, and it should be in one sentence. I ask hon. gentlemen, in inflicting this general disfranchisement on the occupiers of the town of Birmingham and 107 other boroughs, why they, because rating acts and compounding acts exist in these boroughs, inflict upon men the very penalty they would inflict upon crime and bribery ? Was it nothing, in a free country, to deny aman his rightful vote for a member of Parliament ? (An hon. member—" It is not a rightful vote.") What are they doing, sitting there, and what are the pretences of the bill ? I will say that in the town of Sheffield—the hon. member for that borough is sitting near me, and will contradict me if I am wrong —ho is always ready to contradict anybody— (laughter) —I ought to add when he thinks they are wrong —(laughter)—I say that in that intelligent town which the hon. and learned gentleman represents there are 28,000 householders, not a bit wiser or better, nor more political, nor more disposed to law and order—(ironical cries of "Hear, hear")—than those of Birmingham, and yet in that borough 28,000 are to be received in open arms by the bill, while iu Birmingham, which is as good as Shef field --(laughter, and hear, hear)—it is so arranged that it will not include 36,000 who live in that town. In the town of Birmingham the 24,000 persons put on the register under Sir W. Clay's Act, and who have been on the register for five years, have during the last month been omitted from the register, and have been disfranchised solely by the act of the overseers. Sir, that is a matter of some consequence, and any scheme which places in the hands of the parochial authorities, or of any others, the power to disfranchise persons, must be a scheme fraught with every kind of evil. (Hear, hear.) I hope hereafter you will be able to say you were the means of passing a great and just bill—(hear)—and that if there was tempo rarily any kind of humiliation attaching to it, at least you have this noble compensation of having done a great ser vice to the country. (Hear, and cheers.) Everybody is now anxious to assist in settling that difficult question. There aro millions of voices out of doors that ask you also to settle the question. Now is the time. Last year you might have had a settlement of a more moderate character —(no, no, and counter cheers)—and of a duration which I believe would last any one of you for your Parliamentary life. You refused it. (Ministerial cheers.) I told you what would come if you refused it, and it has come. But now I ask you to do what you are professing to do, but which you refuse to do that is, to make your bill equal and just to all the boroughs of the country. I have authority, I believe, for speaking for a very large number of those out of doors who ask for Reform. If I am not, no man has—(laughter from the Ministerial side) —and I say I lament with a grief I cannot well express— (continued laughter)—not that you are not making a more democratic measure—l am not, perhaps, as democratic as your leader is in action—(laughter from the Opposition)— I am not complaining of your not acting in a manner suf ficiently democratic, but that you are not acting in a spirit of equality and of fairness; and though anything I may say to you may be utterly useless—(loud Ministerial cheers)—on this occasion, as it has been oftentimes in the past- (Ministerial cheers)—yet I venture at this last hour to appeal to the honourable and just feelings of the house that dealing with millions of people on a subject which deeply touches your hearts, you should at least deal with them in a manner which this great people will feel to bo equal and just to them. (Cheers.) After some observations from Mr. J. HARDY, chiefly of a personal character, in reply to a reference made by Mr. Bright to a recent speech of the hon. member at Derby, Mr. lIEADLAM said he would be a craven and a coward if ho did not give his support to the Government, inasmuch as they had brought in a bill precisely similar to that which he had himself advocated in the presence of his constituents. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and was greeted with loud cheers from the Conservative side. The right hon. gentleman said : I will only detain the committee for a few moments, but perhaps they will hardly think it unreasonable on my part—and they will perhaps allow me—to state the reason why we inserted those words on which we are going to divide, and to make some observations on the remarks of those who preceded me . It was said by the hon. member for Bradford that there was some ambiguity in the language of the bill, especially in the clause which referred to the compound householder, and which would have rendered the clause different from what it was intended by the Government to be. At any rate, it appeared to me to be extremely ne cessary, when so much controversy tookplace on the com pound householder, and when so many amendments were proposed on that subject, that the question should be put before the House when it came to a decision in language that could not be mistaken, so that the House should not discuss the question, and should afterwards arrive at re sults which were not contemplated. It was for this reason that, at the time I brought forward the amended clause upon which the amendment we are called to divide upon has been moved, the expression "ordinary occupier" was used. Our feeling in using that phrase was this :—Wo wished the House clearly to understand that in considering this question the proposition we really made was, that the borough franchise should be conferred upon an individual rated to the poor's rates and personally paying those rates, Therefore the phrase "ordinary occupier" was used, in order that there might be no mistake upon the subject, and it was accompanied by the placing on the table of the large clause affecting the compound householder with which the committee is familiar. After having heard the prolongued discussion on the subject with which we have been favoured, we retain the principle as strongly as ever, that the borough franchise shall be founded on the personal payment of rates, accompanied, of course, with actual residence. I must say that the right hon. member for Caine, who this evening made one of his usual attacks on the Government, appears to me to have completely misunderstood the whole principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.) He says we came forward in the most distinct manner and said the borough fran chise should be conferred upon those who contributed to the public burdens. I utterly deny that proposition and statement of the right hon. gentleman. No doubt con tribution to public burdens is an item, and an import ant item, in the construction of the Parliamentary fran chise, but I deny that it is the chief item ; and it is quite possible to conceive that payment of the public burdens might be quite consistent with a position in society not suited for the suffrage. What I said was that the principle of the bill from the first was that this right should be conferred on those who fulfilled a public duty, being placed in that position of life which was con sistent with the performance of civic obligations. There fore the right hon. member for Caine has mistaken the foundation on which we place the franchise. That is our answer to those who are pressing the claims of the com pound householder to the franchise. But• it is said that, although we have proposed to establish the borough fran chise on this broad and popular principle, we at the same time have connected with it conditions and regulations, the object of which is to prevent many persons from enjeying it. Well, what do you do ? Are you prepared to admit all the inhabitants of houses in these boroughs? (Hear, hear.) The argument of the right hon. member for South Lancashire was founded on the assumption that persons not admitted under this bill were corrupt; whil e t h e whole argument of the hon. member for Westminster was a v i ew, illustrated in a manifold way, to prove that the g enera l body of the people, iu the boroughs of England especi a lly —the portion to whom we do not propose directly to ex tend the franchise—were so corrupt that liberty and good government were imperilled by them. (Laughter and cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham himself— what does he mean by that residuum upon which he des canted in so picturesque a manner to the House. He persons,teei ea in his mind , ought not to e very sensible view, means b e entrustedthat ag r e w a t am the any f no doubt. Then this arises :—We have a plan by which we think wo can attain the best of those who do not pos sess the franchise. We propoee it should be given to those who, by direct performance of public duty, prove they may be trusted with the possession of a public right. We even offer to those who do not come under our conditions means, and very facile means, by which they may obtain it. (Hear, hear.) What plan do the hon. members for Lan cashire, Birmingham, and Westminster suggest in order to effect that object ? I have heard a great deal about the and if I were to listen corruption, of the people of England, to the arguments and accept the conclusions of the great Liberal leaders, I should be ashamed of my countrymen. (Hear.) When you consider what is the condition of the English constituencies, nothing can be more preposterous than the conclusions to which these gentlemen, and espe cially the hon. member for Westminster, have arrived. In a previous discussion I showed that these boroughs have a constituency of 2,500. Only conceive what expenditure must be incurred in paying the rates for all those. I take it for granted that if the constituent had his sates paid for him he would look upon it as a personal benefit ; but he would probably like something more substantial, and it is absurd to suppose that electioneering agents could, by paying many thousands of pounds in rates, so corrupt the constituencies as to secure their This principle of personal rating is not one which can oe perverted to any gr ea t ex t en t as a means o f corr uption• It can only b e p ar t o f a very great scheme of corru ption. Long organised and extensively organised schemes of cor ruption in boroughs seldom succeed, therefore I cannot believe that these allegations against the purity of our fellow-citizens and this assumption of infinite and general corruption on the part of those whom we have been told were so worthy of the franchise, have any substantial foundation. I wish to say ono word on the condition of the compound householder. Notwithstanding the cri ticism on us, the result of our labours is that the corn pound householder will now very generally possess a great privilege whi c h b e f ore h e did n 1 possess, viz., h e will be able to deduct from his landlord the amount of the rates he will be called upon to pay in order to enjoy the suffrage. With regard to Sir Wm. Clay's Act, I have ex pressed my opinion on this measure, and the more I con sider it the more I am satisfied that my opinion was no t ill grounded. I believe the hon. member for Holston (Mr. Brett) was perfectly right in his statement to-night/ and that the hon. member for Birmingham was not sur prised at the oiservations which he made. I will not pot my memory against that of the hon. member (Mr. Bright), but my opinion is that the third clause of Sir W . • Clay's Act was interpolated in a manner which was highly disapproved by persons of authority in this house. So far from Mr. Spooner being the only person who protested against the insertion, allow me to recall words which We both must have heard at that time. Lord John Russell, at the time the bill passed in. 1851, said of the third clause that it went beyond the Reform Act. [The right hon. gentleman quoted Lord John Russell against the adoption of that third clause as a proof that Mr. Spooner was not the only member who protested, and then went on to say]: I am surprised at the language with which the right hon• gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) spoke of that Act to night, though 1 confess it was expressed with a f e rvent violence, of which he is occas i ona ll y master. H e sa id it was the opprobrium of our electoral law. [Mr. GLADSTOSB —No, no.] Well, this is litera scr4)tce monet. My memory not only says that, but the right hon. gentleman repented it. And yet it is this Act which the right hon. gentleman has been pitting against the bill which we are endeavour ing to pass. (Cheers.) lam willing to believe that the Act of Sir William Clay was not annihilated by the lan guage of the right bon. gentleman. I only hope that it is equally untrue the account which reaches me that he charged those who are sitting on this bench in their con duct of this bill with fraud and dissimulation. That is language which one could hardly expect from any member of this house. (Government cheers.) It is severe language for those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs from the lips of a gentleman who has himself taken a leading part in public affairs, and who knows what such responsi bility is. I understand the hon. gentleman did withdraw these words on indignation being expressed, but he added, " There has been an adjustment and provision framed, with the appearance of giving an extended fran chise,while care has been, at the same time, taken that the apparent extension should not be realised." (Ch eer ! and counter cheers.) I must confess, for my own part , I prefer the original invective of the right honourabl e gentleman. (Cheers.) The denunciations of Torquemads to the interpretation of Loyola. I prefer to meet a clear charge of fraud and dissimulation than to be told in lan guage like that I have just read to the house that we have been guilty of conduct unwort h y, in my opinion, o f all public men. (Cheers.) I wish the house now to dispas sionately consider the state of parties on this subject. Th e right hen. gentleman last year brought in a bill to improvethe representation o f th e peop l e . A cons i derab l e pe riod was employed in the discussion of that measure, but after a time it was withdrawn. This year we have endeavoure d, under circumstances to which I need not again refer, to the best of our ability, with great care, and under circure if we of considerable anxi e ty, we h ave en d eavour ed, we could possibly, to bring to a solution this question, and to-night will decide whether we have failed or not. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman failed last year; and if you de tide against us to-night we shall, after having made an arduous and anxious effort, we, too, shall have failed. But in what position, if this question is brought on, as it must be, sooner or later, in what position will Parliament stand The section of public men who are the choice of England will have no policy to guide them beyond the policy wh ich gentleman yo u . willhave not onlyrejected failed which a - lot fa n hut sl i eegv g t reh h 3m,t , t ew . faaoert Becauser:tiewbruiatrytasking dt hoafi se oty t huehtonaehult. rejected Wr i h g hpti h osr weuot proposi tion with repudiated o x e opn f p nu e s e a id ; d t iigaeeaaint.nie, experience u t ti iatdm.tnhedtTehs Therefore, en c i secures, e h o r t e u , a rsee l l d when we appear considerat ion, bfore our con stituents there will bo but one scheme to decide ; there is no counter project. (Ministerial cheers, and "Oh." I f there is a counter project it is ono that must be drawn from the halls of Birmingham—(cheers) —where the boo' member for Bi rm i ng h am a d dresses his const i tuen ts in a manner so peculiar, of which we have been reminded to-night. Wo are told that we ough t , to repeal all th e ra ti ng A cts; b ut a measure el reform that would deal with those Acts appears to be a measure which the united influence of both sides of the House would scarce l y succee d i n carrying. The prin . ; ciples upon which thi s measure i s built are sound, an d ll temperately avail, and will have an influence upon future legislation with regard to rating. No doubt great changes will occur in that respect, and they will be carried by the good sense and feeling which characterises Englishmen' Circumstances will adapt themselves to the new state of affairs, and a result will be brought about which in r a Y opinion will elevate the character of tho English people - 7' which will teach them a wiser habit of administering their own affairs, and which will teach them that the perform ance of duties is the soundest principle upon which we can found the enjoyment of rights. I have not alluded to the failure of those on the opposite side of the House for all irritable expressions which have been used. I will assume for the moment that wo also may not be successful ; but I put it to the House well to consider how very critical the state of affairs must be with regard to this all-importan t subject if that happens. On the part of the Government I wish to express to the House our sense of the candour and kindness with which our propositions have generally been considered. (Cheers.) Wo have always felt that to the allegiance and sympathy of the majority we had no ground of appeal, except the common conviction that a sincer e effort successfully to deal with this question ought to be encouraged and supported, from whatever side of the Hon e ' ) it came. (Hear, hear.) We have omitted no legitimat e opportunity of showing how completely we deferred to the views and feelings of the lHouse, provided we were ne t asked to sacrifice the great principle upon which w e have at all times declared ourselves determined to up" hold. We have reason to believe, from the course o f these discussions, th a t th e principle is not unacceptab le to the House. There may have been some difficult among us as to its application. The views of the ho member for Oldha m , i n t ro d uce d t o us w i t h di g nity and self -respect—(hear, hear)—though they appear utterly impracticable, with the principles which are the fou nds tions of this bill, deserve candid consideration. We hav e done as much to meet these views as is consistent with the main principle of the bill. I deeply regret that the hon• member has found it consistent with his duty to ask th e opinion of the house upon a question so critical. All I cg s say for the Government is that we have had no other wis h in this business but to bring it to a happy conclusion. No t for the sake of retaining power, not for the sake of obtain' ing reputation—(laughter from the Opposition)—becaus e we were ready at all times to give to the House of Co"n mons in the conduct of this business the influential posi tion which would show to the country that, if the measur e passed, it was th e measure o f the House of Commons, a n' not of the Government. (Cheers.) I commend it at the les s hour to the consideration of the committee, and I still wil l hold that, with their aid, her Majesty's Government mai conduct this business to a happy termination. (Cheers.) Mr. GLADSTONE ( w h o was rece i ve d w i t h cr ies or "Divide" from the Ministerial benches, and cheers fr° lll the Opposition, and who found some diffi cu lty in obtain .. ing a hearing) said he never stated, as the right hon. gea r tleman said, that the clause was the opprobrium of the b ill, but that the condition of the compound householner Vi e t the opprobrium of the present electoral law. The righ t hon. gentlemen said ho imputed fraud and dissimulation to the Government, and, upon being interrupted with an I ' l_ _ dignant cry, withdrew those words. Du r i ng the thro e months of the present session he had never censured the conduct of the Government with respect to Reform. N or had he to-night made such an imputation on the Govern ment. The eagerness of four or five members—which the, right hon. gentleman adorns by calling a " cry of indignt tion"—prevented him from finishing a sentence which would have shown that he was describing the impressiouct ,i,l, t w b l e ii ur ch uN N , v u o r t u il l d ue b n e t, c b r u ea t t b e y d elsewhere, t co pur sued a certain course. (" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial side, and cheers from the Opposition.) d t n o o f t t the h t o h u e s e c 7 (l l __ „ l o'clock the committee divided, whe n the At ' aq numbers uart e e r y were— - For the Chancellor of the Exchequer's amend ment 322 Against Majority for Ministers The result was received with loud and prolonged o heerti from the Ministerial benches. The words proposed were then inserted, and the Chair man reported progress. house The remaining business was disposed of, and the ho adjourned at 10 minutes to two o'clock. - - _ — London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM S ANDREW , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tut: SON Offi ce, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County Of Middlesex.—Friday, May 10,1807.