The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

Mr. WALPOLE stated, amidst laughter, that all
the cases would be considered together.
The CHANcELLoa of the Exensount in reply to
a question front Mr. SHIRIDAN and Mr. WARNER,
stated that it is not intended to give one addi-
tional member to South Staffordshire, but to
divide that division of the county, and give two
members to each division, and therefore it would
not be in their power to give an additional mem-
ber to West Bromwich.
Mr. CaAwroen gave notice of his intention to
bring forward a motion, that it is expedient, in
the interest of the public, where adequate security
is offered, that the State shall assume the responsi-
bilities of the railway companies unable to meet
their engagements, on condition of the acquisition
by the State, on terms mutually advantageous to
the State and the company, of such railways.
Mr. B. OSBORNE gave notice of his intention to
call the attention of the house to the suspension of
the Habeas Carpus Act in Ireland, and the stale of
Ireland generally.
Lord STANLEY, in reply to Mr. Lefevre, stated
that the correspondence with the United States
government respecting the Alabama claims was not
concluded ; and he added, that it was not true
that an unfriendly communication had been re-
ceived from that government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to
Mr. BRIGHT, stated that he had not considered the
question as to when the house should go into com-
mittee on the Representation of the People BilL
On the order of the day for the second reading
of the Representation of the People Bill,
Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said that the objects
they had in view were three—first of all, that a
legislative measure should be passed in the course
of the present year ; second, that the measure
should be based upon a liberal enfranchise-
ment of the labouring class ; third, that the
provisions of the bill, and particularly the
conditions of the enfranchisement, should be so
devised that the bill might be carried with a
reasonable prospect of a settlement. Ho proposed
to examine the bill by the light of these proposi-
tions. The Of. rating was a basis on which he
thought a settlement might have been effected.
But that proposition could not be revived. But
with regard to this bill, he considered that to be
satisfactory it must contain a lodger franchise •
that they must do away with the distinction be-
tween compound householders and those persons
of the very same position in life who were not com-
pound householders. He thought that the taxing
franchise must be omitted ; that the dual vote
must be abandoned ; that the county franchise
must be reduced ; that the redistribution of seats
proposed in the bill must be considerably enlarged.
Then with regard to the special franchises, his
opinion was that, although in principle no objec-
tion could be made to those franchises, or some of
them, yet when they came to examine them,
they would find the difficulties were so continually
multiplied, that there would remain either
• thin residuum, or they would altogether
disappear. In the discussion he should confine
himself to the borough franchise. It was supposed
that by this bill they were going to give household
suffrage, but it did not appear to hum that either
by public opinion or the state of opinion in that
house they were justified in laying down that broad
principle. But when he went further he found
that this immense concession was qualified by im-
mense drawbacks. He submitted that by this bill
they practically tined the compound householder if
he attempted to obtain the franchise. The de-
duction made to the landlord was generally from
25 to 50 per cent., and why should they make the
HMI occupying a house that wits compounded ifor
pay his full rates I This personal payment of rates
must be given up. They might fix a certain
amount of rateable value, and say that below that
line no occupier should be liable to the payment of
the rate, or should enjoy the franchise ; but that
above that figure every man should enjoy the fran-
chise. This bill, as regarded London, was prac-
tically a nullity, and yet London contained one-
third of the entire borodgh population of the
country. But how would the bill work with re-
gard to other boroughs f He ventured to say that
after making all the deductions the bill would not
enfranchise more than from 100,000 to 120,0001
persons. He appealed to the house whether
a bill which excluded so many from the fran-
chise could possibly effect a settlement of the
question. If they were to extend the franchise to
the working classes they should extend it to the
best, and they should not create artificial distinc- 1
tions among the same class of persons.
Let me now (continued the right honourable gentleman)
sum up what the house has allowed me to state in
detail. In the first place, looking to the enfranchising
part of the bill, it appears to me to profess to admit
a principle in needless breadth ; but in admitting that
principle, I think everyone should hold himself ready
to abide by the full, honest, equal, impartial, unre-
strained application of that principle. I then find that
principle defeated in the application by those provisions
the nature of which I have endeavoured to explain, which
mat off more than two-thirds of the whole it has
seemingly promised to enfranchise, and not only cut off
two-thirds, but distributed the proportions admitted
through the towns of the country in a manner which
aggravates tenfold the inequality, and makes it utterly
intolerable, and which lays the foundation, should you
pass the bill to-morrow, of a new agitation, and therefore
is utterly at variance with the faintest idea of a settlement
and adjustment of this lung-contested question. (Cheers.)
I am bonsai to say that I think the quantity of enfran-
, chiseineut proposed by the government under 10/. is quite
insufficient. Ido not think that the enfranchisement of
120,000 persons is such an enfranchisement as Call or ought
to settle the question. (Hear, hear.) Last year we pro-
, posed to enfranchise 200,000 persons, and I think that that
was a moderate proposal. Ido not feel myself called upon
to proceed to sweeping and violent measures, but I think
our proposal was a moderate one. I know that the right
hon. gentleman calls his estimate 7.37,000, but I am per-
suaileil that if from that number you make all the deductions
by reason of the various considerations I have referred to,
120,000 persons is a liberal estimate of those who would be
enfranchised by the bill. But the quantity is not only in-
sufficient, the quality is defective. Take the case of the
constituency of the hon. gentleman opposite (Me. B.
Hope). I have no doubt that there is a great amount of
intelligence amongst the population of Stoke-upon-Trent,
and the constituency have shown it by sending lazy hon.
friend to this house—(a laugh)—but in the lower strata of
the 15,000 to be added to the constituency there is a con-
siderable number of persons who have enjoyed very limited
advantages of education, who earn very small wages, who
are exceedingly dependent upon their employers, and if I
am to take my choice between person and person, give me
the best—the most intelligent—the meet independent I
can discover among the labouring classes. (Hear, hear.)
Do not in this indiscriminate manner gather the bulk of
the population, and say, " We do it only in a few towns."
Rut, above all, let us not establish by legislation artificial
distinctions amongst men in the same class of society, for
that is a practice wholly new in the British con-
stitution. (Hear, hear.) I admit that in the
present constituencies you have distinctions of
that kind. because since 1832 the principle
of compounding for rates has grown up, and consequently
an anomaly has grown up which we ought to cure, not to
establish by a new law. (Hear, hear.) I admit that, as
every one knows, the old constitution before 1832 recog-
nised many rights of franchise and many qualifications in
different towns, but nowhere did it make the smallest
difference between those who were called upon to dia.
' charge the common duty of returning a representative to