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

of the Government was to inflict on the compound house- '
holder below the limit of .£l.O a fine before he could qualify
as an elector. This is the principle upOn which the right
hon. gentleman proposes to stand. The right hon. gentle-
man cannot endure any portion of the amendments pro-
posed by me. He finds them intolerable, one and all. They
must stop the bill, and entail all those public calamities
and disasters which have been so skilfully drawn in vague
outline by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his satel-
lites, and which have been employed to act upon the
public mind. He, however, is
_ready to entertain the
proposal of my hon. friend the member for Oldham, and
endeavour to make some conciliatory arrangement. But
the meaning of the hon. member for Oldham cannot be
mistaken. His meaning with regard to the personal pay-
ment of rates is precisely the same as mine. (Hear, hear.)
He wishes to place the compound householder on the same
footing forevery practical purpose as the rate-paying house-
holder. He does not intend to allow arbitrary barriers and
inequalities made by Parliament to stand between the man
whom Parliament declares to be qualified for the franchise
and the enjoyment of his rights, and he is not the man to
bo put off with fair words. His object is the same as mine,
which the Chancellor of the Excheqier has declared—l
hope not irrevocably declared—to be wholly inconsistent
with the views of duty of the Government. I object alto-
gether to the clause proposed by the light hon. gentleman.
I admit it gets rid of certain difficulties, because it may be
more difficult to employ a registration agent for the pur-
pose of creating a mass of compounders into ratepaying
householders than it would be to employ him for qualify-
ing them as compounders, by paying the difference of the
rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says to the com-
pound householders, " I have no spite towards you what-
etovevro.tel, amperfectly
utt willing you should vote ; but, in order
cease
to be a compound householder."
But three-fourths of the populatiou under £lO have come
into the condition of compound householders from social
and economical considerations. Is that the way in which
we are to legislate ? Are we really to punish these occu-
piers preliminary to their getting the franchise ? How
(Hear, hear.)
any
yusation ?
idea of what an
shouldaspectHas
t h
this Chancellor
VIII sc vr
Carry
yso,endpassed,
h ue r
Ee
xs chohef
qcaul
aepsre os e
Impos-
ing a fine, and, where not it fine, imposing difficulty, labour,
loss of time—which is lose of money —upon our humbler
fellow-subjects, which we ourselves would not endure ; and
why is this punishment? I say, if Parliament wishes to piss
a limited suffrage, let us limit it manfully and openly, and
let the people know what we mean. (Cheers.) Do not
let us send forth to the country a two-faced bill, with a
face for Toryism and a face for democracy, and vainly
hope and expect we can induce one set of beholders to
worship the image from one point of the compass, and
another set to worship with equal fidelity from another
point of the compass. (Hear.) The worthier course will
be for the Government to amend their proposal while there
is yet time ; but whether they amend it or not, it is not a
course worthy of Parliament to entertain it. It is our duty
in this eleventh hour of the reform question to deal can-
didly and straightforwardly with the people of England.
If we think it expedient to limit the suffrage, let it be
done, and let us say so, leaving the people to judge can-
didly of our acts; but do not let us adopt provisions the
effect of which is to convert even a boon into an offence,
from the nature of the conditions with which it is acco.n-
panied. They inflict a wrong upon a portion of the com-
munity, which wrong will inevitably avenge upon itself the
community
at large in the shape of trouble, strife, and con-
troversy, by renewed, continued agitation—agitation to be
begun from the day when such a law takes its place upon
the statute book, never to cease till the last vestige of such
senseless legislation becomes an idle remnant of the past.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving,
in page 2, line 3, to insert " whether he or his landlord be
rated to the relief of thepoor."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, declining to follow Mr.
Gladstone through his discursive speech, addressed, he in-
sinuated, more to the eauntry than to the house, and con-
fining himself to the amendment before the house, pointed
out that personal rating was already a necessary condition
of the suffrage under the Reform Act, and argued that the
Compound Householders Act never contemplated an inter-
ference with the franchise, and had, in fact, nothing what-
ever to do with it. The difficulties of those acts could easily
be got over. The test of stability and respectability the
bill proposed was based on an old principle, was strongly
recommended by Lord Grey's committee, and had been
sanctioned by Mr. Gladstone himself in 1852, 1851, and
1860.
Sir E. BULLER maintained that the principle of the
bill was household garage, tempered by certain limita-
tions, and expressed his disappointment that Mr. Disraeli,
after his professions of conciliation, should insist on one
kind of limitation rather than another, at all risks. He
strongly condemned the principle of personal rating, urging
that it would open the door to endless corruption.

The O'DONOGIME reflected with some acrimony on
the conduct of the Tories in regard to Reform, insisting
that they were still tie enemies of the enfranchisement of
the people, as was proved by this bill. The personal pay-
ment of rates Nyasa barrier which few could ever get over,
and the bill altogAher was an evasion of the popular de-
mand.

Mr. KENDALL, though regretting that the Govora-
ment had decided to deal with Reform at all, had made up
his mind to support the bill and to go down to household
suffrage if necessary, and hinted broadly that much of the
opposition from the other side was prompted by a fear that
the bill would admit a largo .body of sensible Conservative

preference for the latter as containingfranchise,
working men.
eminently unsatisfactory ; it was at
Sir W. HEATHCOTE discussed the amendment pre-
senting an alternative between household suffrage, with
limitation of personal rating, and a £5 ratin,g
and e
more of the elements of a permanent settlement. he
Governmentxpressedßihniswas
once niggardly and slavish, timid, and rash, and he re-
gretted that the Government had unnecessarily pinned its
existence on this particular provision of personal pay-
ment of the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor ofth
Exchequer; he concluded by expressing a hope that the
house would pass the amendment and the Government
would accept it.
Mr. HENLEY said the true way to meet the arguments
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to taunt him
and those who sit with him, as the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) did. That may be a ready
way to hcax people outside, but not the House. (Cheers.)
It is said the amendment presents a clear and definite
issue, but if ever there was an amendment less definite
and less capable of being treated as definite than another,
it is this. The hon. member for the University of Oxford
(Sir W. Heathcote) says he will take it because something
else is to follow —a limit to the franhise. The hon. and
learned member for Exeter says,l " want an extension
and lowering of the franchise, and this bill won't give me
that;" and he supports the amendment because without it
the bill would not extend or lower the franchise enough.
They support it for exactly contrary reasons. (Cheers.)
We ought to have had before us the question whether the
franchise is to be limited by a hard and fast line, or open
to all who will qualify themselves to exercise it. (Cheers )
But that is not raised by the amendment. We are there-
fore placed in a difficulty. If a limit is not fixed, the
amendment is of no consequence; but if it fixes a limit, it
would be fatal to the bill. This amendment has been framed
evidently to catch votes. (Cheers.) Those who want fixed
limits, and those who want household suffrage, pure and
simple, will vote for it alike. The hon. member for Exeter,
who says he is fur household suffrage, pure and simple,
gives it as his opinion—a Liberal opinion—that the per-
sons we want to enfranchise will nevereieek the franchise
for themselves. We are told everybody wants it. (Laugh-
ter and cheers.) And he says if they get it the landlord or
the candidate will have to pay for it. (Cheers.) The hon.
and learned gentleman said payment of rates was never the
ancient practice of this country. Scot and lot did not de-
pend on acts of Parliament, but the people were rated and
paid their rates. In 1832 a class of gentlemen called Re-
formers made it more definite, and the principle has been
recognised uninterruptedly till last year, when the right
hen. gentleman the member for South Lancashire omitted
the matter of rating in his bill. (Cheers.) A great
deal has been said about evasion. The issue presented
by the amendment is not free from evasion, and the
right honourable gentleman on the front bench (Mr.
Gladstone), while he gave a formidable array of figures as
to how many would be on the rate-book and how many
would not, evaded the question of how many might get on
if they liked. (Cheers.) But that is the question. The only
figure named is £5. The Small Tenements Act touches £6.
The only numbers who will be " floating"—who will be
able to choose whether they will come in or not—will be
those between £5 and £6. If you fix the hard limit of
£5, you absolutely shut out all below. Liberal gentlemen
should attend to this. (Loud laughter and cheers.) And
these are the persons who swell the great number the right
hon. gentleman spoke of. (Laughter.) The member for the
University of Oxford argues as he does because he does not
want an extension of the franchise, but it is difficult to
understand how ho and the Liberal gentlemen are agree-
ing together—(cheers)—and all those numbers and figures
are thrown like pieces of dirt into water—to muddle it.
We are told that the rating principle is unfair, because it
will confer great power on the local authorities. But why
won't your £5 hard line do the same ? (Hear, hear.) It is
likely to confer more power in consequence of the provi-
sions of the Small Tenements Act. What is the Local
Tenements Act which the right hon. gentleman praises as
a great social and economical arrangement ? It is nothing
else but a device of Old Nick to oppress the poor. (Laugh-
ter.) Formerly, those who were too poor to pay rates wer3
exempted, but now, however poor and helpless they may
be, they are compellel to pay rates through the landlord,
and just in proportion as an unfortunate man is poor the
landlord demands a higher rent, and screws it out of him.
(Hear,
hear.) If it were swept away, it would be a great
benefit to the poor. The hon. and learned gentleman oppo-
site objects that under this principle pranks will be played
in arranging the rating to enfranchise some and disfran-
chise others. Butit will be more easy to play pranks of that
kind against a definite lino than against a few isolated
people. (Hear.) When you have one line to go against,
you may do a good stroke of business. (Laughter.) You
may put a lot below that line. (Hear, hear.) The
right honourable"gentleman the member for South Lan-
cabin taunts the Chancellor of the Exchequer by asking,