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

parbaraehlt. 'That (nut the Old'priaelgils'of the oonstitn-
tier.. The right hon. eentleniaa the Chancellor of the Kx.
chequer has linuself mohrined it in en expressive phrase
where Lc says," There ases noble equality, not of the man,
but of thecitizen vrhen celled upou to diecharge a public duty."
I ask the right hon. gentleman not to maintain that die
tinction, but to say that the principle of equality is within
the limit, of this bill, and that that is a safe and wise prin-
ciple I feel confident this house will recognise, and will not
depart from. (Hear, hear.) But if not • safe and wise
preimple, yet, considering the absolute necessity of deal-
ing equally with men under equal circumstances, if you
wish to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the franchise,
you cannot do better than not separate the classes in re-
gard to the enjoyment of the franchise. There may be
differences of circumstances, such as education and other
things, which nieu may look upon as the dispensations of
Providence, but you must not adopt as the arbitrary will
of parliament distinctions which will not be worth the
paper upon which they may be written. (Hear, hear.) I
wish to ask the right hon. gentleman to state what assur-
ances he can give us upon these points ; and, first of all, I
may express a hope that he will be[explicikin his answer—
(cheers)—as explicit as his sense of public duty
will permit. (Hear, bear.) I mean no taunt
by my observations. ("Oh, oh," from the ministerial
benches.) If hon. gentlemen have so considered they do
not perceive the force of my meaning, which is this—we
have been promised explanatious by the government. I feel
the responsibility of every member of this house, and I
think we are bound, if possible, to attain a speedy end to
this question, and to pass a good measure. I know the re-
jection of this bill, and the setting up of another plan,
unless it should be necessary, will be a great evil, because
it will retard the settlement of that question which we are
all so anxious to dispose of. (Hear, bear.) I want to know
whether we can in committee arrive at a settlement of this
question. (Hear, hear.) These are the groutds upon
which I ask for an explanation from the right hon.
gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman may
of course decline to say now what the government will do,
and he may say let the house go foto committee and dis-
cuss the clauses of the bill. If such should he his answer
the right hon. gentleman will leave us in • painful position
as regards the probable settlement of this question, for I
am not very far wrong in stating that a large proportion
of the members of this house are of opinion that
some of the provisions of the hill must be substan-
tially altered and some rejected altogether. (Cheers.)
Therefore it is not in the way of taunt, but with a view of
having our position as well as our duty defined, that I
earnestly express a hope that the right bon. gentleman
will be disposed to give us upon this most important and
most difficult of questions some clear indication of the in-
tentions of the government. (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman was asked in the earlier part of this evening to
explain when he proposed that the house should go into
committee. The right hon. gentleman's answer I was
perfectly satisfied with. This debate may he terminated
to-night or to-morrow night, and I would venture to
suggest that we should go into committee on some day in
the course of next week—(hear, hear)—upon the first Jay
which tho government have at their disposal, because if
we do not go into committee next week. perhaps we shall
not be asked to do so till after Easter;and if that should be
propoeedour difficulties will be most seriously aggravated,
and our chances of passing • bill this session will be re-
stricted. (Hear, hear.) I should like, therefore, to be
informed by the right hon. gentleman, or by the govern-
ment, when they propose to go into committee—perhaps
upon Monday next, or Thursday week—(cries of " Monday
next ")—the government will propos!, that you, sir, do
leave the chair for the purpose of going into committee.
(Hear, hear.) Now as regards the enacting clause, I hope
I have not been too exacting in asking for this explana-
tion, because under the circumstances we could not in
committee upon the bill ask for it from the right hon.
gentlemen. As to what the right honourable gentleman
will do in reference to the county franchise, or
with respect to the disfranchisement clauses, I do
know, but he must see that they must be enlarged.
(Hear, hear.) I will venture to ask whether the govern-
ment intend to introduce a lodger franchise? (Hear,
hear.) Because without such a provision in the bill it
will be needles., to legislate, and I for one am not willing
to place myself in such • position as that we should go
into committee and spend much time of the session, per-
haps to the month of July, in discussing the provisions
of the bill, when some hon. member might propose •
clause giving a lodger franchise and when the government
might carry its rejection in a thin house, or, if defeated,
might drop the bill altogether, and then throw the sub-
ject over till another year. (Hear, hear.) I wish to know,
therefore, at once, whether a lodger franchise will be pro-
posed? (Hear, hear.) I also desire to know what the go-
vernment propose to do with the poorer and more depen-
dent householders who are rated and who pay the rates,
but who are just upon the line of those of the non-paying
householders and with whom there may be a traffic
for their votes, and which some clauses must be proposed
to prevent. But above all I ask the right hon. gentleman
whether he is going to proceed upon the principle of
asking parliament to determine upon passing artificial and
intricate dailies in reference to chimes of persons? We
could probably deal in committee with the rate-paying
clauses of the bill, but we could not deal with clausal
which create artificial distinctions as to the fitness of per-
sons to be in the possession of the franchise. (Hear, hear.)
If the right hon. gentleman will accept these principles, if
, he will remove the obstacles which now exist, and strike
out of the bill those artificial and intricate distinctions
which he proposes to introduce—if he will establish the
old constitutional principle of equality which comes to us
from the past—the equality of voters in the eye of the
law—equal access to the franchise and enjoyment of the
franchise—then, though we may have a heavy task before
us, yet we shall enter with bops into committee
upon this bill, and have a better chance of 11,414i11g
it. (Hear, hear.) The dual vote will then disappear,
the distinctions between householders above and below 101.
will vanish, and the fine upon compound householders will
also diaappear, and we shall enfranchise those classes who
are entitled to that position, and who, when admitted,
shall, in regard to equality of citizenship, have the same
acmes and enjoyment to the franchise. (Hear, hear.) By
these means alone can we hope to make our legislation
effectual either for the purpose of improving the constitu-
tion of this house, or of attaining the ends of legislation,
or of producing that content in the country without which,
although we may legislate and debate and divide, it will be
vain to call ourselves the parliament of England ; vain to
regard ourselves the masters of English destinies, and
vain to suppose that we give to the work which we send
forth as our act those hopes and prospects of duration by
means of which alone it can have value in itself, and draw
respect upon ourselves. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. HARDY said he did not understand that
Mr. Gladstone way entitled to speak in the name of
I all the opposition, and he declined, therefore, to
give an answer to the questions which he had put.
So far as was consistent with principle, he would
assent to any alteration of the bill, but if the lead-
ing provisions of the bill were to undergo altera-
tions, he said most distinctly that the division
ought to be taken now.

Mr. HEADLAII considered that the radical defect
of the bill was that it completely ignored the whole
class of the non-ratepaying occupiers of houses.
Mr. YoRKE was not for household suffrage pure
and simple, and if the counterpoises were taken
away he should oppose the bill.
Sir F. Gousisito said it appeared to him that
government were inclined to pass a bill for house-
hold suffrage, and to make it as complicated and
corrupt as it possibly could be. A 6/. rating fran-
chise they were told would land them in a Sor-
bonian bog. He maintained that this bill in com-
parison would be a macadamised road. It would
render bribery so easy as to become almost neces-
sary. It would be idle to agree to the second
reading of this bill.
Lord AMBERLEY remarked that they ought to
avoid an arbitrary line between different
dames. If in enfranchising the working classes
they showed that they were afraid, and
were anxious to take precautions against them,
their legislation would be worse than futile—it
would be vexatious. He wished that they could
forget that they were members of this or that class,
and remember only that they were citizens of a
common nation.

Mr. B. STANHOPE, though a strong conservative,
was in favour of the bill. If a man refused to pay
the rate he did not see why they should give him
the vote.

Mr. ROEBUCK supported the second reading of
the bill, but he did not think it would better the
character of the house. He called on ministers to
hold up their heads, and not be afraid of petti-
fogging cant.
The Soticivoit-GENeitai. contended that the re-
quiring the personal payment of rates was not a new
principle, and he defended the fancy franchises and
the dual vote.

Mr. A. PEEL addressed the house in support of
the bill.

On the motion of Mr. Burtta-JoliNsvosTE the
debate was then adjourned, and it was arranged
that it should be resumed this day.
The other orders of the day were then disposed
of, and the house adjourned at half-past twelve
o'clock.

TIPPERARY ELEUTION PETITION.—The General
Committee of Elections sat yesterday to choose a select
committee reconsider the above petition. The following
gentlemen were selected :—Mr. John Floyer, Lieut.-Colo-
nel Hogg, Mr. Walter Morrison, Mr. Arthur Russell, and
Sir Philip Grey Egerton, chairman.
Hurrrixonorninias ELarriox. Lord Robert
Montagu was yesterday re-elected without opposition for
the county of Huntingdon, the step being necessitated by
his acceptance of the Vice-Presidency of the Committee of
Council on Education.