The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 12, 1867.

I MPERIAL PAULI AM ENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS. -T r; IRTL

IN the Hou,s of LORDS, yesterday, the Marine
Mutiny Bill was read a second time, and the stand-
ing orders having been suspended, was read a third
time and passed.
The Admiralty Courts Act Amendment Bill
pawd through onninittue.
oo the motion of the Duke of 11:t'KINOHAM
the Canadian Railway Bill was read a third time.
Thu Earl f SusrrEsstav called attention to the
subject of agricultural gangs, which he condemned
as oductive of great immorality, and destructive
of all social tiei and relations; and he announced
his intention to bring in a bill on the a'ii.ject.
Their lonlshijo adjourned at half-past 7 o'clock.

MOLISE OF COMMONE4.—Tsummay, Arum 11.
IN the of COMMONS, the CHANcELLOR Of
the EyimEor ea, in reply to a question front Mr.
Reardon, stated that it was the intention of govern-
ment to introduce a reform bill for Ireland, and that
Ito believed th,?re was a general feeling in Ireland
that it should contain a clause enablitiq, votes to be
given by voting papers.
LW STANLLV, in reply to a drietition front Mr.
Osborne, stated that there were two questions pend-
inglietween the British government mud the govern-
meta of Spain. With regard to the Tornado, he
Ind received a communication which he could not
say was altogether of a satisfactory character. At
the suite time he did not look upon it as necessarily
final and conclusive. With regazd to the second
ease, which was of a more pressing character, that
of the Victoria. he was not in a position toeve any
further information.
Lord LI itosvrson said he understood there was a
feeling on both sides of the house that it would be
better that the further progress of the Reform
measure ahould be postponed till after the Easter
holidays. If they postponed it till after Easter
they might arrive at some compromise.

Colonel VATTEN supported, and Mr. AVRToN op-
posed this view.
Mr. CLADAToNE described the proposition as
well-intentioned, but ill-timed. The house would
subj.3et itself to great misconstruction if they were
to postpone the bill for three weeks.
Mr. CLAY said there were disquieting rumours
of a dissolution, and it would be a great calamity
if a general election were to take place without the
house having passed a stringent measure for the
prevention of bribery and corrupti,.n.
Mr. Hest EY doubted whether, if they occupied
the whole of the night in a debate and then ad-
journed it, they would have made much progress.
Mr. tbiamon; asked what liberal members owed
to Lord Grosvenor, who last year threw out the
bill of the late government, that they should
follow his lead 1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had announced that he would not accept any of
the amendments from the opposition aide of the
house. There was no chance of a compromise, and
he hoped there would be none, but that the ques-
tion would be fought out, and then the true
reformers would be winnowed from the false.

Lord &elm said he opposed the bill of last year
because it was not founded on sound principles.
He was now anxious that the question should be
settled this year without a change of government,
and without a dissolution. He was in favour of a
compromise, and was convinced if the question
wore not brought forward to-night there would be
a better chance of a settlement.
Mr. BRIGHT asked who it was that was to make
a compromise when the members were all gone to
their homes. If there was to be a compromise it
must be made aboveboard.

Mr. WHITBREAD had hoped that this question
would be settled this session, and without a change
in the government, but the last shred of that hope
would have departed if they acceded to this motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
awn opinion was that they should pmoeed with the
discussion on the bill, but it was a matter for the
house to decide. He repudiated the charge made
against him by Mr. Osborne, whom he de-
signated as "the sincere reformer," that he would
not consent to any amendments from the other
aide of the house, but he regarded the amendments
of which Mr. Gladstone had given notice as a au-
percession of the bill, and as propositions for a
counter bill.
Lord GROSVENOR then withdrew the motion, and
the house went into committee on the bill.

On clause 3, which gives the borough franchise
to every man who has occupied a house for two
years and personally paid the rates,
Mr. Gt....Dawn' moved to insert, "whether he
in person or his landlord be rated to the relief of
the poor." He said :

Mr. Dodson, Sir—Am my hon. friend the member
for Westminster was good enough at an early period
of the evening to state his willingness to waive
the moving of his amendment until a Liter stage
of the bill, I need not go through the formality of making
a freh appeal to him. And before I state the purpose
and object of the amendment I am about to move, I wish,
en account of the mingled difficulty and dryness of the
subject, to observe pointedly to hon. members that there
are two very important quesitions connected with rating
that are not in the slightest degree involved in the state-
ment I have to make. The question which we discussed
teat year, and which became decisive of the fate of the
then government, namely, whether the franchise should
be measured by rateable value, or by clear annual value, is
not now before us. Another question of very considerable
importance is likewise wholly apart from the vote which
I shall invite the committee to give—l mean the question
of the payment of rates— the question whether the voter
who is liable to the payment of rates personally shall have
paid his rates before he is authorised to claim and to be
put upon the register. The question whether the voter
who pays hie rates through the medium of his rent to his
landlord shall likewise have had those rates paid by the
landlord, or, in default of the landlord, by himself, before
be is entitled to be put upon the register, is a question of
considerable moment, which I do not in the slightest
degree intend to raise. My own personal opinion is that
which was expressed in the bill of last year, but I own
that the question of the payment of rates is a question
upon which any member would incur a great responsibility
if for the sake of it he rejected a reform bill which was in
other respects satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) My amend-
ment upon the 3rd clause involves nothing touching that
portion of the clause which refuses the payment of rates.
This amendment, as has been said by the right
honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, is the first of a series, and they
are intended to give effect to the views which I glanced at
in the opening of the debate when the bill was presented
to the house, and which I more fully explained upon the
second reading of the bill. They are not, indeed. com-
plete even as they stand upon the votes, became any pro-
penal to relieve from liability the smaller occupiers is a
matter in respect of which it would obviously have been
impossible to dent with in the clause which relates to the
franchise. It would require to have more than one clause,
drawn with considerable care, and involving a considerable
amount of collat-rel and subsidiary provisions; and I hope
that my hon. and learned friend the member for Exeter
(Mr. Coleridge) will fulfil his intention of presenting
clauses with a view of giving effect to aplan of that nature.
Sly amendments form a whole, and constitute a mode of
proceeding I believe satisfactory to the feelings and corre-
sponding with the spirit of the widely spread and deeply en-
tertained convictions of this house. But in asking the com-
mittee to concur in any one of these amendments I cannot
adopt the lofty language of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, who mays the first of the amendment. relate, to the
vital question of residence, and if any one of them be
adopted by the committee it will be quite impossible for
the government to proceed with the bill. I have no
authority to present those amendments in that shape.
I may have my own opinion as to their con-
nection and coherence with the plan, but I have
no power or iodination to hind any other
to the measure which I propose to-night, and wracTll
think sufficiently important to stand upon its own merits
taken in connection with other parts of the hill. So much
h... been said on so many occasions as regards our position
upon this subject that I will briefly state what I take it to
be. What is the paramount object before us, and the
secondary though still important ones? The paramount
good ol.!ect is to peas a good reform bill. (Oppoaition cheers.)
The secondarybut still important objects are to pass a
',form bill during the present year, and to peas it • we 1
can by the aid of the present government. (Hear, hear.)
I am not prepared to sacrifice the paramount object to the
secondary PPM (Mar, hear.) We should commit a fatal
go isteke if manse we lagged i o former years we now hastily or
with insufficient mare piece together the clauses of a re-
dorm hill, and wend forth to the country that which, while
it professes to be • settlement, will only lead to the com-
mencement of a fierosr agitation. Subject to the sand-
iness of a reforest hill, there is no sacrifice of time, feeling,
or opinion compatible will, the highest principles which
we ought not to make in order to dispose permanently of
the riestioe. As to the motion which I am shout to
ni lie, I mar take leave to ohaerve that up to Saturday
Let I had sot the slightest reason to suppose that eves
Nis emotion I now make—much lees the toneeent little

mopes al with retool to the two years' residence—would I
have been resisted. (Oh. oh.) When I say little, although
not large in itself it in lame in principle ; but up to Saturday
last 1 ...ei no remora to suppose that this argument and con-
clusion would have been received as Rims been by her
Majesty'a government. But what happened upon the second
reading of the bill I Most certainly this objection to per.
social rating wan not blinked. I incurred the responsibi-
lity of detaining the house long upon it, and my hon. and
learned friend the member for Richmond (the late
Attorney-General) followed me in a speech which was
worthy —and Inn say no more—of his name, his character,
and histalenta (Hear. hear.) He confined himself ex-
clusively to this subject. He presented it in the clearest
form to the eye and to the mind of the government ; and
did the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that
evening give us the slightest intimation that
he was .roing to use the high and imperious
language which lie has since employed. His reply was in
five words, "liet art of nisi penis "—Omar, hear)--and
the right Lion. gentleman. by that method of proceeding,
produced an impression that he was ready to deal with us,
but not in the spirit of the vague terms he has used. The
terms are of little value except when interpreted in a
liberal spirit. but we did think the right hon. gentleman
was ready to enter into the consideration of this most im-
portant portion of the subject. But if we are not to have
the aid of the government in this matter of personal
rating. I deeply regret it. (Hear, hear.) I think we have
shown on this side of the house up to the present week that
we are entitled to receis 'credit for sincerity in the coursewe
have rearsuoL I deeply regret the loss of the aid of the
government, and their unfortunately fastening themselves,
if they ultimately do so. to a proposition and a scheme so
unhappy in its whole conception as this personal rating.
The withdrawal of this aid cannot alter the paramount
duty of the house, for if we should send forth a bill with
safeguards and limits, we are responsible for the sound-
ness of those safeguard's and limits, sad to pretend to
settle thequestion with flimsy and untrustworthy materials
is a proceeding unworthy of the House of Commons.
Looking at the plan of the government with respect to the
borough franchise. I end that these are its prominent cha-
ractenetice :—Extreme narrowness of its immediate en-
franchisement (hear, hear) and the setting up of
certain barriers which we are invited to trust for
the purpose of excluding the great mass of householders
below the limit of 101. Let us look at the figures to make
good what I have said. As the figures stand in the
I returns prepared in the name of the Secretary of the
Treasury, it would appear that the number of direct rate-
paying householders is 240,000 above 101., and I think
according to the computation of the government 50 per
cent. may be expected to get upon the register. I think
that is not an undue deduction. Then as regards
those nnder 101. there are 476,000 who may be expected
to yield 238.000 voters. But these figures are not
accurate—not by any fault of the government, or
of those engaged in preparing them, because there
are cem in them a very considerable number; in soine
cases in cur large towns the persons who are not com-
pounders, and who are not under the Small Tenements
Act, but who have their rates paid for them by arrange-
ments between the parochial authorities and the owners.
In Liverpool last year the number of such persons
amounted to 7,000 or 8.000, and from recent inquiries I
have no doubt they are now much more. In Ashton this
system extends greatly above the legal limit, and in many
other towns that system obtains.. Consequently we must
reduce this number of 12:1.000, who are stated to be rate-
paying householders. and we must add to it the
238010 who stand in the position of com-
pound householders. I speak of the net numbers.
As these figures stand it would appear that about two-
thirds of the householders below the limit of 101. are, in
the larger sense of the term, compound householders, and
they do not pay their own rates, but pay them in the
shape of rent to their landlords. With regard to the
persons to be admitted immediately to the franchise 1 if
you take the gross numbers at about 210,000, and which
would place upon the register a few more than 100,000,
I must confess I do not expect any plan which contem-
plates as its proper and normal result the enfranchise-
meta of only that number of persons as likely to give the
slightest satisfaction to the country, or will he accepted
by those earnestly and sincerely wishing for reform.
But when I look beyond, I find the real gist of
the question lies in the method in which we are asked to
deal with the compound householders. This mode of in-
sufficient enfranchusement is the first objection I take to
the government plan. It is absolutely necessary that we
should find means of enlarging that enfranchisement, and
here I would appeal to the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Caine and ask himoui one of the stoutest opponents
of reform, if it would be proper to deal with the question
n a plan so minute as that proposed by the government,
a. ad in which they confer a direct enfranchisement. I pre-
r ttne the right hon. gentleman would say that if the ques-
tm is to be dealt with st all it must be dealt with M a
manner that would make what is done likely to last,
sad not so that what was done would be an incentive to
further agitation. The limiting principle of the govern-
ment is personal rating apart from the question of pay-
ntent of rates on the qualifying tenement. It is • question
whether the payment of rates is to be laid on the man
himself. We are told that personal rating is the principle
of the bill so far as it relates to the borough franchise,
and we are further told that this is the old constitutional
principle. If it were, I should have to go beck to a
vast number of unsgea which prevailed in former times,
and which have been superseded by the superior machi-
nery of government. In former times there was no
such thing as a legal system for the collection of rates
from the owner as between him and the occupier. It was
on).- in the scot and lot boroughs where this system pre-
vailed, and those borough. were only 48 in aural:ter! out of
a total of 214. There were other boroughs in which the
burgesses hail what was called burgage tenure. They
were undoubtedly ratepayers, but the foundation of the
vote was not in the rate. In regard to the other boroughs,
personal rating was not connected with the franchise-
The freemen were not personal ratepayers, they were
often non-resident, and as to one-half of the boroughs of
the country it is nut the fact that ratepaying was origi-
nally known to us as the basis of the franchise. (Hear.)
In many boroughs it is true it was. But is that • matter for
rejecting all the light, and profits of experience—that ex-
perience which has developed a necessity for a change in
the law. We have seen that in the last 0 years the force
of circumstances has compelled a change in the law. So
difficult was the collection of rates in small sums found
to be that there sprang up, in the best and most English
of all methods, spontaneously a demand for a change in
the system, and hence that which enables the landlord to
pay the rates. But a man who pays through his landlord
as truly pays the rate as if he did it himself to the collec-
tor. (Hear, bear.) Let us not flinch from the
trial of this principle. It is disputed by economists,
I know, as to whether the incidents are upon the
owner or the occupier. I will not enter into that,
but whether they be upon the occupier or the owner the
ultimate incidents are precisely the same. That I take to
be an undeniable principle of political economy. The
Small Tenements Act was passed for the collection of
rates from persons from whom they could not previously
be obtained, and this new method of collection brought
about what were called the compound householders. That
produced a great improvement in modern times, and was •
great reform in the mode of collecting the rates. It comes
out in this bill as something approaching to a vote of
moral inferiority. (Hear, hear.) Was there ever such a
paradox invented in parliament? (Cheers.) Will any
man tell me that he can draw • moral distinction between
the character of the population in those towns where the
Small Tenements Act applies and where it does not—that
in the one virtue prevails and duties are performed ; and
in the other, where compound householders reside, vices
are to be found and debts are not paid? Why, the com-
pound householders have no choice in the matter. They
must go where occasions require them. Do you think the
father of a family who has to perform his duty to his wife
and children, if going to a town to reside, would
inquire whether the system of compound house-
holders prevailed? What is the meaning of the doc-
trine of this inferiority of compound householders?
If we could apply a vexatious test there may be some-
thing in it. But the individual man has nothing to do with
it at all. Where the act is adopted it is adopted by the para-
mount influence of property and local authority ou the
plurality acheme of voting in vestries. (Hear, hear.) The
compound householders do not become so by their own act
or choice. It is preposterous to use it as a criterion of
character between men of the same class and condition.
Well, how has this bill been received in the country ? It
is one of the most remarkable things I know of. I on told
that the Small Tenements Act has been adopted in
5,000 parishes in this country, and that upon
the average 25 per cent, on the rates is al-
lowed to the owners for the payment of them,
and the result of this compounding is that the small house-
holders bee their votes in the vestries. (Hear, hear.) I
confess I do not think this is a sufficient reason for their
being deprived of their votes under this bill, or why any
impedimenta should be thrown in their way. The Small
Tenements Act was passed only 15 or 16 years ago, and has
had • most remarkable operation, having been adopted by
5,000 parishes, and I have heard of only • solitary parish
or so where it has been abandoned after once adopted. It
has been adopted upon the solid ground of convenience, and
it has no connexion with the characterof the persons affected
by it. Is it possible that you can say to 500,000 of your fellow
countrymen—We will pass an act of parliament which will
enfranchise 100,000 of your class and condition in life, of
the same education and independence, and in refusing to
give them a vote do you expect them to remain quiet
and contented on the ground of their being compound
householders? (Haar, hoar.) The Solicitor-General the
other evening made no reply to these astonishing
figures, which I selected from the catalogue of
towns, end not unfairly for the purposes for which
I quoted them. I will not visit them upon the house
again. as smile of them are pretty fresh in our
noes riea, for the ham. member for Brighton, which has a
population ef 100.000, says that only fourteen persons would
become qualified to vote under the liberal and compre-
hensive measure of the government, and one large town
would give a single unit. I was then speaking of the
inequality of the different towns, but let us now look at
the inequelity is the manse town, and let us see what strife,
and dieturbrusee, sail ounftusion this principle of pommel
rating is going to carry through t the boroughs of the
country. When we find that cue-half of the boroughs
are partly meter the Small Tenements Act and
partly not, this question hna,nes a serious one.
last us sea whet the OW at of thin bill will lie in some
of these boroughs. Thia operation will he that it will
take away the rotes of those who are made compounders,

and that will be done IT the minority in the s Is
this syatem to be defended! and i. this the w..y in
which you seek to settle, on a permanent and
solid basic, the question of reform! (Hear, he.ar.)
In the city of Bristol the population is very much divided.
One-half, or 76,000, live in open parishes with small
tenements, the other half, or 76,000, are under the Small
Tenements Act. The 76,000 who are under the Small
Tenements Act will yield 5,943 voters, but the 76,000 who
are not under the Smell Tenements Act give 10,431 ; so
that one-half of the population of Bristol. as divided by
parishes. is to be invested with an amount of electoral
power double that of the other half. Is that the way to
give contentment? Is there not something strange, I
almost ludicrous, to call this legislation, passing an act
preventing such inequalities, and then to expect that it will
be accepted by the country as if it were surrounded by
the venerable halo of ancient usage, and therefore to be
accepted even iu spite of its anomalies. (Hear, hear.)
In Grantham, the open parishes, out of apopulation of .L9.3i
give 77.; voters, but the close parishes with nearly twice the
population, or 7,191, give only 688, that is to say, one-
third of the population in the open parishes makes more
than half the electors. In Leeds, the popula-
tion of the open parishes is 35,561, and will
qualify 7,3.6 voters. The population under the
Small fenements Act is 171,604, and they qualify 0n1y9,200
voters, that is to say one-sixth of the population of Leeds
has four-ninths, or little short of one-half, the voting
powersgur of the town. I ought to say that I take these
by approximation, because the returns do not give
the numbers of male inhabitants, and therefore I can only
take the average. In Pontefract, how will its members
like the new distribution! Its open parishes contain less
than one-half the population, or 5,486 persons, giving 1,273
votes. The close parishes are 6,250 population, more than
,a moiety, and they give 447 votes, so that a moiety of the
population has two-thirds of the voting powers, and that
by means of something written on paper or parchment,
which we choose to call a work of wise legislation.
(Cheers.) And these inequalities ere to be the secu-
rities of the constitution; these are to be the gun-
retirees against democracy. These are the solid. well-
built, walls that are to drive back the tide of
agitation—this strange concoction of some ingenious
mind which looks as if it were prepared to be displayed
I upon the stage, but which is alien to the British constitu-
tion and unprecedented in the annals of parliament.
(Loud cheers.) In Shoreham the open parishes are
1:046 population, giving 2,244 voters ; and the close
parishes 19,276 population, giving 1,4:15 voters. Perhaps
the Solicitor-General may say, let those parishes cure the
evil by throwing out the Small Tenements Act; but I
denyjthat our legislation should interfere with the economic
or social arrangements of the boroughs. But I have a
still stronger objection, and that is, that by our legislation
the making of constituencies will depend on the local
authorities, assembled in vestries or corporations, and will
not depend on the will of the imperial parliament. (Hear,
hear.) I must own it appears to me that these are con-
siderations of very great importance. I wish it were in
my power adequately to explain to the house the real
social working of these checks. I may perhaps be allowed
te think that there is a considerable amount of i.re-
Mdice on this subject on the opposite side of the house.
any gentlemen are familiar with the mode adopted over
the country of levying the rate, and I am not prepared to
deny that in country open parishes that readiness to pay
the rate is the best test of the character and position of the
voter; but in towns where the compound arrangements
are general, to oome down and visit the voter with exclu-
&ion, and throw a barrier in his way which we can remove,
is, in my opinion, founded neither on policy nor justice.
I (Hear.) litany think that there is sometbingdegrading tothe
workingman in becoming &compound householder. May I be
allowed to point out the many good and solid reasons that
exist for making men in that position of life wish to be a
compound householder instead of • ratepayer, and more
than that, to be a lodger. It is the object of the working
man to simplify any transaction connected with his affair*.
He receives his wages weekly, and what more convenient
than that all his payments should become weekly also?
(Hear, beer.) I think you (addressing the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) have got another test of character in
residence. Little you know the necessity to which the
working man submits in following his work. (Hear, hear.)
Little you know the hardship inflicted on the working
man when he hasto walk two or three miles to and from his
work. (Hear.) The working man wishes to be near his work,
and what could be more inconvenient to him than to be
perpetually perplexed with small questions of rating?
(Hear, hear.) To him time is money, and time must be
sacrificed in making such arrangements. These matters
are light to us, coming in as they do in the solicitors'
bills, but the frequent changes of residence make com-
pound rating convenient for the working man. Again, the
working man may wish to become • lodger, and why ?
IBecause in the metropolis he Inuit be either • lodger or a
lodging-house keeper. The class of householders occupy-
' ing the house exclusively with their *Area and families
hardly exists in London. (Hear, hear.) If the working
man take a house he must also undertake the business
of a lodging-house keeper ; but the intelligent working
man is reluctant to do this, and, therefore, he becomes
a lodger. And here I beg to make an appeal to the right
hon. gentleman. It is said that he has conceded the
lodger franchise. I hope he has; but if he has conceded
thirtiller franchise what becomes of the principle el
rating ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Pena CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEWER —I never
said I had conceded the lodger franchise. What I said
was that I would consider any reasonable proposition in
that direction. (Ironical cheers.)
.—..---.

Mr. GLADSTONE—The right hon. gentleman contra-
dicts me when there is no occasion. I did not say that
he had conceded the lodger franchise, but I might have
said that when he came to that subject he became heroic
in his style, saying, " What ! speak to me as an opponent?
why lam the father of the lodger franchise." I,l'e shall
I soon see now how the right hon. gentleman is prepared to
I treat his offspring. (Laughter.) The right boa gentle-
man has permitted the statement to be circulated. He
must be perfectly aware that it has Irma abroad, and has
acted very much to his disadvantage. (Hear, hear.)
People have said, " Oh, don't talk of the lodger fran-
chiae, it is conceded .." and what I want to know is, is it
I conceded or is it not ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") If
it is conceded I rejoice, but I want to know if it be con-
ceded what becomes of the principle of personal rating.
(Hear, hear.) Do you mean to say that in London parishes
there shall be a valuation of every floor in a lodging house,
and a proportionate division of the rate! (Hear, hear.)
It cannot be ; and then what becomes of personal rating
My right hon. friend the Secretary for India says, "We
don't lower the franchise, all we do is to create certain
special franchisee, some 030,0 and some below the line
but as to lowering the franchise, rather than lower it I
would consent to stand in a white sheet." (Laughter.)
I do not wish to cover my right hon. friend with a garment
which would no doubt become him, but if this bill
lowers the franchise we know what must be the
fate of the Secretary for India. (Laughter.)
Let the right hon. member for Caine rejoice if he have
not changed his opinion, for the Secretary for India
is entirely with him entirely opposed to reform in the only
sense in which the people understand it, and the only
sense in which the people care a pin about it. (Hear, hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has printed certain
clauses, and from those clauses it appears pretty clearly to
confirm: the statement of my hon. friend and myself in a
former debate, that the effect of the bill would be to inflict
on compound householders below 10/. a fine. The right
hon. gentleman's clause somewhat mitigates the first in-
tention, because, as I understand, he now requires the
compound householder in the first instance to make his
application ; but that subsequently be becomes a rate-
paying householder, and that is the principle upon which
he proposes to stand. Now I would say one word as to
his answer to my honourable friend the member for Old-
ham. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot endure any
portion of the amendments proposed by me. He says they
will entail all those public calamities which have been so
skilfully drawn in vague outline by the right hon. gentle.
man and his satellites. (Mr. Gladstone here stopped for a I
moment to examine some papers on the table, and resumed)
—Where was I

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Satellites
was the last word. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—Oh, I have done with satellites for
the present, and go back to my hon. friend the member
for Oldham. The right hon. gentleman is ready to enter-
tain my hon. friend's proposition, bat is not ready to
grant it. With that respectful sympathy of which be is
so admirable a master he is ready to reproach my hon.
friend in the most conciliatory spirit. Now, the member
for Oldham's meaning cannot be mistaken. He means
with regard to personal rating precisely as I mean, he
wants to place the compound householder precisely on the
same footing as the rate-paying householder. I under-
stand that to be his object. (" Hear, hear," from Ma
HINK6RT.) He does not mean to let an arbitrary rule
framed by parliament stand between a man and what
parliament has declared to be his right. The right hon.
gentleman has in fact a formidable enemy in the hon.
member for Oldham, who is not a man who will easily be put
off with fair words. He objects to this personal rating as a
barrier in the way of the franchise, and his object is the
same as mine, if that which the right hon. gentleman
has declared—but I hope not irrevocably declared—to be in-
admissible. I object to the clauses of the right hon. gen-
tleman, although I admit he gets rid of some of the diffi-
culty; but in order to comply with the arrangements he
proposes the man must cease to be a compound house-
holder. Is that the way we are to legislate—are we to
crush the compound householder? Has the right hon.
gentleman conaidered the feeling he will create by this
class legislation, imposing kale of time and money on our
humbler fellow subjects. I say that if parliament wants
to limit the suffrage, let it limit it manfully and openly.
(Hear, hear.) Don't let us send forth to the country a
two-faced bill, with a face for the tones and a face for the
democracy ; and inthe hope that one sect of believers may
be induced to worship from one point of the com-
pass, and another from another. (Loud cheers.) Such •
course is unworthy of government. I hope the right hon.
gentleman will amend his proposition, but if he does not
it is one which parliament cannot entertain. It is our
duty in this eleventh hour of the reform question to deal
candidly with the people of England. If it be inexpedient
to limit the franchise, let it be intimated ; but if we think
it expedient to limit it, let us do it candidly sad openly,
and do not let us adopt provisiotis calculated to convert a
boon into an offence. (Hear, hear.) By so doing we shall
be inflicting a wrong on a portion of the community,
which wrong will infallibly be avenged by the community
at large in the shape of struggle, strife, controversy, and
renewed agitation, to begin from the day when such a law

takes its place in the statute book, and not to cease until
the last vestige of such a piece of legislation has be-
come an idle remnant of the past. (Loud cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the words of
his amendment.

The Somerroa-GawaitAt denied that to require
the personal payment of rates as a qualification
for the vote was a new principle ; it was one
of the principles of the Reform Bill of 1832. In
fact it was the principle involved in the amendment
that was new.

Sir E. BULLER supported the amendment. He
thought the house had great reason to complain of
the government, who had announced that they
were ready to bow to the decision of the house, and
then said that if the house passed certain amend-
ments they would not proceed with the bill.
The O'Dowoonus addressed the house at some
length on the general question, contending that
the tories were incompetent to deal with it.
Mr. KENDALL opposed the amendment.
Sir W. HEATECOTE said in his parliamentary ex-
perience he had never felt himself in a more un-
satisfactory position. He thought they ought to
deal with this question this year. He did not
desire to hold out in one hand what he appeared to
give, and take it away with the other. He did not
think they should make concessions, and accom-
pany them with irritating conditions which were
charged with the seeds of their own destruction.
He looked upon the bill with terror, because it was
niggardly and because it was lavish, because it was
timid and because it was rash.

Mr. HIBBERT said the amendment put him and
many other members in a great difficulty. It
very much endangered the bill. He did not wish
the government to recede from personal rating ; but
he suggested that they should admit the compound
householder on payment of the compound rate.
The bill of the government was on a larger basis
than Mr. Gladstone's proposition, accompanied, as
it was to be, by a limit of a five pounds value.
Colonel Bsitrrimor said the coruiervatives would
give up everything but personal rating and resi-
dence. Compounding was an unjust system, and
ought to be abolished.
Mr. COLERIDGE said the liberal members sup-
ported this amendment with no desire to change
the government; but because they were bound, if
they could, to get what they believed to be a liberal
measure, and to refuse to accept what they did not
believe to be a liberal measure. With the amend-
ments of Mr. Gladstone the measure might be
made satisfactory. It they excluded the corn-
pounders, the number enfranchised would be ludi-
crously small. If they took away the limitations
of personal rating and residence, they came to
household suffrage, of which he had no apprehen-
sion. The bill, with its restrictions, did not afford
the elements of a settlement of the question, and
he looked with alarm to the effect of passing it with
these restrictions.
Mr. HENLEY could not understand how members
could argue with one side of their mouths that the
working men were very desirous of the franchise,
and on the other side that they would take no
trouble, nor make any payment to get it. Mr.
Gladstone had spoken of how many would get on
the rate, and how many would not, but he said no-
thing about how many could get on. He did not
think they could settle the question by fixing an
arbitrary line ; the fair test of fitness and unfitness
to exercise the rights of citizenship was to bear its
burdens.

Lord CRANBORNE said if the bill of last year had
passed, the prospects of the British constitution
would have been brighter than they were now. They
had now before them a bill of a more democratic
character. He should not argue now, as he did
last year, on the danger of disturbing the balance
of political power in particular classes. Me only
reason for a reform bill was that it would quell
agitation. If this bill passed they would transfer
the agitation to the parishes against the Small
Tenements Act. The operation of the bill would
be that in quiet times these compounders would
not be on the registers, but in times of excitement
they would be placed on the register by rich men
or rich associations. For these reasons he should
support the amendments, taking them as a whole.
He did not say he would have supported them last
year, but they were pitted against a measure which
would hay. the disadvantage, of democracy, and
which gave a colour to corruption.
On the motion of Mr. ROEBUCK, the debate
was adjourned till this day, and Mr. B. Cochrane
and Mr. Otway gave way on their motions respect-
ing Epain and the Alabama claims.
The Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) Bill
was read a third time and passed.
The other orders of the day were disposed of,
and the house adjourned at ten minutes past one
o'clock.