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

SCOTCH REFOR3I BILL.

Mr. BOUVERIE asked whether members would be in
possession of a copy of the bill?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was anxious that the committee should define the meaning
of the word " house," as there was a clause in the Scotch
bill which deuended upon it. He thought the committee
would most probably decide the matter that evening.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
The debate was resumed on the question that the
words proposed by Mr. Wetkin, "provided that no tene-
ment shall be 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. PEASE thought that the proposal of the hon.
member for Stockport would fall short of the object he
intended, and therefore he had taken the liberty of
making certain additions to it, when he thought it
would have the desired effect. Ile proposed to add
at end of Mr. Wa.tkin's amendment the following words :
—" And the said two rooms shall not together contain less
than one thousand six hundred cubic feet of space, and
that no room or rooms shall be considered a lodging fur
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 measurement 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. M'LAREN 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. HODGKINSON 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 were intended to
interfere with the Parliamentary franchise, that their
operation was anything but beneficial, and that their aboli-
tion would put all classes 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 simpliciter, 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 desired to retain them. For his
own Fart, he preferred tiro 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 a.ioption of household suffrage attended with restric-
tions of a nature the most unjust and vexatious, and cer-
taiu to lead to a prolonged agitation out of doors. Against i
the ne,pulities in the franchise established by the bill, he
and those who formed with him the minority in the two
recent divisions must continuo 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-
stances, consider illegitimate, but to the mischiefs of
which he was not blind. Looking to these circumstances,
he 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 au extension of the fran
chise, which he (Mr. Gladstone) and those who thought

with him considered limited, unequal, equivocal, and dan-

gerous, as leading to conuption— 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. (Hear, 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
lesser 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 Nye may fairly_call the
intelligent public of the country, without distioctionlof
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, bear) —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. (Hoar, 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 hive

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 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 contrary, 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 cannot 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, boar," with mur-
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, hoar.")
Sir G. BOWYER—No.
Mr. GLADSTONE—My hon. friend the member for
Dundalk must not put an exaggerated meaning upcn my
words. (Hear, bear, and laughter.) Ido not mean to say
that the whole functions of Government aro 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 meet 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 hon. friend may contemplate with satisfaction,
it is yet ono 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 pi inciple
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 wo
have stood. It is the only mode in which we can depart
from the ground with honour and propriety. So far as 1
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 that I 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 poinyd 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 best 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
actin, and would alone prove satisfactory as a solution of
difficulties long connected with the question. And I will
observe that those who ars 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 ought not be exercised without some principle of selec-
tion, and they must acknowledge that if this is not intro-
duced as an 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 Roniuli against the influence of which wo 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, is an absurdly inconsistent position. (Cheers.) Those
who think it is wise and desirable that the franchise
should be established upon the principle of value aro 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 in the principle of the pro-
positions which were brought before them, and that there
was nothing in those propositions around which the sense
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 present time. Her Majesty's Government,
when they undertook this great duty, determined to found
a policy which they could recommend rpon a principle,
and they had the greatest confidence in that principle.
They believed that, discarding this fluctuating and uncer-
tain orieeiras of valna anti falrina, crimaral enrirlitinn

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 ho is rated to the financial
arrangements of the community of which he is it 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. Tho 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 boon de-
rided. I think there must bo something in the payment of

rates, in the sense of duty which it developes, in the public
duties connected with it, in the exercise and discipline of
the mind under it ; and the common sense of the country