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

Chester had made a well-intentioned, but a very ill timed,
suggestion. There was no rule which could not be set
aside which prevented the house sitting up to Easter.
They had already been assembled nearly three months,
and yet the question of Reform had advanced but very
slightly, and he did hope the house would nut consent to
postpone the discussion of a measure which had already
been too long delayed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY thought the Bribery Bill ought, at all events,
to be settled before a dissolution took place. Rumours
were rife of a dissolution, but ho hoped that it would
not take place before the bill of the Government was

passed.
Mr. MILL said, although he attached the highest im-
portance to his amendment, yet he would postpone it
rather than allow it to stand in the way of the progress of
the bill. He thought it would be disgraceful if the house
delayed, by any means, the progress of the Reform Bill.
He did not see why the house could not sit next week.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for South Lancashire had so often varied his amend-
ments that no one knew what he really meant. He did not
see why the bill should not be carried forward as speedily

as possible.
Mr. OSBORNE said the house had become somewhat

used to these sudden surprises. (Laughter.) They were
constantly springing mines—(hear, hear)—the ground
around him was full of mines. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He did not see why they should pay any attention to
the recommendation of the noble lord, the member for
Chester, who was in collusion with the other side of the
house. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He hoped the house
would not appear in the disgraceful position in which
the noble earl wished to place it. The noble earl had done
more than any man to cut away Reform—(hear, hear)—
and he hoped the house would insist on the subject being
carried forward, as it would bring out the sham Re-
formers and set them plainly before the country. (Hear,

hear.)
Lord ELCIIO supported the proposal for postpone-
ment ; and with respect to Reform he was not ashamed

to say he was in favour of it.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that one night would be quite
sufficient to settle the question of the borough franchise.
There had been some talk of a compromise, but when they
were all gone home who was to do it ? (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Was the noble lord the member for Chester
to do it? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Was he to prepare
something new, which would be acceptable to all parties.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He hoped the house would
not consent to postponement until they had at least one
point settled, which was the very heart of the bill, which
either made it acceptable to the public, or put it beneath
contempt. The discussion ought to go on, and he did not
see why they could not sit, if it became necessary, all next

week. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD hoped the noble earl would with-
draw his motion, in order that the debate might proceed.

(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Sir R. KNIGIITLEY was in favour of postponement,
in order that members voting on one particular point in
the bill might not appear in a false light before the country
until the whole of the provisions of the bill were discussed.
Mr. HUBBARD deprecated a discussion about Spain in
the midst of a settlement of the question of Reform.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought it would be impossible to
settle the great question of Reform in one night. He was
not in favour of the whole bill, and at the proper time he
should call the attention of the house to that part of it

with respect to the distribution of seats, because the bill of
the late Government conferred greater advantages on the
country than those in the bill with which they were about
to proceed.
Sir G. GREY asked whether the non. member for
lionitou brought forward the subject of Spain with the

authority of the Government.
Lord STANLEY said he had sought to dissuade the
hon. member from doing so. He had laid all the papers
on the table, and therefore he had very little to say. For
his own part he should have preferred if his hon. friend
had postponed his motion.
Sir R. x'ALMER said he had studied the papers on
Spain, and he felt he could not state fully to the House of
Commons his views of the matter in the present position
of matters between this country and that of Spain.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
question ought to bo decided by the house, but his own
opinion was that it was expedient to proceed with the bill.
He denied the assertion of that sincere reformer —(loud
laughter)—the member for Notts that the noble lord the
member for Chester was in collusion with her Majesty's
Government. He also denied that he had stated that he was
disinclined to admit of any amendment. On the contrary he
stated that he was ready and willing to accept every im-
provement which was not in opposition to the main prin-
ciple of the bill. The amendments of the right hon.
gentlemen the member for South Lancashire were, iu fact,
a suppression of the entire bill, and therefore he could not
accept them. It was a mistake altogether to call them
amendments. They were, in fact, a counter bill.
Earl GROSVENOR then withdrew his motion for the
postponement of the debate.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
On the question that the preamble be postponed,
Mr. D. GRIFFITH called the attention of the committee
to the inadequate discussion that the bill had received
during its previous stages, and suggested that it wculd be
premature to go into the particular clauses of the bill in
committee until the principles involved in the preamble
had been further considered.
On the conclusion of the hon. gentleman's speech there
was a rush of members into the house.
The preamble was then postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 were then agreed to without remark.
On clause 3, which regulates the occupation franchise
for voters in boroughs,
Mr. GLADSTONE, who rose amidst the cheers of the
Opposition, said—As the hon. member for Westminster
was good enough to waive discussion on the motion, I do
not think it necessary to go through the formality of
making a fresh appeal. And, before I state the object of
the amendment I have to submit, I wish to observe that
there are one or two important questions connected with
rating which will not be included in the statement I have
to make. The question discussed last year, whether the
basis should be the rateable or actual value, is not now
before us. Another question of considerable import-
ance is likewise wholly apart from the right to vote—
I mean the question of payment of rates. Whether the
voter shall be liable to payment—that is, that he shall
have paid them before he is entitled to be put on the
register—whether it may be made through the medium
of rent to the landlord, or in default by himself, is a
question of considerable moment, which I do not propose
to raise. My amendments on the third clause do not
touch either of these questions. Now, sir, this amend-
ment is said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be tho
first of a series, intended to give effect to the views ex-
pressed when the bill was presented to the House, and ex-
plained more fully on the second reading. The proposal
to relieve the small occupiers is a matter obviously impos-
sible to deal with in a clause relating to enfranchisement;
it would require more than ono clause, drawn with the
closest care. My own amendments follow that usual course
of proceeding which would appear to be satisfactory to the
feeling and would correspond with the widely spread and
deeply entertained convictions of this house; but in ask-
ing the committee to pass any one of these amendments I
certainly cannot adopt the lofty language of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer on what he calls the vital question of
residence, and when he says that if any one of these
amendments be adopted it would be impossible for the
Government to proceed with the bill. I have no authority
to present the amendments to the house in such a shape. I
express my own opinions, and have no power or inclina-
tion to bind any other person. There had been so much
said, and upon so many occasions, with regard to our posi-
tion on this subject, that I will briefly state in this house
what I take it to be. What is the paramount object before
us, and what are the secondary but still important objects?
The paramount object is to pass a good Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) The secondary, but still important objects, are to
pass a good Reform Bill during the present year, and to
pass it, if we can, by the aid of the present Government.
(Hear.) lam not prepared to sacrifice that paramount ob-
ject to the secondary. (Hear, hear.) We should, in my
opinion, commit a fatal mistake if, because we have been
laggard in former years with our work, we proceed now, I
will not say hastily, but with insufficient care, to piece to-
gether clauses of a Reform Bill, and so send forth to the
country as a settlement of the question that which could
only lead to a renewal of agitation. There is no sacrifice
of time and feeling, there is no sacrifice of opinion com-
patible with the highest principle, which we ought not
fairly to render, in order to dispose at once of this question.
(Cheers.) Up to Saturday last I had no reason to suppose
that the innocent amendments—(a laugh)--which I have
proposed would be received in the manner they have been
received by the Government. On the second reading of
the bill this subject of personal rating was certainly not
blinked. I expressed my opinion with regard to it, and
the right hon. gentleman the member for Richmond (Sir
R. Palmer) honoured me with a speech of which I cannot
say anything higher than that it was worthy of his name,
his character, and his talents. (Hear, hear.) It presented
the subject in the clearest light. Did the Chancellor cf the
Exchequer that nig4t lead us to believe he would use the
imperious language which he has Low adopted? His
reply was in live words : "Let us get out of nisi prius."
The right hon. gentleman produced an impression that ho
was ready to deal with us, from the terms he used—terms
of little value, except when construed in a liberal spirit—
in a spirit of conciliation. (Hear, hear.) If we cannot
have the co-operation of the Government in this matter of
personal rating, I deeply regret it. But you cannot alter
the paramount duty of the house ; for if we send forth a
bill with safeguards and limits, we are resonsible for the
safety and soundness of those safeguards ; and to send
forth a bill with safeguards that are unsafe, flimsy, and
untrue, is unworthy of the House of Commons. The cha-
racteristics of tie plan of the Government are an extreme
narrowness of immediate onfranchisement—(hear, hear)—
and the setting of certain barriers, to which barriers we
are invited to trust for excluding great masses of house-
holders below .£lO. (Hear.) These are the two paramount
features of the plan. It would appear that the number of
direct ratepayers included in the bill is 246,000 ; and I
think I understood that, according to the conception of