The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEAING, MARCH 19 1867

of those who by the laws we propose are qualified to
vote, and I do not think it is our business to act the part
of electioneering agents and make estimates, always of
the most speculative character, as to the amount of per-
sons who we think will have a vote. That is not the,
business of Ministers in Parliament; we are to see what,
under the laws of this country, is the opportunity
afforded of voting. And allow me to remind the house
of the tone of the arguments always used by those who
are great promoters of an increased franchise.
They are always counting the number of the population,
that there aro so many millions of the population who
have no vote at all. Well, now, I say that it is the busi-
ness of the House of Commons to ascertain as far as they
can the number who under these laws will be admitted,
and not the number who may be tempted to register their
suffrage. Their business is to pass laws under which they
can safely determine the classes upon whom for the good
of the commonwealth the suffrage may be conferred. I say
that under the present arrangement there is not a man, be
he aratepayer under £lO, or a compound householder, who
may not be qualified under the bill which 1 am now asking
leave to introduce to exercise the suffrage. The whole of
the 723,000 are qualified. It is their business, if they
choose, to invest themselves with that responsible privi-
lege. Under the new borough franchises, to which I must
afterwards revert, the number of voters will be 68,000.
As to the number of direct tax-payers who probably
would vote in boroughs, the public departments have no
means of offering to the house any recent information upon
the subject, and it would probably take months to obtain
it ; but the number would be very considerable. I should
think myself, forming an estimate and making due allow-
ance for the increase of property and assessed taxpayers,
probably at the rate of 23 per cent., since Mr. Macaulay's
returns were made to the house, I should think the number
that would be qualified in boroughs would greatly exceed
200,000. (Murmurs.) Under the educational franchise I
calculate in boroughs 35,000 would be qualified, 25,000
landholders, and 45,000 in savings banks. There is a return
now before the house with regard to savings banks which is
very instructive, and contains the result whi h I have just
anticipated—the number of male depositors of £5O and up-
wards in saving banks. I remember that the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), than whom no one can be
better acquainted on the subject, expressed an opinion last
year that probably, if that suffrage were adopted, it would
be found to prevail more in the country than in towns. It
appears, however, that the male depositors of £5O and up-
wards in boroughs amount to 72,000, and in the counties
to only 24,000 ; but iu the number which I have taken, of
45,000, some allowance ought to be made for a spculative
estimate. You will therefore qualify in the borough con-
stituencies more than a million of persons. We are told
that they will not exercise the great right which we offer
them. I repeat that I regret to hear that ; but I venture
to doubt whether the statement is correct. In our opinion
it is simply the duty of the house so to deal with this ques-
tion as that those who are qualified to exercise the suffrage
should have the opportunity—(Opposition cheers) -and
that the duty of Parliament ceases when we have accom-
plished that.
An Hon. MEMBER on the Opposition side here rose to
put a question, but resumed his seat amid loud cries of
" Order."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I will now
proceed to consider the question of the county franchise.
We propose that these new franchises shall be ex-
tended to the counties ; but, in consequence of the differ-
ence in circumstances between counties and boroughs, we
do not propose that, under any circumstances, anybody
shall exercise two votes. And now I come to the amount
of the occupation franchise in counties. Sir, when I last
made some observations to the house upon this question, I
etated that her Majesty's Government thought, upon the
whole, that the county qualification had better be placed
at £2O rating, being the principle which ran through the
whole of the scheme, When I made that statement, I
made it with a feeling on the part of the Government that
the opinion of the House of Commons ought to bo eon-
suited on the subject—(hear, from the Ministerial benches)
—and they were of opinion also that the house had
never had a fair opportunity of coming to any de-
cided judgment upon the matter. (Murmurs.) When the
question was first originated about the reduction of the oc-
cupa • tion franchiso iu counties, and the hon. member for
Surrey came forward with a proposition to reduce it to
£lO, the house was always asked to consider it in an iso-
lated manner. Now, we bold —and I think the house has
long come to the conclusion—that none of these questions
of suffrage and those of au analogous character can be con-
sidered only in an isolated manner. They depend on each
other ; and therefore I look upon the whole of these debates
upon the reduction of the franchise to .£lO in counties to
have been quite beside the subject ; and I think the best
proof of the accuracy of that opinion is this, that they were
barren of consequences. Last year, when a Reform Bill was
before the house, and when the mind of the house was ac-
customed to consider in all its details and ramifications the
principle of parliamentary representation, there was a fair
opportunity when thisquestion might have been discussed
in a satisfactory manner, and brought to a satisfactory set-
tlsment. But it has always been a most unfortunate ques-
tion;; and never was it more unfortunate than on that
occasion, because it so happened that a great party scene
and division took place in the beginning of the evening
which had been destined for its discussion. It was brought
on in a languid house—(Oh, oh, laughter and counter cheers
from the Ministerialists)—and a very thin house, although
it was decided by a very full house. That is another thing.
It wasdiscussed in a very unsatisfactory and feeblemanner.
I am perfectly impartial, because I took part in the debate
—(laughter)—but it was altogether conducted in a manner
which the largeness of the question did not warrant. A de-
cision was arrived at, but the majority was a very slight
one, and it was decided upon a principle which the result
of the session showed was not the conviction of the House
of Commons. (Cries of "No, no," from the Opposition,
and counter cheers.) Well, if the House of Commons
meant anything last year, it meant that rating should be
the principle of the franchise, and that was accepted by the
country as one of the soundest decisions that the House of
Commons ever came to. (Ministerial cheers.) Therefore
we should have been glad if the question had been calmly
and completely discussed ; and whatever the opinion of the
house might have been, we should have felt was a wise and
proper decision. But on the present occasion, bringing for-
ward a complete measure, and wishing, as far as we possibly
can, to offer definite and definitive positions for considera-
tion of the house, her Majesty's Government have consi-
dered this question of the county occupation franchise very
much, and on the whole they believe the qualification that
would be most advantageous and most satisfactory to the
country would be a £l5 rating, and that is the qualifica-
tion included in the bill. That would qualify, in addition
to occupiers, 171,000 voters. There would be also in the
counties 40,000 savings banks voters, 25,000 fund-holders,
and 44,000 education franchises, which is a franchise which
would be chiefly enjoyed in the country, and a very large
amount of direct tax-payers, probably 159,000 or 160,000.
There would therefore be—although no doubt many of
these might have double qualifications—an addition, at
the least, to the county franchise of upwards of 300,000.
I have thus brought before the house that which is at no
time a very entertaining subject, and especially so at the
present time, when the conclusions have been somewhat
foregone ; but I hope I have placed before it with some
clearness the propositions which the Government have to
make. (Cheers.) There is another part of the subject of
very great interest, upon which, although I am anxious
to touch upon nothing that is not necessary, it is
requisite that I should make some observations, and
that is the distribution of seats. (Hear, hoar.)
Now that is a question of very great interest to the
public mind. (Hear, hear.) There are members on both
sides of the house who take a very deep interest in it.
(Laughter.) The proposition which 1 made on a previous
occasion has been described as one quite inadequate to the
circumstances of the country, the requirements of the
public voice, and the general necessities of the case.
(Hear, hear.) Well, I am perfectly ready to meet these
objections, nut that I wish to entrap the house on an oc-
casion like this into a controversy, but I have no doubt
there will be other opportunities for going more into de-
tail. It is said that there ought to hale been a much
larger scheme of disfranchisement—that, at the very least,
every town with not above 10,000 population should lose
a, member. Some people say, " You might have gone
further"—(hear, hear)—namely, that a third member
should be given to many places, and that by the process
of disfranchisement and cumulative votes, at last per-
fect representation of the people would be accom-
plished. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, we have given that
subject that great consideration which it deserves. My
own opinion is that the votaries of this now system
are not very numerous in the country, and I doubt
whether they are very numerous in this house. (A. laugh.)
But they are no doubt many of them men of distinguished
ability, of high character, and gentlemen whose opinions
upon every public subject will ccmmand and demand
attention. There is no doubt that a very great noise has
been made. (Hear, hear.) Whatever number has upheld
these opinions there is no doubt that a very great noise has
been made iu the country as to these three-cornered con-
stituencies and cumulative votes--blessings only to be
obtained by a large disfranchisement of the borough mem-
bers. Well, sir, I admit that as far as leading articles and
letters in the newspapers are concerned the question is
settled. But I have always observed with respect tolead-
ing articles and letters in the newspapers —I speak
advisedly, for I have wi itten leading articles m 3 golf
(laughter) —that the distinguishing characteristic of them
is this, that they always assume that there is only one side
of the question. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) And I
think they aro very wise in their generation, because I
take it that if they did not make that assumption nobody
for a moment would read them. (Hear, hear.) If the
question of three-cernerel constituencies and cumulative
votes be brought under the consideration of the house,
will, and there are others near me who will, meet it fully,
frankly, and fairly. At, the same time I am sure that those
who hold those opinions have a right to know the views
of the Government respecting them; and therefore I say
having considered the question—l am suro without preju-
dice, completely and thoroughly tested it on every point,
and tried it from every quarter—our ()Pinion is that the
scheme is erroneous in principle, and would be pernicious
in practice. (Ministerial cheers.) On this question there
aro only two courses to follow, if you wish to improve the

representation of the people by the redistribution of seats.
There are only two courses; there is no middle course.
You must either create a new electoral map of England, or
deal practically with the circumstances before you, and
follow the line to which I will for a moment advert, and
which I think the Government will follow. Now, if the
country and the House of Commons do resolve on the first
course, namely, that there shall be a complete revision of
the representative system, so far as electoral localities are
concerned—if I may presume to give advice to the House
of Commons, I will say this, "Do not make that an affair
to be settled by a Parliamentary Reform Bill to be framed
by any Ministry whatever." That is a subject too vastand
deep for us to treat or deal with without a preliminary in-
vestigation pursued by persons of the highest standing,
character, experience, and learning in the country. (Hear.)
When you possess their accumulated knowledge, and the
results of their matured thoughts and experience, a popular
assembly may weigh those considerations, and a practical
Ministry may embody those results. There is no other
means by which you can deal with such a question. But
if you are not of opinion that an electoral map of England
is to be reconstructed, then you must proceed prudently
and practically. When you have the opportunity
you must look about and see what places in the country
are not represented that ought to be represented, and you
should not lose sight of that opportunity when offered of
giving to the teeming multitudes of the counties, so far as
as you can do so, that direct representation which they want
and which indirectly I admit they possess. (Hear, hear.)
These are the two practical points which you ought tohave
before you. There is no medium between dealing with the
whole question in a largo and solemn manner, adequate to
the great theme and the prudent and practical method I
have indicated. Well, sir, we are not prepared to take the
first course. Ido not say that it is not one worthy of deep
respect and of the national thought, but it is not one which
we are prepared to propose, and therefore we must retain
the prudent and practical proposal I have already described.
We do say that you will find towns in this country which we
think ought to be represented, and whose representatives
would bring fresh vigour to this house. We think also you
ought not to take the opportunities which periodically
offer for dealing with the distribution of political power
without considering always the particular situation of
the counties—that population of the counties iuvigorated
and vivified by the new franchises you are giving to it—
that population yin demand to be duly represented in
this house; and who can deny their right ? And there-
fore, as far as you can, I think you ought in that direc-
tion to meet the counties, so that they may not be said to
be represented indirectly by the small boroughs, but by
direct representation as far as possible. But these things
can only be done gradually. I am of opinion that any
violent disturbance of our representative system, so far
as redistribution of seats is concerned, is highly to be
deprecated. Whatever you do in this matter your re-
presentation must be fairly distributed over the country,
and if by any chance you force a distribution which would
give a great preponderance to one part of the kingdom at
the expense of the other, you would in effect create two
nations, and there would be a want of sympathy and cor-
diality between the parts, and thus you would subvert the
principle of nationality. Therefore, so far as we are con-
cerned, although I have road these names before, still as
there was one omission, and as it is becoming an occasion
like this, I hope the house will allow me to read the names
of the places which we propose to enfranchise. We pro-
pose, out of the 36 seats which will be obtained by themode
which I before detailed to the house, that members shall be
conferred on Hartlepool, Darlington, Burnley, Staleybridge,
St. Helen's, Dewsbury, Barnsley, Middlesborough, Wed-
nesbury, Croydon, Gravesend, Torquay, two members for
the Tower Hamlets, and one member to the London
University. The counties wo wish to divide are North
Lancashire, North Lincolnshire, West Kent, West Surrey,
Middlesex, South Staffordshire, South Devonshire, and
South Lancashire. I have now placed before the house
the provisions of the bill which I ask leave to introduce.
I will not detain the house with petty details of the ques-
tion of the electoral franchise or the redistribution of
seats. The bill will be iu the bands of hon. members to-
morrow, and they will be prepared to form an opinion as to
the manner in which the provisions are to b 3 carried out.
I hope the house will candidly consider this measure. So
far as we are concerned we have spared no pains, no
thought, and we have not shrunk from what was of still
more importance to us, perhaps, in endeavouring. to bring
it before the house. I will not advert to the circumstances
unnecessarily under which the measure is now brought be-
fore tho house—under very groat difficulties and very great
sacrifices. Ido not wish to disguise the fact, that I have
felt great chagrin and great mortification ; but I believe I
have done my dnty—(Ministerial cheers)—and under the
circumstances I do not think I could have acted otherwise
than I have done. (Hear.) Wo have, in attempting to bring
it to this point, lost colleagues whom we more than re-
garded. We had to appeal to a high-spirited party to make
what no doubt was to a certain extent a sacrifice of prin-
ciple, much of sentiment, and mach sacrifice of interests.
But we have not appealed in vain, because they were ani-
mated by the same feeling which influenced us—a sense of
duty and of conviction that the time had arrived when this
question must be dealt with, and, if possible, extensively
and completely. (Cliners.) Ido hope, therefore, that the
house will approach the consideration of this measure in
the 8111110 spirit as that which actuates her Mejesty's Go-
vernment, who believe that it is one which, if adopted in
its spirit, will settle long differences, and that it is calcu-
lated to meet the require:nents of the country. lam told
by some, and the objection will probably be repeated—and
I must remind the kouse of the distinction we draw be-
tween popular rights and democratic demands —I may be
told that the measure, in providing a system of checks and
counterpoises, tends still further to interpose the barriers
of class. If it is a measure which involves checks and coun-
terpoises, we live under a constitution whose boast it is
that it is made up of checks and counterpoises. (Ileer.,
And why should we conceal from ourselves that this
country is peculiarly one of class composition ? And o
class it ever will remain. (Hear, hear.) What we desire
to do is to give to all worthy of having the privilege con-
ferred a fair share in the government of this country, so
far as that may be attained by the expression of a vote ;
but at the same time we are equally anxious to maintain
the principles on which the constitution is based, rnd in
proposing amendments to prevent the preponderance of
any class, and to give representation to the nation. I beg
to move for leave to introduce a bill to amend the repre-
sentation of the people. The right hon. gentleman, who
concluded his speech about 20 minutes past 6 o'clock, re-
sumed his seat amidst loud and continuous Miuisterial
cheers.

Mr. GLADSTONE, who rose amidst general cheers
from the Liberal side of the House, said : Sir, in any
words which may fall from me on this occasion it will be
as far as possible from my intention to impugn the state-
ment of the right hon. gentleman that he has been acting
under circumstances of great difficulty, and that he has
followed a course which he believed to be his duty. (Hear,
hear.) Neither is it my intention to prejudge the question
what course it may be right for any members of this house
or which I myself may think it right to take with reference
to the measure of the right hon. gentleman. I think that
until we have the bill in our hands—(hear, hear)— and it
is promised that we shall have it in our hands by to-mor-
row —it would be impossible to arrive r.t any conclusion
such as the important nature of the question and the
gravity of the circumstances demand. (Hear, hear.) But
having said that, I must at the same time frankly state
that the impression made on my mind by the state-
ment of the right honourable gentleman involves in
several points no inconsiderable perplexity, and is not on
the whole a pleasing one. We commenced the session in
the hope that some measure would be introduced which
would tend to a settlement of this question. When the
proposal to proceed by way of resolution was substituted
we made no opposition, except by the expression of an
earnest desire that a definite meaning might bo attached
to the resolution submitted. When the right hon gentle-
man subsequently presented the skeleton of a bill, no diffi-
culty was raised on this side of the house on principle.
That bill never was in print ; but the statement I made,
which received general assent on this side of the house,
was a hope that when we saw it in print, though we might
have points to raise on its various provisions, these might
be disposed of in committee. I most frankly own that in
this, the fourth state of progress—or I may at least say of
proceeding—the course the right hon. gentleman would
lead us is, to adopt a common expression, still further into
the wood. (Laughter and cheers.) The house will bear
with me if I comment on a few of the provisions of the
bill so far as we know them, with a due regard to the cor-
rections of to-morrow. On an ordinary occasion, after
hearing a statement from the representatives of the Ad-
ministration and leader of this house, the course would be
to say little ; but on the present occasion the circumstances
are peculiar. The main particulars of this bill have ob-
tained so remarkable a peculiarity that it has become a duty
to apply the mind to a consideration of the character of the
measure ; aid, therefore, we are the more competent to do
this than if we had been simply dependent on the speech
of the right hon. gentleman on the introduction of the
measure. But three days ago there was a meeting of the
more select spirits in Downing-street, to whom revela-
tions were made of which a portion found its way to us,
the mere mob of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear,
and "oh.") And I must add, as far as my own experi-
ence of five-and-thirty years extends of parliamentary
Practice, it is rather a novel practice for the Minister of
the Crown to give an exposition of his policy two days
in advance of the information of the House of Commons.
(Repeated cheers from the Liberal party.) I had not in-
tended to make this the subject of remark - ("oh")—but
it is justified by the circumstances of the case. This is
an innovation which it is to be hoped will receive more
consideration before it is repeated. (Hear.) We have
likewise the advantage I grant of information, and it is of
a still more surprising character than that communicated
two days before made to a most favoured constituency—
(laughter)—so that we have had opportunities fur conside-
ration to some considerable extent. And yet, I must say,
that on those points which may be considered of vital im-
portance my mind remains in a state of obscurity and per-
plexity. The right hon. gentleman proposes a .£l5 rating
as the basis of the county franchise; but he forgot that he
told us that the object of his measure was to proceed on a
principle. (Ilaar, hear.) I Wad amaz and I way tray

amused, on looking back on the proceedings of last session
to find him rest on rating as a criterion and measure of the
subject. I pass the question of the redistribution of seats,
which, without any great difficulty, 1 think may be dis-
cussed hereafter, and may not unsatisfactorily be dealt with
in detail. I may pass the collateral extensions—l mean the
exceptional franchises, as those on education or the posses-
sion of .£5O in the funds and savings banks—in which
there, for some reason, has been an extension of the quali-
fication without any discussion now of the principle; but
I cannot pass the subject without a single remark, that if
I fully believe that they are proposed by the right hon.
gentleman in good faith, I must decline to accept• his
figures. (Hear, hear.) Whatever may bo said on the
character of these franchises, I cannot help looking on the
numbers estimated as visionary, as so many men in buck-
ram. The vital and central point is the borough franchise,
and to that I will confine the remarks which I feel myself
called upon to make. The right hon. gentleman has pro-
pounded to us to-night—after a preface in which ho dealt
in general terms, and I think very unexceptionably fur
the most part, with the subject of the British constitu-
tion —a theory which I confess to me is wholly novel :
that the great security of this venerable constitution,
`' which has so long been the glory of England and the ad-
miration of the world," if I may be permitted to borrow
these words, which are really common property, as they end
one or more speeches at every public dinner in the coun-
try—(laughter)--this constitution depends on what the
right hon. gentleman calls the principle of rating. And he
said that the House of Commons last summer by its uner-
ring instinct—(a laugh)—and without knowing it—(laugh-
ter) - established this great principle of rating. (Laughter.)
And why did the House of Commons "take a leap in the
dark," if I may avail myself of a phrase very common last
year, in order to arrive at this blind result? By adopting
the motion made by my friend the member for Galway
(Lord Dunkellin), the effect of which was that the basis of
the franchise ought to be founded on admitting to the con-
stituency any men who were rated to the relief of the poor,
and who paid their rates. (Opposition cheers.) These are
the two columns of the constitution—(laughter)—and theso
two columns of the constitution were built up on the night
when my noble friend succeeded in defeating the Govern-
ment. (Hear, and laughter.) I will venture to assert that
the motion of the member for Galway had no more to do
with the putting out of their places these columns of the
constitution than chalk has to do with cheese. (Laughter.)
The motion of tho member for Galway simply provided
that the pecuniary measure of the franchise should be
founded on rateable value, instead of gross estimated rental.
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) It would be per-
fectly indifferent to that motion whether a man was rated
or not- (hear)—and under the terms of the noble lord I
will undertake to get rid of all personal liability to rating
and all obligation to pay rates. This was not all. This
was distinctly stated in the debate—stated by me at the
commencement—and was admitted and understood by all
who took part in that debate ; and yet the right hon. gen-
tleman has now discovered that which was contrary to the
sense of every person who paid attention to the matter
then in hand—the right hon. gentleman has discovered
that the House of Commons, without its own know-
ledge by "unerring instinct," was led to make an affirma-
tion that it did not understand, and that we did not un-
derstand, on the great principles of the British Constitu-
tion. (Laughter.) The truth is, this is a very grave
question ; it is a question which involves a great deal of
dry detail, but upon this question depends the entire plan
of the right hon. gentleman. He says that he is going to
enfranchise 237,000 persons who are rated to the poor, and
who pay their rates, and he insists upon taking the gross
numbers in each class, quite irrespective of the fact that
some, whom these numbers include, are upon the register
already; that others, whom these numbers include, cannot
possibly got upon the register, because they have not been
rated the requisite time; and that others again, whom
they include, aro naturally and ordinarily, on account of
poverty, excused from payment of rates. The right hon.
gentleman has certainly shown great tact in marching out
on paper his army of 237,000 men. They include a large
number of freemen.

Mr. BRIG lIT -26,000.

Mr. GLADSTONE—And a very large number of per-
sons in that class of life who cannot be registered on ac-
count of the rapidity of their migration, therefore making
the residences more restricted to that class than to those
above them. I will venture to say those 237,000 do not,
in fact, amount to 140,000 when we have reduced the gross
number to the nett. When you recollect the difference be-
tween the 641,000 on the register and rated under £lO, and
the 450,1200 who are actually on the register, you must at
once perceive my meaning. An enfranchising of about
130,000 persons is the real, certain, and immediate effect of
the plan of the right hon. gentleman ; but is the effect only
eo lung as the plan of the right hon, gentleman occupies the
foundation of what he considers to ho the British consti-
tution. I was astounded when I heard the right hon.
gentleman walk down bodily from the pedestal on which
he had set himself, and deal with the case of the compound
householder. He said the compound householder was
as good a men as anybody else, that he was equally
comi_etent to enjoy the franchise and to fulfil its
duties, and that it was not the fault of the compound
householder, but the fault of the community among which
he lived, that deprived him of the position for which ho
paid his rates. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, seys the right
hon. gentleman, we will give the compound householder
ever facility, and he bodily proceeded to place upon his list
of enfranchised citizens the 486,000 who do not pay rates,
and who come under the description of compound house-
holders. (Hear, hear.) If that be right, where is the
principle of the British constitution ? (A. laugh.) What
is the value of rating, and what is the privilege of the man
who discharges the duties of a citizen, when they set up
these ratepayers, and still say that those who are not rate-
payers ought just as much to be enfranchised? (No, no.)
Several gentlemen opposite say "No." (Hear, hear.) If
they will give me a little time, I am coming to their way
of thinking - (hear, hear)—and to their mode of construing
the speech of the right hon. gentleman. I have followed
him through two phases of that speech—the first, in which
he describes this principle of rating as the basis of the
British constitution ; and the second, in which he
humanely takes up the cudgels on behalf of the compound
householder, who, he says, is as good a man as anybody
else, and to whom a vete ought to be given. I will now
endeavour to make an approximate estimate of the plan,
though on some parts of it I am afraid there will be diffi-

culty in construing it, even when we get the bill to mor-
row morning. The compound householders are to have
every facility for being registered. The meaning of that
is, that the name of every compound householder, should
be upon the rate-book, and when it is on the rate-book,
and they are in possession of the qualification that others
enjoy, their names should be carried on to the register.
(Hear, hear.) That, in my opinion, is the means of afford-
ing facilities to compound householders. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman says the compound householder
must make a claim, he must insert his name, and he must
pay his rates. (Loud cheers on the Conservative
side.) lam astounded. (Great laughter.) lam astonished
at those gentlemen. (Cheers.) lam surprised at that ma-
nifestation. You say it is the duty of the compound
householder to go and pay to the parish officer the rate
which he has already paid in his rent to the landlord.
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition, and No, no, from the Mi-
nisterial side.) You say that he must. (No, no.) Then you
do not say so. lam very well pleased. (Ironical cheers.)
Then he ought not to pay his rates. What, then, is the
meaning of this provision ? lam afraid the meaning of it
is this. Perhaps it is that the compound householder is to
be fined in respect of the difference of the rate which he is
bound to pay under the landlora's agreement and that
which lie should have to pay as an ordinary ratepayer.
Whether ho does that or not, I know very well, unless the
right hon. gentleman will adopt the perfectly simple method
I have pointed out, and which may be road in the bill of
last year, his plan comes to this : it' comes to bo a double
process, varying absolutely in different towns of the coun-
try as far as black from white, and depending wholly on
the views taken by the local authorities. Has the right
hon. gentleman examined the returns which have been in

his Lands for a week, or may bo a year ? I mean the re-

turns for the borough of Lambeth. He will find in the
parish of Lambeth 5,781 compound occupiers on the Parlia-
mentary register. But go to St. Giles's, Camberwell, and we
find this passage in the Parliamentry blue book, at page 52
—I am afraid ho has not read it carefully— this: That there
are 4,921 tenements above a .£lO rental which are rated to
the owners instead of the occupiers; and that there are at
present only five of such occupiers on the register. Why
is that the case ? Aro the people of St. Giles's, Camber-
well, selfish and indifferent to political privilege, whereas
the people of Lambeth are so animated by the holy fire
of patriotism that 5,781 of them have been to the over-
seers and insisted on taking all the pains of inserting
their names on the register ? Not at all. It is be-
cause a different process is pursued by the local autho-
rities of one parish, and they placed 5,781 on the list of
voters, whereas in the last only five compound house-
holders are so placed. Am I to be told at this time of day,
after all the stages we have passed through—after turning
over and over and over again this question—and after
parting with three colleagues because, forsooth, those col-
leagues were not willing to accept the bill you now propose
—that we are to end in adopting legislation which affects
two-thirds of the whole number of persons about whose
enfranchisement there is a question below .£lO in value—
a system under which it is evident it depends upon the
pure and simple discretion of a parish officer whether a man
is enfranchised or not, as he pleases ? (Cheers.) I think,
when gentlemen see that this is the operation of the pre-
sent system, they will readily follow me, at any rate, to
this conclusion—that this is a matter which it is totally
impossible for us to leave at the discretion and command
of parochial authorities. (Hear, hear.) But is the right
hon. gentleman going to take it out of their discretion ?
Aye? Does the right hon. gentleman mean to provide
that these 5,000 persons shall be put upon the register in
the one parish as they are in the other? If he does, well.
But then it is most important we should know with regard
to the view we are taking, and his speech has thrown no
light on that whatever, because he has not told us whether
these men are—in fact, I think he has told us the con-
trary—to go through the same process themselves of being
fined; because, in point of fact, call it what you like—we
are now speaking in a great measure of the labouring
Clatmea—it is neither mere her less than a fine on the la-

bouring classes—(hear, hear)—if you say to them, " You,
by your arrangement with your landlord, have nothing to
do with rates, because you pay them in your rent ; but you
are to go to the parish officer and claim to be rated ; you
are to go to another parish officer, and see whether there are
any rated due on your premises ; and if there are any due,
you are to render the amount; and then you are to be liable
to bo told by the parish officer—as these people frequently
are told, and as there is a noted case in one of the metro-
politan boroughs —" and then to be told, now you have
made your claim, and when the revising barrister comes
here in November then you may appear before him in sup-
port of it." (Laughter.) Well, sir, I will tell the right
hon. gentleman, in my opinion the mode lie has adopted of
applying the principle of rating is a mode that really can-
not stand. I don't agree with those who think that the
principle of rating is the great bulwark of the constitu-
tion. But I do agree with those who think that if you
proceed to enfranchise all householders—and I don't per-
ctive that the right hon. gentleman has made the smallest
provision to meet the difficulty—l do agree with those who
think that if you enfranchise all householders, you get
into very great difficulty at the lower and of the scale
when you come to deal with that class of householder
who is usually excused his rates. (Hear, hear.) You
then put it into the power of the p•irish officer, who is a
political partisan, who anticipates that 100 or 500 men
are going to vote on the side opposite to his, to allege
their poverty, and obtain an excuse of their rates
—(hear, hear)--thereby disfranchising the men. There
is a cure for that, when you let in the elec-
tion agent, who, aware of the politics of the
parish officer, and determined not to be behind him,
comes down with 500 rates for his 500 men, in triumph,
and reinstates those bribed and contaminated men.
(Cheers.) I did expect to hear from the right hon. gentle-
man some indication that he had made a provision for
dealing with this class of cases; but, instead of indicating
anything of that kind, the right hon. gentleman went on
to make disrespectful remarks on a plan not before the
house, namely, a £5 rating, which he contended had
never been before the house, but which, unless my me-
mory serves me very ill, was proposed by Lord Russell in
1852, when the right hon. gentleman, speaking on Lord
Russell's bill, spoke of it as based on a Serbonian Bog,
though he spoke of it in terms of general approbation.
Ile has now indicated most darkly and mysteriously that
some one has got a plan by means of a rating bill to de-
prive all below a £5 rating of the privilege of paying their
rates, and thus of reducing them to a condition of helotisin
which, he thinks, is perfectly intolerable. The right hon.
gentleman does not appear to be aware of the real history
of the laws which have been passed with reference to per-
sonal liability for rates. It is all very well to say that the
old principle of the borough franchise was that a man
should pay scot and lot. Now, we have contrived to im-
prove at any rate the detail of our social and economical
arrangements. I take it, in that state of society a very
large number of those who paid scot and lot were proprie-
tors of their house. But the great mass now, almost the
entirety of the similar population of our towns, are tenants,
and not proprietors. For half a century Parliament has
been under the conviction that it was much better in the
case of these small holdings and small rates to deal with
the landlords, and not with the tenants. lam addressing
myself to the observations of the right hon. gentleman
when he clothed with a kind of mysterious horror that
somebody proposed that occupiers below £5 might be re-
lieved from liability with respect of rates. But is this the
view Parliament takes of this principle of the British Con-
stitution, shat every man should pay his rates ? Parlia-
ment says this in the Small Tenements Act : " Whereas
the collection of poor's rates and highway rates assessed
upon the occupiers of tenements of small annual value is
expensive, difficult, and frequently impracticable, and it is
expedient to make provision for the better collection of the
same, therefore be it enacted that the owner shall be rated,
Arc." This is the great social reform which the right hon.
gentleman seems to view with horror and dislike, and which
he actually treats as if the application of it to the small
householders of the country was in the nature of a public
wrong. (Hear, hear.) I must own Iso far agree with gen-
tlemen who feel great interest in this subject of personal
rating, that I should regard it as a fortunate circumstance
if the limit of our franchise downward were to cease at
the same point of personal liability to pay rates. I think
there would be some very great advantages in that
arrangement. (Rear, hear.) 1 don't say that it is prac-
tical, but I say there are advantages. First, I believe it is
entirely owing to a dsect in the amount of allowance pro-
posed that the Small Tenements Act does not run much
more generally through the boroughs. Secondly, if we
are all sincere—as I hope we are, and as I believe we are--
in desiring to get something like fixity on this question—
(hear, hear)—it seems that such an arrangement would
greatly contribute to fixity; but this is the very arrange-
ment which the right hon. gentleman gratuitously selected
for his severest condemnation. 1 must ask myself, with
regard to this bill, two questions—first, what the bill is,
and secondly, what the hill would become if we pass into
committee. In the first place, I find in committee there
are three safeguards or securities intended by the bill.
The first relates to residence, the second to rating, and the
third to dual voting. That phrase which the right hon.
gentleman seemed to me with an " unerring instinct"—
, (laughter) —to eschew as long as ever he could, and at last
to pass over with a lightness and delicacy of touch for
which I shall be forced to substitute very much coarser
language. Let me look at the securities ; first of all comes
length of residence. The right hon. gentleman does not
here adopt the terms of the Municipal Act, but an inter-
mediate term, and he adds to that substantially the term
now required by the Parliamentary Registration Act. I
cannot say for myself that I attach the smallest value to
that provision. It will operate in reducing the franchise
to people of property. lam quite willing to admit it is
considered a valuable admission that will operate to reduce
the franchise of the upper classes, but not quite so much
as the lower. 1 presume it is to apply to all ; or is there
to be one above £lO and one below ? (Oh, oh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is tku
same as the proposal of Lord John Russell's bill. It leaves
all existing franchises. The franchises under the Act of
1832 are not touched.

Mr. GLADSTONE —That is the right way to do it, if
it is to be done. I think you are right to preserve exist-
ing rights ; but I must say I think it has the effect of limit-
ing the existing franchises, if not some of the upper as well
as the lower classes of electors. Does not the longer term
of residence limit the number of the electors ? (No, no.)
However, I won't trouble the house more about that, be-
cause, as I was going to say, I only wish to that extent to
enter a protest ;but whore there may be much more sub-
stantial and difficult matters, I do not pretend to say that
that is ono of great consequence, or a matter on which there
are any great and vital questions depending. I now come
to the question of personal rating, and I must say that it
appears to me that the proposition of the right hon. gen-
tleman is fundamentally and essentially wrong. (Hear,
hear.) I can understand that you might remedy in a cer-
tain sense the evils of that proposition by alterations which
would completely nullify it. If you provide that the
456,000 names of compound householders—l include thos3
who occupy under the Small Tenements Act, although 1
believe that is not perfectly correct in law—are to remain
on the register, it would be better to get rid of the rate-
paying distinction altogether. There is no advantage in
adopting a circuitous process for its own sake. But I wish
now to point out what I think a fundamental and incurable
fault in the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, sup-
posing it is intended to be a reality. If it is intended to be
merely a dream, the question must be considered from a
different point of view ; but supposing it to be intended to
be a reality, its effect is this: —'We find existing in this
country laws and practices of many different descriptions,
which have the effect in different modes of limiting the
principle of personal liability to rating. The first of these
modes is by the adoption of the Small Tenements Act,
where the ratepayers of a parish, voting with a very high
plurality of votes—(hear, hear)—can, if they think fit,
bring in the Act, and disfranchise every man who, but for
its introduction, would enjoy the franchise in a direct
manner. (Hear, hear.) I am now going to assume that th 3
right hon. gentleman's distinction between rating and
non-rating is a reality. Then, the first effect of the in-
troduction of that act is to remove from the register every
man who is registered under £6. I will apply that to the
borough of Leeds—a very favourite case for the plan of the
right hon. gentleman—because I believe it. will not be pos-
sible to bring forward any Reform Bill that shall not add
considerably to the constituency of that borough. Upon
that I congratulate my hon. friend near me (Mr. Baines).
There are in that borough 14,600 ratepayers who aro as-
sessed at .£6 and under. Can it bo right that it shall de-
pend upon the will of the vestry—aye, and not of the ves-
try considered as to population, but I say upon the will
exclusively of the propertied classes of the parish—whether
these 14,600 people are to be enfranchised or not? (Hear.)
Then, again, after the Small Tenements Act has been
adopted, it is in the power of the vestry to reject and put
an end to it, and is that the sort of thing to form the basis
of our legislation? IR fact, are we to pass a law with re-
spect to which we aro wholly in the dark, as to whether it
will double the constituency or only add some 100,000, or
120,000, or 130,000 people, and under which it will depend
on the will of local persons, with local interests, and upon
local officers, whether or not household suffrage should bo
established in the land. (Hear, hear.) I protest against that
method of proceeding. (Cheers.) If household suffrage is
to be established by the House of Commons, let it be esta-
blished; but don't let us leave it to the wealthier persons in
each constituency to enfranchise or disenfranchise at their
pleasure, and with reference to circumstances which any
of them may choose to import into it, the decision of the
cases of thousands of their follow-subjects. (Hoar.) That
is one class of persons, and the most important class of per•
sons affected by the provisions of the bill. Again, 1 corn
back to my point. Is your distinction between rating and
non-rating to be a reality or not ? If it is not to be a rea-
lity, say so—do away with the distinction, and let us get
rid of this unnecessary restriction upon the operation of
the constitution ; but if it is to be a reality, don't let us
leave it to depend upon the mere will of local authori-
ties to define what the limits of the constituencies are to be.
(Hear, hear.) There are two other classes--most important
classes. There is a class of to*ns whero special local acts
have been obtained, and where the Smell Tenements Act
is unknown, but where these local acts establish the prin-
, oiple of compoluidiug.for rates upon a vtvy large scale. The

right hon. gentleman is aware that local acts are to be
found establishing compositions for rates on the assessment
of the landlord up to £lO, £l2, £l5, £2O, £3O value; and
even in certain cases, in London particularly, up to £35
value. I asked the right hon. gentleman whether a com-
pound householder paying 20s. a year in direct taxes is to
be permitted to enjoy the second vote—the vote for direct
taxation. He said "Yes," and certainly it would be most
absurd that he should not, presuming that the direct tax
vote is to be law of the land. But what can be more absurd
than this, that recognising his fitness to be made one of
the special class who are to be elected, as it were, the
keepers of the rest of the community, by means of this
second vote ho is put in a position of difficulty in respect to
his household vote, as compared with the man rated at £3
or £4 in a town where there do not happen to be com-
pound householders? There is not a man iu this house
with a more lively fancy than the right hon. gentleman. Is
it possible even for the house to conceive anything more
ludicrous than this ? I will take the borough of Thetford,
whore the bill of the right hon. gentleman would go very
close, indeed, to establishing universal suffrage. This is
just like a great number of boroughs which the right hon.
gentleman is often glad to use to do service in his compa-
risons between county and borough representation. It is
a mere assemblage of villages constituting a rural district.
There is a population of 4,200 people, end there aro 829
male occupiers —that is one in five —very close upon uni-
versal suffrage. If you will carry that proportion through
Ragland, it will give you a constituency of 4,000,000;
and I imagine that will entirely close the mouth of Mr.
Beales. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) These people are the mere
peasantry of the country—l mean those who represent un-
skilled labour—(no, no)—unskilled labour. I don't mean
skilled agricultural labourers—though they aro increasing
iu number, and as the use of agricultural machinery be-
comes more common they must increase; but in the suf-
frage, as far as the borough of Thetford is concerned, they
are unskilled. We may take Wilton and Westbury as
similar examples. If you chess to go into those groups
and clusters of villages—as rural as any in the country—
and emancipate the whole, you will have—l don't say in
committee on this bill, but at an early period—to consider
whether this peasantry in other districts are to be intro-
duced also, and whether that application is to be universal
to the rural and village population. I am not one of those
who believe that the constitution of the country is depen-
dent upon the suffrage, as Lord Derby declared the other
night when he spoke of the destruction of the British con-
stitution. I have a great deal more faith in the constitu-
tion than to believe it depends on a rating franchise, or
even upon exact wisdom. (Hear, hear.) We might make
many serious mistakes, and the strong good sense of this
country would save the constitution. (Hear, hear.) But
that is no reason why weshould make mistakes, and estab-
lish new principles in the dark, as the right hon. gentle-
man said the House of Commons did on the motion of the
noble lord the member for Galway. Before I could accede
to a franchise which is close upon universal suffrage—
which is, as I understand, equivalent in the rural districts,
where the Small Tenements Act is not in operation, to re-
sidential manhood suffrage —I should like to ask myself
whether, with a view to the maintenance of the diversity of
character in the house of Commons of which the right hon.
gentleman speaks with great good souse, I am prepared to en-
dure the application of the principle to the whole county
constituency of the country. There aro, then, these local
Acts to which I have referred, and nothing could be more
preposterous than you should say to the peasant, or the com-
mon hoclman, or day labourer earning Is 6d or 28 a day, "You
shall have the franchise for nothing; your name shall be
placed on the register, and you know nothing about it ;"
and that you should go into the great communities of tht
parishes and boroughs of London, and many other towns,
and actually fine, in time, or in money, -or in both the com-
pound householder—the man whose perfect competency it
is proposed to recognise by putting into his hands the
second vote. (Hear, hear.) The second of these safeguards
is doomed. It may be perfectly possible to make a personal
rating a condition of the suffrage; but the right hon. gen-
tleman has condemned the plan on which it could be
done. But personal rating, as a condition of the
suffrage—the amount of the rating in the country being
regulated partly by pure accident, and the rest either by
the will of the local parochial authorities or by the activity
of political agents, and their literal use of the purses of the
candidates—such provisions as these will not be allowed
by the House of Commons to enter into any bill for the
amendment of the representation of the people. (Cheers.)
Then comes the duality of votes. And here the right lion.
gentlemen has made a moderate computation. He did not
venture on a higher figure than 200,000, though ho
left a broad margin beyond that. The right hon. gentle-
man knows very well that there most be more than
200,000 of those dual votes. And here I have to make a
complaint against her Majesty's Government. Last year
we laboured to the utmost of our ability, and spent hours,
and days, and many of them, with the best aids we could
get, in preparing and throwing into the best form, for
the use of the House of Commons, the best information
our opportunities would enable us to get. And yet we
were proposing the most homely of measures, such as
might easily occur to any person without digging beneath
the surface, and elaborating refined and philosophical
systems like that of the right hon. gentleman. And now
he comes forward with the proposal relating to dual
voting, of all new-fangled schemes the most new-fangled,
and of all innovations the most innovating —(hear, hear)
—and yet he does not deign to lay upon the table any
computation of the number of these dual votes that are to
be created, and are to be put up as arms in the hands of
one part of the community to be used against another.
(Opposition cheers.) The right hon. gentleman does not
deign to supply us with such information— though he has
been so long thinking about it—ever since Lord Derby iu
August last wrote to him that this question must be set-
tled, and not with a niggard hand, he has not given us
scrap of information, except the statement that the num-
ber of dual votes must be beyond 200,000. How much
beyond? (Hear, hear.) Is it 300,000, 400,000, or 500,000 ?
There is no reply. (Cheers and laughter.) I am bound to
say that I do pot suffer so much from the want of a reply
to that question as might be supposed. To this dual voting
of the right hon. gentleman, be the numbers great orsmall,
from this moment I for one record an inflexible hostility.
(Opposition cheers.) We have observed long enough the
language of reserve—(cheers and laughter)—and I would
gladly observe it still, if the proposition of the Govern-
ment were such as to make it compatible with the fulfil-
ment of public obligations. But I have enough faith in the
British spirit of honour, even of those gentlemen who gave
me a sarcastic cheer just now, to believe that I should ill
indeed study the mode of obtaining access to their good
graces if, entertaining the opinion I do of this proposition,
I spoke of it in less unmeasured terms. This dual vote is in
the first place a gigantic engine of fraud that nothing can
control. 1 believe the right hon. gentleman might in
some degree have avoided this pitfall if he had taken the
pains to confine the dual vote to the house tax. If he had
done that we should still be liable to this difficulty, that
many persons to serve a political candidate won ld get the
owners ,of houses whose houses were less than £2O to
pay the house tax. But this might have been limited
to a considerable extent by providing that all the other
rates and taxes to which the man was liable should
be paid on the same scale. But when the right
hon. gentleman comes to the income tax and assessed
taxes, it is equivalent to proclaiming to every man in the
country, with a purse in his pocket, that ho may make
votes on what scale he pleases for 20s. a year. (Cheers.)
A man who chooses to use hair powder must pay 235. 6d.
a year. A man who chooses to hand about, not the body
but the property of some miserable three-legged jade, may,
if he pleases, qualify 365 persons by changing day by day
the ownership of a single horse that cost him perhaps £3
(Loud laughter.) Then there is the income tax. In a
borough where 100 votes aro wanted, a political agent
may make 100 mon sign a requisition to the surveyor of
taxes, saying they were not assessed for income tax, and
asking for the proper papers. The surveyor has no option,
for I presume you aro not going to put upon him the duty
of ascertaining whether the persons ought to be assessed,
though that would be quite as reasonable as some of the
right hon. gentleman's propositions. (Laughter.) At any
rate, it is not included in his present bill. The 100 papers
go to, the political agent, and he fills them up—say he
writes under Schedule D, " Turkish Guaranteed Stock"—
(laughter) —he takes them round and they are signed, and
the operation is complete. Thus votes are made by these
false schedules, and it is impossible to prevent wholesale
fraud in the use of the tax. But perhaps the right
hon. gentleman will say—he is merciless in making
the past errors of other men do duty for his pre-
sent purposes—that in 1854 we proposed some such plan.
That is quite true, and that was proposed on account of
the plausible appearance which they bore in our eyes,
and which they still boar in the eyes of the right hon.
gentleman, and he will not suppose that I mean to say
he wishes deliberately to bring about a great system of
fraud. But when we had contemplated these measures,
and saw what they would come to, we did not propose
them in 1860 or 1866. (Heat, hear.) And having thus deli-
berately rejected thorn, it is no wonder that we should be
ready to criticise them when they appear in the bill of the
right hon. gentleman. And besides being a gigantic engine
of frauds, this dual vote is a great deal more. It is a pro-
clamation of a war of classes—(Opposition cheers)—it is
the first measure in the war of classes. Talk of the Bri-
tish constitution—the author of this dual vote is the man
who strikes at the British constitution ! (Cheers.) The
British constitution rests, and has rested from time imme-
morial upon the mutual goodwill, respect, and good feeling
of the people; upon the equality which they enjoyed in
the eye of the law ; upon the manner in which they mat
in their public assemblages, reckoned as man and citi-
zens, and enjoying equal privileges iu that capacity.
But the day when :you place in the hands of the rich
man, under the notion of fortifying his position, this
weapon to use against his poorer fellow-countryman,
that day you seal the doom of the old British constitution
—(cheers)—that day you sow seeds of dissension that can
never abate—that day you destroy the confidence that
unites all classes of the community. (Re-
newed cheering.) If you could promulgate this mea-
sure to-morrow as an Act of Parliament in the
terms of the bill the right honourable gentleman now
holds in his hands, you would light up a flame the most
dangerous and forraiclaDle that has over menaced the

safety of the empire. (Loud cheers.) There are certain
questions still in reserve, and we must wait to see what
those propositions are with regard to the sacred principle
of rating, and whether it is really to be applied in a limited
manner, or whether the whole 700,000 aro to be enfran-
chised. But I must observe one very extraordinary omis-
sion in the bill. The right lion. gentleman, in an admir-
able passage which I promise to look up and quote at some
future day, laid down far better than I could do it the
principle of the lolger franchise. lam ashamed to tread
the ground he has trodden, and to spoil, by an imperfect
and unscientific characterisation, his account of that prin-
ciple ; but the substance of what he said was, that the
existence of a class of lodgers is a necessity of modern
civilisation. You have in every great town, and especially
in London, owing to the extremely high cost of space, and
consequently the high rent of rate, a vast multitude of
men living as lodgers. They have the same claims as
householders in the country, the same character, the same
capacity, the same willingness to pay the rates—the fourth
of the cardinal virtues —(laughter) —and you have
them in numbers of 10.000, 20,000, and 50,000.
But the right hon. gentleman has completely passed by
them, and there is no provision for them except the
provision with regard to the savings banks. I never
heard that lodgers were particularly given to putting
money into savings banks. If they are, it seems to
show that they are all mm fit to be enfranchised, and I
should like to enfranchise them ; but the franchise re-
lating to savings banks would do no more for them than
other men. But unfortunately it is perfectly well known
that a very small proportion of those skilled artisans are
to be found amongst savings bank depositors. Therefore
what I find in this bill is this: I find that the safeguard of
long residence—l use the term conventionally—is prac-
tically of small account; and I find that the safeguard of
liability to pay rates cannot possibly be accepted by this
house after it has become aware of the nature and particu-
lars of the operation of the law respecting rating in this
country. I presume, therefore, that these limitations must
go--that the dual voting must go. (Hear, hear, and
cheers.) The right hon. gentleman knows as well as Ido
that dual voting is dead already. (Renewed cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman required to muster and pluck up
his courage in order to. speak out—(laughter)—but it
was a great effort—(Ministerial cheers)—for a man to
propose to the House of Commons that which he must
know in his own mind was as completely gone as if it had
boon a proposal of Lord Strafford in the time of Charles
I. (Hear, hear.) Well, the dual vote is gone ; the lodger
franchise is coming ; and behind the lodger franchise come
the broad consequences which must follow from enfran-
ehisement of the peasantry in what you choose to call bo-
roughs, but which are little towns. Sir, that is a very exten-
sive change. It may be that the bill does not contain provi-
sions for such a change ; but, so far as we can see, it looks
as if it would assume that form. I am convinced that these
safeguards must go, and I am confident that the lodger
franchise must come in. Ido not hesitate to say that it is
generous on the part of the right hon. gentleman to offer
such a bill to hon. gentlemen ou this side of the house. It
has been said that it will be highly favourable to them ;
and if it be his object to confer upon them a large boon,
and to increase the borough representation, I do not mean
to say that he will not accomplish that end. But there are
other questions than those of the interests of party.
(Cheers.) I have not said a word since we quitted office in
defence of the course which we pursued last year. The
right hon. gentleman said we proceeded last year avowedly
upon an expedient. Avowedly we did nothing of the kind.
(Cheers.) He is at perfect liberty to call it expedient if he
likes, but I don't call it expedient. I call it principle, and
our principle was this—to enfranchise the skilled labour
of the country. We have been told again from the
opposite side of the value of the principle of selection.
The last testimony to the principle which I have seen
was the remarkable letter from the noble lord the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Con-
servative working men of Huddersfield, in which he
said that the best of the working classes ought to be ad-
mitted to the franchise. Certainly, sir, I shall not be a
little curious to hoar the noble lord when he comes down
here and officially recommends a bill drawn in contempt
of the principle which he himself so recently approved—
(cheers)•-a bill which utterly ignores all selection of the
working classes, which excludes a vast number of the most
instructed and skilled of the working classes —(cheers)—
and which, when it admits any of them, admits along with
them the poorest., the least instructed, the least skilled,
and the most dependent members of the community.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I have thought it fair to speak of the
bill as I have done. The gravity of the question is much
too great for me to presume to decide upon it at once. So
large a proposition as this bill would be, if the pretended
safeguards—l do not mean to say that the Government do
not believe in their sufficiency—but if they fall away, the
propositions will certainly require some consideration be-
fore I, for one, can make up my mind upon them. With
regard to the proposition in its limited form—in its dis-
tinction between rating and non-rating, and the shutting
out of men because their houses are compounded for, and
because of their living in communities which have availed
themselves of the great social improvement promoted by
Parliament for the last fifty years -- to that proposition I am
inflexibly and utterly opposed. With regard to the general
plans and proposals of the right hon. gentleman, he will
acknowledge that they require time for consideration, and
that it is impossible for us now to judge in what measure
to deal with them as a whole. But to that ono which, if
the right hon. gentleman means to make rating a distinct
reality, is next most important, namely, dual voting, to that
prop • osel lem inflexibly opposed. (Hear, hear.) I confess I
think that it is quite impossible under any circumstances
that any proposal like that, or any proposal conceived in
such a spirit, can by any possibility obtain the sanction of
the House of Commons. (The right hon. gentleman re-
sumed his seat amid loud cheers.)
Sir W. lIEATHCOTE reserved to himself the liberty
of forming a judgment on the bill at a future stage, but at
present his impression was unfavourable.
Sir G. BOWYER animadverted on the captious and
bitter tone of Mr. Gladstone's speech, which led him to
believe there was no chance of passing a bill this session,
and deprecated any further attempt to make the question a
party stalking-horse. He defended rating as the constitu-
tional foundation of every franchise, condemned the' dual
voting, and was of opinion that the proper solution of re-
distribution was to increase the number of members.
Mr. LOWE warned the supporters of the bill that, so
far from having touched sound ground in household suf-
frage, they had lighted on a quicksand which would bo no
safeguard against further downward progress. In fact, the
present suffrage was household, with the limit or safe-
guard of £lO rental, and a personal payment of rates would
not be found so stable even as £lO rental, for it would be
attended with more personal annoyances to the voters,
and they would be the more anxious to sweep it
away. if the compoun el householders were in-
tended to have votes, all this machinery ought to be
swept away ; if not, the change would dfffor little
Irons a £0 rental. Mr. Gladstone's proposal, that
the franchise should bo brought down to meet the point
where personal payment of rates ceased,Mr. Lowe thought
worth the consideration of the house ; but expressed the
strongest repugnance for the dual vote, which was founded
on the fallacy that the taxing power was the chief function
of the House of Commons, was insulting to those who were
to be admitted to the franchise, and would create such gla-
ring inequalities that a fresh agitation must immediately
follow. Whatever was done ought to be done freely and
frankly, and the house ought-to be told by the Government
whether they considered this a vital part of the bill.
Mr. HENLEY felt rather disheartened by the tone the
discussion was taking. He decidedly approved the pro-
posal of the bill to connect the vote with payment of rates,
and had no doubt that the difficulties as to the compound
householders might be easily Bottled in committee if both
sides would set their shoulders to the wheel with a firm
determination to settle the'question. The figure of £l5 for
the counties, approaching closely to the house-tax, mot his
views, but the dual vote he regarded as a piece of uemiti-
gated mischief, which was unnecessary, because the people
who were to come in would be as much divided as any
other class in opinions.
Mr. ROEBUCK saw no difficulty in arranging all the
objections taken by Mr. Gladstone on the ratepaying parr
of the scheme in committee, and, animadverting on Mr.
Gladstone's speech, hinted that the main motive for those
objections was a mere party fooling. The dual vote, of
course, was impossible, but evidently not a vital point.
He urged tho house to bear in mind that if this bill were
rejected, and the Government thrown out (for he did not
beliieve in a dissolution), a dead lock would follow, and he
advised it to road the bill a second time and deal with it in
committee.

Mr. B. HOPE made some sarcastic observations on the
spectacle of a Conservative Government outbidding Libe-
rals in a Liberal market, and denounced the bill as a two-
faced business, which might prove so restrictive that it
would take away with ono hand what it seemed to give with
the other, or else would entail household suffrage in a
most dangerous form.

Mr. B. JOHNSTONE supported the main features of
bill, excepting the dual vote, and spoke in a sanguine tone
of the prospects of a speedy settlement., which he greatly
desired, as until it came to pass we never could again be a
united people.
Mr. C. BUXTON intimated that he should take an op-
portunity of asking the opinion of the house on cumulative
voting.
Mr. SANDFORD, having expressed an opinion that the
bill was inconsistent with the Resolutions, and that the
d nal voting was illusory, sharply attacked Sir J. Pakington
for his recent speech at Droitwich, and asserted that the
Cabinet had not considered a Reform Bill a week before
Parliament met.
Mr. B. OSBORNE exhorted thehouse not to give way to
party spirit, which would strangle the last chance of pass-
ing a Reform Bill this session, nor to be too precipitate in
condemning a measure which it had never seen. He hoped
there would be no repetition of the mistakes of 1859, but
that the bill would be read a second time and dealt with in
committee. On the merits of the bill he expressed himself
decidedly opposed to the dual vote and the redistribution
scheme.
Lord CRANBORNE, alluding to a remark of Mr.
Osborne, asserted that the house had a right to know what
wore held to be vital points, particularly as this was a bill
of checks and compensations, and he did not believe that

his late colleagues were the men to pass this bill entirely
without compensations. But of the two compensations it
proposed —dual voting and personal payment of rates—the
first would not only be utterly ineffective, but it was so
unpalatable that it had no chance of acceptance; and `the
second was certain to be swept away by the very first Par-
liament elected under it. By tracing the practical opera-
tion of the security, he showed that the cost to each
compound householder for getting his name on the Ito-
gister would be about ss. a year, and here he predicted
the corrupt machinery of the electioneering agents would
come in. lie showed, too, how unequally it would work
in the boroughs (98 iu number) to which the Small Tene-
ments Act was only partially applied, and from all
this ho concluded that the security would bo swept away
immediately, and household suffrage pure and simple would
be the result; and this, ho nytint.t.ineff, after their conduct
last year, the Conservative party ought not to be the per-
sons to pass. If the party accepted the bill they would be
committing political suicide, but he hoped th, moderato
party on both sides would retain sufficient influence to
secure that, while skilled artisans were introduced into the
electoral body in fair numbers existing interests w.,uld
not be subverted.

The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER made an
animated reply, attacking Mr. Gladstone for his inconsis-
tency, defending the accuracy of his figures, and asserting
that it was a calumny on the working man to assume that
ho would resent the connexion of the constitutional obli-
gation to pay rates with the political privilege of voting
Replying to the observation of Lord Cranborne, he de-
clared with much emphasis that the Government would
never introduce household suffrage pure and simple, and
he urged the house not to listen to what he hinted was the
object of Mr. Gladstone's elaborately prepared speech
rejection of the bill before its second reading. speech—the

Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it Wits
subsequently read a first time.
The Criminal Lunatics Bill passed through committee.
The Mutiny Bill was read a second time.
A long discussion on Mr. Leeman's Sale and Purchase of
Shares Bill detained the house until a late hour. A motion
by Mr. thenfell to refer it to a select committee was nega-
tived without a division, but in committee motions to re-
port progress were renewed so frequently that Mr. Leeman
was compelled to give way, and fix the further progress of
the bill for Tuesday. _ _

The house adjourned at 20 minutes past one o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

COLCHESTER-411nm 16.
This market was poorly supplied with wheat, but busi-
ness was better, and the prices of last week advanced fully
ls. per qr. Spring corn of all descriptions was limited iu
sale at late rates.
Wheat, white Ca 70s) Beane, 81azagan.,....33s 408
red ..62s 67s Middle and sinall. 444 488
Harley .. .. Us 56s Peas, white 383 424
Oats .. —a -a 1 grey ..303 428

•
NORTHAMPTON-11"mm 16.
Now white wheat, 58s to 655; new red, 46s to 64s ; old
white, 62s to 68s; old red, 61s to 66s per 36 stone. Barley
for malting, 42s to 51s per qr. ; grinding, 29s to 36s per 30
stone. Oats, old, 26s to 33s ; new, 23s to 32s per 24 stow,.
Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 42s to 45s per 38 stone. Peas,
38s to 42s per 36 stone.

CHELMSFORD—MAncu 15.
A very fair supply of wheat. For all qualities th°
full prices of last week were given,' best qualities making a
slight advance in some instances. Barley receded is on
late currencies. Beans and peas in good demand at late
rates.
Wheat, old white....s2s 664 Peas, Partridge ...... 41s 435
new .1).8 673 White ...•328 365
old red SO sis B.iling ........ - 8 „,
new. s)s 5Ss Dun.... ..... —.388 "'
Barley... 26s 33s —a
dit o, new....--8 ~5,
Chevalier - n —s Beans, Tick, 01d......40i3 'x,
Grind.ng ,5s 30s new....38s IA2:
Malt 58s tOa Harrow 1 icks.42s --
Chevalier 6•is 62a
Oats •• • 2la 27s Mazsgannew.......• ..4:i IS)); 4443:

GIIANTHAM-31,mm 16.
Old white wheat, 65s to 725; old red, 60s to 68s ; nevi
white, 68s to 718; new red, 56s to 64s per 36 stone. Bar.'
ley for malting, 38s to 455 per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 34s pe,':
30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s per
stone. Beans, old, 42s to 525; new, 39s to 46s per 36 stone•
Peas, 35s to 40s per 36 stone.

ABERDEEN—MARCH 15.
A' our market to-day wheat was in fair supplY
m, 3nd
the trade rather slack. No quotable alteration fro last
week's terms.

White wheat
Red wheat 45s Od to 48s 04
54s Od to 58s Od 621 b bushel.
Potato oats 24s Od to 26s Odl 401 b 111 bushel.
Common oats 23s 6d to 25s Od
Bore 31s Od to 32s 6d 5316 bushel.
?

Barley 32s Od to 33s Od