The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-27 00:00:00

The home adjourned at 20 minutespast 5 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY, MARCH 26.
IN the HOUSE of COMMONS the O'Cosos Dow
obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law
relating to the office of county treasurer in Ireland.
Mr. EWART obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the Public Libraries Acts (Scotland).
The Sale of Land by Auction Bill was read a
second time, after a statement by Mr. SetwvB that
the bill would be materially altered, and "that the
discussion was to be taken at a future stage.
The adjunied debate on the Representation of
the People Bill was resumed by
Mr. B. Jou BsroBs, who said they were standing
on the edge of a precipice, and the slightest push
would send them over ; and this bill, with what
would inevitably follow, would give them that push.
The principle of numerical representation first crept
in in 1832, and had been asserting itself ever since—
first diffidently, now arrogantly. It was the prin-
ciple of democracy, the very principle of evil. In
his opinion, the best constituency would be a town
constituency with a rural district added. The con-
sequence of this bill would be that the conserva-
tives would lose the counties, and the evils of de-
mocracy would follow. He considered the fran-
chise secondary to the redistribution of seats, and
he suggested that when they got into committee on
the bill they should take that which related to the
distribution of seats first. If they put that ques-
tion on a right footing, it would matter little what
the franchise was.
Sir R. PALMER looked upon the question of the
franchise as of more importance than that of the
redistribution of seats. As the President of the
Poor-law Board stated yesterday, this bill, what-
ever else it might be, was not a bill for household
suffrage. For himself, he was in favour of that
suffrage ; and he entertained no apprehension of
the consequences of granting such a suffrage. If it
were the general opinion of the house that they
should not grant this suffrage without safeguards,
by all means have those safeguards ; but if they
did, let them not introduce new differences
and distinctions which would create discontent.
But this bill did create new differences, and laid
down new principles, and this while they did not
interfere with the present franchise. The principle
of the bill, it was stated, was the personal payment
of the rates, but that was not required at present
of the ten pound householder, and if they
required it of the new voter they were
creating an arbitrary distinction. It was even worse
if the new voter were required to pay the difference
between thecompound rate and the full rate. At pre-
sent the ten pounder whose rates were compounded
for had only to pay the amount compounded for,
so that it was proposed to give an advantage to the
richer man. They did, then, fine the compounder
for claiming his vote. The President of the
Poor-law Board said the voter could recover the
amount from the landlord, but the bill contained
no such provision. He could only recover from
the landlord what was due from him, but that was
not due. Passing to the dual vote, the arguments
in favour of it were summed up in the phrase of
the Solicitor-General—" Half a loaf is better than
no bread." In using that phrase the Solicitor-
General unwittingly stated the essence of the pro-
posal, which was give, not a whole vote, but half
a vote. 111 the county franchise they followed the
same process. The 501. occupier was not
required to pay rates at all, but the new
voters were. The fancy franchises he re-
garded as all of them, from beginning to
end wrong in principle and untenable in ,prac-
tice, but he approved of a lodger franchise. If
the house thought they could make anything of
the bill, he should not object to going into com-
mittee ; but if the bill passed as it stood, it would
neither improve the representation of the people
nor settle it.
The ArroeNer-GENERAL agreed that the borough
franchise was the main principle of the bill. He
insisted that the bill'had a principle and fixity in
it which had not been found in the bill of 1832.
The difficulties urged by Sir R. Palmer would all
disappear after the first half-year. He submitted
that the bill laid the borough franchise on a sound
foundation, and there was none which afforded so
sure a prospect of a settlement.
Sir F. Caossiax said he had never known a time
when there was such a disposition on both sides of
the house to settle this question. He preferred the
bill of last session, because that bill selected the
best portion of the working classes for the fran-
chise, whereas this left it to persons who wished to
be on the register to make their claim and pay the
rate. If they agreed to this bill it would require
some alterations, and he suggested they should
make the Small Tenements Act compulsory, and
that all who paid above fit. rent should pay the
full rate. The bill gave great advantage to the
rich. By the voting papers a rich man might vote
for every county in the kingdom. The objection
to dual voting applied with tenfold force to the
voting papers. The proposed occupation franchise
in counties he considered too high. It ought to be
at least as low as that proposed by the bill of last
year. The redistribution of seats was good as far
as it went, but it did not go far enough.
Mr. LIDDELL said so far as the borough franchise
was concerned the bill undoubtedly took away with
the one hand what it gave with the other. The
dual voting the country would not stiffer, and it
could not pass. Ho was not prepared to vote for
household suffrage. He did not think the house
was prepared for it, nor did the country wish it.
Objection had been made to the bill that it did
not enfranchise lodgers, but he doubted whether
they should enfranchise lodgers as a class. The
lodger, if he were so minded, would get the fran-
chise under the provisions of the bill. lie ad-
mitted, however, that the case MU different in
London. With regard to the re-distribution of
seats, he agreed with others in thinking that the
bill did not go far enough, and it left the ine-
qualities of the borough and county representation
untouched.
Mr. H. Lewis was weary of this question being
bandied about, and was glad to hear the Chancellor
of the Exchequer say at the beginning of the ses-
sion that it ought to be taken out of the domain of
party, and it would not be to the credit of the house
if they could not settle the question. But there
were many defects in the bill. No reform bill
could be satisfactory to Londoners that did not
give the lodger franchise. He also objected to the
dual vote, which he regarded as unconstitutional,
and he should strenuously oppose it. The question
of compound householders required consideration.
He had always voted for liberal measures, but ho
would oppose no good measure from whichever aide
it came. Let them mutually make great sacrifices,
but at all events settle the question.
Mr. P. WYNDHAM regretted that the moderate
bill of last year was opposed by the conservatives.
,He joined in that opposition. But circumstances
were changed now, and there was • general dis-
satisfaction in the country with the conduct of that
house on the question of reform. He should vote
for the second reading, and for going into com-
mittee ; but when they got into committee every
vote he should give would be on the merits of
the case, and rather to make it a good bill than to
support the government.
Mr. LAING remarked that there was a general
impression that the bill was a bad one, and ought