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

SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

Mr. BOUVERIE asked whether members would be in
possession of a copy of the bill?
The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER said ho
was anxious that the committee should define the moaning
of the word " house," as there was a clause in the Scotch
bill which depended upon it. He thought the committee
would most probably decide the matter that evening.

REPRESENTATION OF TIIE PEOPLE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

The debate was resumed on the question that the
words proposed by Mr. Wstkin, "provided that no tene-
ment shall bo considered a dwelling-house for the purpose
of this act, which contains less than two rooms." The
hon. member said his object in moving the addition of the
words to clause 3 was solely to prevent " household
suffrage" degenerating into " hovel suffrage," be-
cause he did not think that huts in which
great number of persons were crowded should form a
qualification for the exercise of the elective fran-
chise. The bill as it stood held out inducements to create
votes by the erection of hovels quite unfit for human
habitations. The great object was to exclude the hovel
from the operation of the bill, and make household suffrage
what it ought to be.
Capt. MELLOR opposed the amendment, as he con-
sidered it would neutralise the decision already come to by
the house with respect to the lodger franchise.
Mr. TEASE thought that the proposal of the hon.
member for Stockport would fall short of the object he
intended, and therefore ho hid taken the liberty of
making certain additions to it, when he thought it
would have the desired effect. lie proposed to add
at end of Itir. Watkin's amendment the following words :
And the said two rooms shall not together contain less
than on thousand six hundred cubic feet of space, and
that no room or rooms shall be considered a lodging for
the purposes of this act that do not together contain one
thousand six hundred cubic feet of space, or separately
contain one thousand cubic feet of space."
Sir J. COLLIER said the proposal of the hon. member
who had just sat down would not work well. It would
create all sorts of difficulty, because it would compel the
overseer, in cases of dispute, before the revising barrister
to give evidence as to cubical neeaserement of rooms for
which the vote was claimed.

Mr. LIDDELL said very much difficulty would be
cleared away if the Government would give the definition
of the term "dwelling-house."

Mr. 3FLAREN said the amendment of the hon. member
for Stockport had nothing to do with the lodger franchise.
It related entirely to dwelling-houses directly rated to the
poor, while lodgers were not.

An amendment was moved by Sir F. GOLDSMID, pro-
viding that no man shall be entitled, under clause 3, to be
registered by reason of his being a joint occupier of any
dwelling-house, was carried on a division by 259 to 25.
Mr. HODGRANSON next moved an amendment practi-
cally abolishing the " compound householder" by provid-
ing that after the passing of the Act no other person than
the occupier shall be rated to parochial rates in Parliamen-
tary boroughs. He traced the history of these compound-
ing Acts, maintaining that they never wore intended to
interfere with the Parliamentary franchise, that their
operation was anything but beneficial, and that their aboli-
tion would put all clases of voters all over the country on
an equality, would simplify the processes of registration,
would exclude the residuum, and make the bill permanent.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that they had before them a
proposal which meant either a repeal of the Small Tene-
ments Acts sinipliciter, or that repeal qualified by the pro-
position of the hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers),
who would allow that and similar acts to remain in ope-
ration wherever, by a deliberate agreement between the
owner and occupier, it is deAred to retain them. For his
own part, he preferred th o latter alternative. Two suc-
cessive divisions have established as the principle of the
present bill, so far as relates to the borough franchise,
that against which he and others have strenuously con -
tended. Now, so far as he was concerned, it was impos-
sible for him to acquiesce in a principle which amounts to
the adoption of household suffrage attended with restric-
tions of a nature the most unjust and vexatious, and cer-
tain to lead to a prolonged agitation out of doors. Against
the inequalities in the franchise established by the bill, he
and those who formed with hint the minority in the two
recent divisions must continue to protest. With regard to
the provisions in the bill which appear to confer household
suffrage, it is not their intention to propose any restrictions.
The only course, therefore, open to them under the circum-
stances is a firm but not a vexatious opposition to the
plan of the Government; and along with that opposition
they must consider what is taking place out of doors.
For his own part, he could not contemplate without
pain the probable commencement of an agitation and
opposition which he could not, under the circum-
staeces, consider illegitimate, but to the mischiefs of
which he was not blind. Looking to those circumstances,
lie had to ask himself whether the proposition of the
member for Newark will or will not so mitigate the evils
and increase the advantages of the bill as to warrant mem-
bers in voting for it who, like himself, entertained the

opinion that the Government plan with respect to the
borough franchise is quite unacceptable. Now, the prin-
ciple of the Government bill is, " Choose between the fran-
chise and composition." The hon. member for Newark
adopts the proposition laid down by the Government, who
cannot, therefore, have any objection to his amendment on
the ground of principle or consistency. The President of
the Poor Law Board emphatically declared the principle of
the bill to be that of the personal payment of rates, and
the hon. member for Newark confers, at the expense of the
economical and social inconvenience arising from the with-
drawal of composition—instead of an extension of the Iran
chise, which he (Mr. Gladstone) and those who thought
with him considered limited, unequal, equivocal, and dan-
gerous, as leading to corruption—an extension which is
liberal, perfectly equal, and which is not open to the charge
of tending to corruption. On the other hand, it is proposed
to mitigate the economical inconvenience of the propositien
by offering those who prefer economical convenience to
the franchise the opportunity to pass into the position of
compound householders if they please. The question,
therefore, arises, which of the two great elements con-
tained in the question—one political and constitutional,
the other social and economical - should be regarded as of
primary and which of secondary importance; and, so far
as he was concerned, he could have no hesitation in giving
the preference to the former. The bill as it stands, con-
tinued the right hon. gentleman, leaves it open to the
vestries to determine the extent of the parliamentary
franchise. The proposal of my hon. friend entirely
removes out of the way that enormous objection, and
from the time the amendment is adopted the agency of
the local authorities ceases to operate in the regulation
of the franchise. While the bill, as it stands, theoreti-
cally invests men with the franchise, it at the same time
places them—in most cases, lam afraid—in irreconcileable
antagonism with their landlords in the endeavour to obtain
it. (Hear, hear.) But that evil, if it be not wholly re-
moved, is universally mitigated by the amendment—(hear,
hear)—because, by the amendment, the man is put in the
possession of the franchise, and, instead of having a process
to perform in order to obtain it, he must have a process to
go through in order to divest him of the franchise. (Hear,
hear.) As a practical element in the case, I believe that
to be a benefit of enormous worth. (Hoar, hear.) Desirous,
if possible, to find a way to peace, I look at the proposition
of my honourable friend in the spirit of peace. lam very
sorry that it should be necessary to interfere with our sys-
tem of composition throughout the country, in order to
meet the views expressed by Parliament ; but if practical
considerations are to prevail, it is my duty to take the
le'ser of two evils— (hear, hear)—and I think the abolition
of composition, accompanied with the removal of the neces-
sity for a baneful political strife throughout the country
(hear, hear)—and with the great gain of an immediate
liberal and real enfranchisement, is an advantage such us
entirely to eclipse and throw into the shade the mischief
that constitutes the price for which we are to purchase
this boon. (Hear, hear.) I know it may be urged that
the proposition is one that ought not to be embodied in the
bill, lest it should awaken opposition from sources at pre-
sent unopen to the bill ; but my conviction is that the mind
of this country is so much awakened on the subject of
Parliamentary reform, that what we may fairly;call the
intelligent public of the country, without distinctionlof
place or party, are ready to do that which I myself am
ready to do upon the same grounds—namely, to submit to
sacrifice and inconvenience for the sake of a settlement of
a great political problem—(hear, hear) —which problem,
if not settled, may become to us a source of public
dangers - (hear, hear) - and public dangers, possibly, in-
volving much that has not yet been drawn into the vortex
of controversy. (Hear, hear.) In the abstract, I admit
that objections may be taken to my hon. friend's proposi-
tion ; but I am bound to say for myself and those around
me that nothing less than its adoption could possibly have
the slightest effect upon our proposition with reference to
the provisions of the bill. It is for the sake of immediate
peace, for the sake of a settlement, for the sake of removing
the occasion for those popular proceedings which I antici-
pate out of doors, it is for the sake of all those great objects,
that I am ready to accept my hon. friend's amendment,
and pay the price that he demands. Here is a hope, and
possibly a last hope, of peace, of concord, and of general
assent on the part of classes and parties in this house and
out of this house, to the adjustment proposed by Govern-
ment of a contested question. It is not asking a sacrifice
from Government. (Hear, hear.) On the ccntrary, the
principle of the amendment is in accordance with the prin-
ciple of the bill ; it is a principle which has been adopted
by the house, and it is one which we consistently, with
our convictions, could, in pursuance of our public duty,
embrace. (Hear, hear.) I cannct say with what earnest.
ness I hope that the door thus opened may be found to
afford a passage by which we can proceed. lam not a lover
of circumstances in which the business of governing this
country is taken from within the walls of this house to
places beyond them. (Cries of
" Hear, he 11.," with mur- 1
murs from the Ministerial side.) I foresee—l think I might
say I see—that that is a state of things at which we are
likely to arrive unless some means be adopted. (Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.")
Sir G. BOWYER—No.

Mr. GLADSTONE—My hon. friend the member for
Dundalk must not put an exaggerated meaning upon my
words. Mean hear, and laugh tor.) Ido not :norm to eay
that the whole functions of Government are likely to be
transferred out of this house to others ; but what I do
say is this, that when upon any question, and especially
upon a great and vital question of this kind, popular
agitation commences, and the people meat in thousands
in every part of the country for the purpose of protesting
against the proceedings of Parliament, and declaring
that in their view they cannot be acquiesced in—what
I do say is, that although that may be a state of things
which my hou. friend may contemplate with satisfaction,
it is yet one which would cause me the greatest pain.
(Hear, hear.) I, therefore, earnestly hope that it may be
consistent with the views of Government, as it is certainly
not inconsistent in the slightest degree with the principle
of the measure which they have proposed, to adopt the
amendment of my hon. friend. It is upon our part that it
involves a complete waiving of the ground on which we
have stood. It is the only mode in which we can depart
from the ground with honour and propriety. So far as I
am concerned, I am ready to take the responsibility of
doing that, entirely for the sake of peace, and if the pro-
posal be not accepted I shall feel thatl have done all that
the love of peace requires or can dictate to those who are
most enamoured of it. (Cheers.)

Mr. BASS supported the amendment, and urged that
it did not involve a single social or economical disadvan-
tage. It would get rid of all inequalities and invidious
distinctions, and would, as the right hon. gentleman the
member for South Lancashire had pointed out, afford a
peaceful solution of a most difficult question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —The hon.
member for Newark has correctly described the position
of this question when he said that the proposition which
he brought forward was not at all opposed to the prin-
ciple upon which the bill of the Government is founded.
(Hear, hear.) There can be no question, I think, about
that; on the contrary, it must be evident that if the
policy recommended by the amendment could be brought
into action, it would strengthen and enforce the prin-
ciples which we have been impressing upon the house as
those which are the boat foundations for the franchise,
and would give completeness to the measure which we
have introduced. (Hear, hear.) Our opinion was, when
we had to consider this question, that the principle upon
which we proposed the franchise should be established in
boroughs in this country was one which was of such
virtue that it would in the end overcome all the difficul-
ties that might at first be opposed to its symmetrical
action, and would alone prove satisfactory as a solution of
difficulties long connected with the question. And I will
observe that those who are in favour of what they call
household suffrage, but at the same time deprecate the
exercise of the franchise by what is in modern phrase
called the residuum of the people, are inconsistent in their
complaints that we have accompanied the franchise with
what they call restrictions. There are many who profess
to be in favour of household suffrage, but who admit that
it aught not be exercised without some principle of selec-
tion, and they must acknowledge that if this is not intro-
duced as au element of the suffrage the principle of
rating is the only one which can be adopted. (Hear, hear.)
And, therefore, nothing can be more inconsistent and ab-
surd than for them to speak against such a restriction.
Those who are in favour of universal suffrage and manhood
suffrage may with consistency complain of the regulations
which we propose as restrictions. But for those who night
after night in this house have advocated household suf-
. frage, and at the same time have told us that there is a
plebs annuli against the influence of which we must guard ;
but for them to contend that the propositions we have in-
troduced with regard to the payment of rates is a restric-
tion, ie an absurdly inconsistent position. (Cheers.) Those
who think it is wise .and desirable that the franchise
should be established upon the principle of value are quite
consistent in speaking of the arrangement we propose as
a restriction. They can with the utmost propriety de-
scribe every regulation for the exercise of the franchise as
a restriction, because they say the principle of value is a
sufficient test. But those who are for household suffrage,
and who. at the same time, admit there is a portion of
the population under those conditions to whom the pri-
vilege of the franchise should not be entrusted, and who
attack our scheme as one involving restrictions, are en-
tirely inconsistent. Our answer to those who would
found the franchise on the principle of value, is that there
is no strength in their position. it has been tried and
failed. It is worn out, and during fifteen years of
miserable rottenness it has been frequently brought for-
ward in this house. The house has obtained a reputation
for insincerity in dealing with the question of Parliamen-
tary Reform, which is untrue. Their position was that
that they had no confidence iu the principle of the pro-
positions which were brought before them, and that there
was nothing in those propositions around which the sens+,
and conviction of the community could rally. (Hear, hear.)
That was the real cause of the position of the Reform ques-
tion up to the preseet time. Her Majesty's Government,
when they undertook this great ditty, determined to found
a policy which they could reconuaend upon a principle,
and they had the greatest confidence in that principle.
Thjy believed that, discarding this fluctuating and uncer-
tain principle of value, and takirg the general condition

of the population of the boroughs, a better principle might
be established. We said to ourselves that an individual
who lives in a house and fulfils duties, and is placed in a
position in which some of the ordinary obligations of life
must be discharged—that is, if he is rated to the financial
arrangements of the community of which he is a member
—will necessarily be called upon to fulfil some more
formal and important duties; he will have to elect his
local representatives, to watch their conduct and call them
to account, and thus take an interest in the public life of his
district ; that man may, prima facie, be intrusted with the
still higher privilege of electing a representative to Parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) I say that is a true principle, and
that the strength of it has been proved by two circum-
stances. The first is that this principle was introduced
into Parliament by a Government who were in a minority,
and although their propositions were received with great
severity by their habitual opponents, that principle has
so asserted its sway that it has been accepted, not only by
considerable, but, as the right hon. gentleman opposite
admits, decisive majorities. (Hear.) That is the first
proof that the principle upon which our franchise is based
is true. What is the second ? It is that, after all this
controversy, after all this prolonged agitation, after every
effort of ingenuity to oppose and every exertion of intel-
lect to criticise our proposition, we have, by a gentleman
opposite, a formal proposal which would effect, no doubt
without using any language of exaggeration, a great
social change in the condition of the country, and that
too, recommended by the right hon. gentleman, who
hitherto has been the most uncompromising opponent of
our policy. (Cheers.) I say, therefore, there must be
something in this principle which has so long been de-
rided. I think there must be somethingin the payment of
rates, in the sense of duty which it developes, in the public
duties connected with it, in the exorcise and discipline of
the mind under it ; and the common sense of the country
and the conviction of Parliament have come to this con-
clusion, that this is a sound and true principle upon which
the borough franchise is to be established. That is shown,
not only by triumphant majorities, but by the proceedings
of this evening, still more characteristic than the triumph
of parties or the struggle of Parliamentary contests. '1
(Cheers.) No doubt, in the application of this principle in
England there must be great difficulties. It is not neces-
sary for me to advert to them. The hon. member for
Newark has this evening with great clearness and ability
recapitulated many of these difficulties. But it is not the
first time that difficulties have been experienced in the ap-
plication of a great principle. It will not have been the
first time, if this franchise we have proposed succeeds, that
such difficulties have been surmounted. We have always
anticipated that these perplexities—which have full justice
done to them in Parliament—we always believed that,
when they wore encountered, they would disappear. I will
not dilate upon the efforts we have math to facilitate the
admission of the compound householder to the franchise,
nor will I dwell upon the general result of the clauses which
I have placed upon the table for that purpose. It will be
acknowledged that, however great these difficulties may
have been, they have been greatly mitigated, if not re-
moved, by those clauses. But the fallacy of the view of the
right hon. member for South Lancashire which has in-
fluenced him to-night is this—that from the first he has ac-
cepted it as a conclusion on which allhis strategy should bo
founded, and the whole course of his conduct regulated,
and all the advice given to his friends adjusted, that we
have fixed upon this foundation for our franchise in order
to reap the advantages which the rating acts would give
us in restricting the suffrage. That has been an en-
tire mistake, because a proposition similar to that now
offered was contained in our original scheme. (Hear.)
But when we considered the immense difficulties of the
question, and of engaging the attention of Parliament and
the country in a real, earnest, and sincere scheme of re-
form, we hesitated before we encumbered the ship already
freighted with a cargo of groat price with a burden which
might perhaps imperil the voyage. (Cheers.) What did
the right hon. gentleman tell us on the very first night he
addressed us on the subject. Did he not describe those
acts as the result of the advanced civilisation of the coun-
try. If we had come down to Parliament and proposed
that the suffrage in boroughs should be founded upon real
rating and residence, and also that we should simplify the
matter by repealing all the rating acts, why the cham-
pions of civilisation would stand aghast. (Hoar.) It would
have required a considerable time, and a great deal of dis-
passionate discussion, and many vicissitudes of public and
Parliamentary life before we arrived at the calm and philo-
sophical result which I hope will distinguish this evening.
(Cheers.) Now lot me speak of the motion of the hon.
member. I need not say that, so far as the spirit of the
proviso is concerned, the Government can have no oppo-
sition whatevez to it—(cheers) —because it is their own
policy, and if they had been masters of the situation they
would have long ago recommended it to the house. But
the house will feel that in the application of this policy we
must proceed with the utmost prudence and consideration.
I do not myself think, after much anxious attention, th.►t
it will be desirable or possible to deal with this question
by a proviso at the first glance. I see a grave omission in
the absence of a saving clause, and that of a very large
character, to protect existing arrangements ; and when you
remember the number of acts you have to dual with, I
think it will be admitted that there would be infinite diffi-
cultise see perplexities in dealing with the question in
the manner proposed. It is exactly the question which
I think the house should decide. We have said from the
beginning that, subject to the maintenance of the great
principle which we thought ought to be the basis of the
suffrage, and to which we must adhere, the advice and
assistance of the house was courted by us; and this is
exactly a case upon which the independent opinions of the
house may be given with advantage. Months ago I might
in vain have proposed a policy which is now generally ac-
cepted as of the wisest character; but it is now proposed
to the house by an hon. member opposite, and her Ma-
jesty's Government, under these circumstances, do not
hesitate to accept it—(cheers)—it being a policy which is
their own, which carries out their views, and which will
render triumphant the system of rating; and it required
no solemn tones of admonition from the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite to induce me to express my cordial adhe-
sion to the proposition. (Ministerial cheers.) But I must
impress upon the hon. member for Newark not to press
the house to a hasty division upon it. My own impression
is that separate legislation will be much the better Course,
for otherwise you will involve the Reform Bill in great
difficulty, and cause great delay. If it is to be dealt with
by separate legislation, I shall be perfectly prepared on the
part of the Government to undertake the task. (Loud
cheers.) I should still recommend the committee to pro-
ceed without loss of time with the Reform Bill. Let us
provide oven for the compouad householder—(m► laugh)—
and the bill can be so drawn up as to fit in with this mea-
sure. I have frankly told the house what were the feelings
of the Government on the subject, and what were our
plans; and I can take no credit for any sacrifices in the
course we are now pursuing. Arrived in the month of
May, the house has, by rejection, observation, and expe-
rience, come to a conclusion which I should be glad they
had arrived at in March; and 1 have no doubt it is one
which, conducted with prudence and propriety, will con-
tribute to the more satisfactory settlement of the question.
But I wish that, so far as the feelings of the Government
are concerned, we should not be misunderstood. We
have had dark allusions made to a very agitated and
dangerous state of the country in consequence of the
state of the Itsform Bill and the treatment of the
question by the house. I do not believe in anything of
the kind. (Cheers.) I believe a more monstrous exag-
geration was never made. I have no doubt there are in-
dividuals who have long tried, what I may call, their
blundering hands—(cries of " Oh, oh")—on this question,
who may be exceedingly annoyed that those who were
their rivals have been more successful in their efforts—
(Ministerial cheers) -but that the great bulk of this nation
are moved with sullen and dangerous discontent by the
conduct of the House of Commons, which every candid
and dispassionate mind must feel is sincerely endeavouring
to bring this question to a satisfactory solution, I think
that that is a statement which cannot be established, and
whatever may be the influences which regulate the con-
duct of others I can assure the house, that the Govern-
ment in the course they are taking are not at all influenced
by the terrors predicted, or by any of the arts of agitation
which have been resorted to. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. CHILDERS suggested that after the concession
just made the clause relating to the compounders should
be postponed until a bill for abolishing them altogether
was laid on the table, and that the two bills should then
proceed part passe.
Mr. AYRTON replied that what Mr. Childers would do
was tantamount to giving up the Reform Bill altogether
for this session, for the ramification's of the Compounding
Acts were so wide that a bill could not be passed without
going before a select committee, and he suggested as an
intermediate course something akin to his own amend-
ment, by which every occupier would be rated, and the
operation of existing contracts and Rating Acts saved, so
that the whole question would be left open.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pointed out
the impossibility of carrying on the two bills part passe,
and of mixing up the two subjects, and declined to go
further than to pledge himself to deal with the subject
effectively in some manner which would not interfere
with the progress of the Reform Bill.
A long conversation followed, turning chiefly on the
course to be pursued and the exact character of the engage-
ment of the Government. Mr. Forster, Mr. Mill, and Sir
R. P. Collier dwelt on the futility of proceeding with the
compounders' clauses if they were to be abolished, and
pressed the Government to go on with the other parts of
the Bill until the House could see their plan.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. BRETT urged the
difficulties of the subject and the obstacles iu the way of
bringing in a Bill.
Mr. PONVELL advocated separate legislation.
Mr. DEN MAN maintained that the easiest mode of pro-
ceeding was to adopt the proviso, and Mr. SANDFORD
warmly declared that the bill was now turned into house-
hold suffrage pure and simple.
Mr. HENLEY replied to him, and insisted that there
was no change in the principle of the bill, which had al-
ways offered the franchise to every householder who paid
his rates. He recommended the Government to accept the
resolution as the easiest and readiest mode of effecting the
object, for in passing a bill they would be met with the