The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-18 00:00:00

LMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LOAM-num; 'JAI 17.

In the Hoe AS of Loam yesterday, Lord LIFF(PIiD
pesented a petition from Glasnevin, a suburb of
Dublin, praying for the remission of the capital
sentences on the Fenian prisoners. The petition
was signed exclusively by members of the Defence
Association, who had all been ready to support the
authorities during. the late disturbances. He
entirely concurred tn the prayer of the petition.
Be pointed out that there was a broad distinction
between tho conduct of the Fenians and the rebels
in 1798. Many of the Fenians were misguided
and deluded youths, and their proceedings towards
individuals had not been marked by rapine and
outrage.
The Fortifications (Provisions for Expenses) Act
was read a second time.

The 1101134) adjourned at half-put 5 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, May 17
Ix the Housa of COMMONS, Lord R. MONTAGU
stated, in reply to • question, that cattle plague is
on the increase in the metropolis, that the goveni-
iment has received intelligence that it is ale, rife
in many parts of Germany, and that an order in
council had just been passed in reference thereto.
In committee on the Representation of the
People Bill, resuming at clause 3,
Mr. WATK IN addressed the house in support of a
proviso, which was under discussion when the
house was last in committee on the bill, "That no
tenement shall be considered a dwelling house, for
the purpo4es of this act, which contains leas than
two rooms." The object of his proviso, lie said,
was to prevent household suffrage from degenerat-
ing into hovel suffrage.
Captain Mettsa contended that the proviso was
inconsistent with the lodger franchise, which the
house had already agreed to.
Mr. flout moved an amendment that the rooms
should contain an area of 1,600 cubic feet.
Sir R. COLLIER objected to the proviso, saying
that it gave a definition of a house which was un-
known to the law. Besides, nothing could be more
easy than to divide one room into two. But if any-
thin,„-• could make it more absurd than another, it
was Mr. Pease's amendment.
Mr. LJDDILL impressed upon the house the im-
portance of defining what a dwelling-house is.
Mr. COWER said the adoption of the proviso
would be tantamount in many boroughs to drawing
a "hard and fast line " at 71. or 8/. There were
14,000 persons in Newcastle who would be dis-
franchised by this clause.
After some further discussion, in the course of
which the Attorney-General said it was not in-
tended to enfranchise the occupiers of mere hovels,
and undertook to bring up a clause to define a
dwelling house, Mr. Pease withdrew his amend-
ment, and Mr. Watkin his proviso.
Sir F. Commirio then moved to add another
proviso, that no man shall bo entitled to be regis-
tered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occu-
pier of any dwelliog house ; and on a division the
proviso was adopted by 269 to 25.
Another proviso, which re-opened the compound
question, but in a different shape, was moved by
Mr. Houorimson, that no person other than the
occupier shall be rated to parochial rates in respect
of premises occupied by him within the limits of a
parliamentary borough, all acts to the contrary
notwithstanding. He said this proposition was
not inconsistent with the principle of the bill, and
might well be accepted by the government. If
Stockport and Sheffield could do without compound-
ing, ho did not amp why Manchester and Birming-
ham could not.
Mr. OLAINITONI said the house had on two occa-
sions, once by a large, and on the other occasion
by a considerable majority, determined that the
compound householder should not have a vote.
He could not acquiesce in those decisions, which
established household suffrage indeed, but accom-
panied by unjust and vexatious restrictions,
and to which he believed that the country
would not submit ; and he should take
advantage of every legitimate occasion to
induce the house to abolish those restrictions.
By this amendment they were offered an extension
of the franchise at the expense of pressing an
economical advantage which parishes now had in
the system of compounding, and he was ready to
pay the price for the sake of obtaining a settle-
ment of the question that was now agitating the
country. But he should recall his assent if there
was as attempt to put off the question involved in
the proviso by dealing with it in a separate bill next
year. There was now the opportunity—perhaps
the last that would offer—of peace and concord in
the settlement of the reform question ; but the
government of the country went beyond the walls
of that house when on a vital question of this kind
the people met in thousands in every part of the
country, for the purpose of protesting against the
proceedings of parliament. He, therefore, hoped
the government would wept the amendment.
In consenting to it he and those who acted with
him waived their views for the sake of peace, and
if it were not accepted by the government he should
feel that ho had done all that peace required.
Mr. Bun supported the amendment as a means
of getting rid of invidious distinction by abolishing
the practice of compounding.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this
amendment would really carry out the principle of
the bill, and in their original scheme the govern-
ment introduced a similar provision, but on consi-
deration they came to the conclusion that it would
so encumber the ship as to imperil the voyage, and
they therefore struck it out. He should, therefore,
offer no opposition to the proviso. It was exactly
one of those questions that the house should decide.
He thought, however, that it was a subject which
would be best dealt with by separate legislation, and
if the amendment were withdrawn he would under-
take to bring in a bill to carry out the object of the
amendment. They had had dark allusions to the
state of the country, which it was stated was in a
state of great dissatisfaction. He did not believe
in anything of the kind.
Mr. CHILDREN suggested that they should post-
pone all the clauses relating to the compounders
till the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought
in his bill. He did not think that the proviso
would do all that was necessary. The two bills
might go on pari panic
Mr. AYRTOM observed that it would be impos-
sible to proceed with a bill to abolish compounding
without referring it to a select committee, and
hewing counsel for the parishes interested. To
attempt to go on with such a bill pari pawn with
this bill was tantamount to postponing this bill
altogether.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not wish to mix the two subjects, and he could
not undertake to bring in a bill immediately ;
but the government would deal with it as effec-
tually as they could. He proposed, after they
had finished the third clause, to go immediately to
the 34th clause, which related to the compounders.
Mr. W. E. FORETIR thought there was now
hope of settling the borough franchise in a way
that would be satisfactory to the country. He
suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should revert to his original intention, and that
they should go on with the clauses in their order,
and in the meantime the other bill might be
brought in.
The Arroamer-GENERAL said the real question
was whether they should pass the bill this session.
He did not think it possible to prepare a bill in
reference to the compound question in time to pass
it this session.
Sir R. COLLIER thought that the law officers of
the crown might, by • few well-considered clauses,
deal with the difficulty.
Mr. Burr said it would be a departure from
ordinary practice to pass a bill affecting local inte-
rests without referring it to a select committee.
Mr. .1. S. MILL remarked that the more difficult
the subject the more necessary it was that they
should have the bill before them.
Mr. SANDFORD did not think the government
had dealt frankly with their supporters, because
they led them to suppose that the Small Tene-
ments Act and the Compound Acts would be main-
tained. He asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether in the announcement of his intention