The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, 111 ARCH 27, 1867.

we should not care to go back to, there was no such thing
as a landlord paying rates or compounding for rates. All
occupiers were compelled to pay whatever taxes fell on
them, as inhabitants of the parishes or the boroughs in
which they resided. Now at that time nothing could be
more reasonable or wise than such a system, because,
as the house will see, the only persons left out would be
that extremely poor class whose members were unable
to pay, and who, being unable to take their share in
the public burdens, must bo asked to abstain from
taking part in the right of election. Bat everything is
changed, the parishes are differently managed, the land-
lord has become more important, the tenants a more nume-
rous class, and for the convenience of all three another
and entirely different system has been established, so
convenient and so good in itself that it is spreading to all
parts of the country. It is a voluntary contract, where
the tenant is benefited, where the landlord has no objec-
tion, and where the authorities have likewise an interest
in seeing it carried out. The right hon. gentleman says
ho will make use of this system to work out his plan.
The President of the Poor Law Board says so in words,
tho Chancellor of tho Exchequer in effect, for the
purpose of disentitling two-thirds or three-fourths of
those persons who in the old times would have been ad-
mitted. (Cheers.) Why is it he does this? I forget
the phrase he used, but he referred to the character of
industrious nien, leading an orderly, settled mode of life,
and announced that those who preferred to pay their
taxes indirectly through their landlords aro not to be en-
titled ; that this difference is to be the grand test between
Englishmen entitled to register and Englishmen in whom
the House of Commons have no confidence at all. Could
no other test be found ? Could not some difference be-
tween an agreement to repair or not to repair have been
instituted as well? It would surely have been as good a
test of fitness as that founded on the arrangement whereby
the landlord undertakes to pay the rates of his tenant.
There would be many other tests quite as good as this, and I
most of them worth nothing whatever. I take it that the

man who has a house, who has a wife, children, furniture,
whose life is marked by steady industry from dawn to dusk
almost throughout the year ; who obeys the law, the mon
who need so little of government as the people of this
country—is a thousand times better for a test than any
miserable difference in the amount of poor rate, or the per-
son by whom it is to be paid. (Cheers.) Look at some of
the facts. It is estimated that there are 723,000 male
householders not on the register; and the deduction of 50
per cent. made by the President of the Poor-law Board
would bring it down to 360,000 in any case. The provi-
sion in the bill with respect to personal ratepaying will
limit this to the small amount of 118,000 men. I am not
quoting from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer; I am not quoting the Pre-
sident of the Poor-law Board. The amount to which it is
proposed to extend the franchise will not exceed 118,000
men. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—and here I might draw some contrast between
the speech of the right hon. gentleman and his colleague

—has said that the greatest facilities would be introduced

into the measure to attain the franchise ; but the President
of the Poor-law Board did not hold out the same explana-
tion. In 1851, when the Act 14th and 15th Vict., cap. 14,
was introduced by Sir Wm. Clay, that measure, but for the
introduction of lines, might have been reckoned entirely a
failure. From the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 down
till 1851, the revising barristers, acting upon this view of
the law, refused to pass the names of those to the re-
gister who paid a composition rate. When Sir Wil-
liam Clay introduced his bill, I went to Earl
Russell, at the head of the Government, represent-
ing the grievance, and he said that he did not think that
it was intended by the framers of the Reform Bill to ex-
clude that class, and he recommended me to see Sir W.
Page Wood, then Attorney-General, who, mainly at my
suggestion, drew the last clause of that Act, providingthat
the occupier shall not be bound to pay more than the
amount payable under the composition. Now, the house
can see what a ould be the result of the proposal of this
bill. In Manchester over 4,000 persons were placed on the
register, in accordance with that provision. In Birming-
ham, in Brighton, and in some other towns, considerable
additions have likewise been made. It is easy to transfer
from the rate-book to the register those persons above £lO.
Can there be any more difficulty in dealing with others
when we go lower in the social scale? (Hear.) I ask, there-
fore, and in all sincerity, if the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and his colleagues intend, so far as regards the persons
below £lO, to repeal in principle, and withdraw in fact, the
right which this House of Commons has deliberately given
to persons above £lO. (Hear.) Let him tell us why, when
the bill for the member for South Lancashire proposed to
admit 204,000, this measure will only admit 118,000, This
measure reminds me of a story told by Dr. Livingstone. In
the course of his travels he fell in with a tribe called the
Bechuanas. Now the Bechuanas were stingy to the last
extent, but in their professions loud to the fullest extent
(Laughter.) When the travellers wished to obtain some
food, the Bechuanas said, " Behold an ox," and they found
it was but a miserable goat. (Much laughter.) That, I
think, is not a bud illustration of the professions of the
right hon. gentleman. The real end of his measure is to
establish a franchise equivalent to one of .£B. I believe it
would not be more extensive. If this be so, then why talk
of a household suffrage ? Why should the chief o
a great party talk to the assemblies in St. James's-
square and Downing-street of household suffrage—the
great and generous enfranchisement—when, after all, what
they mean is only tantamount to an £8 rating. If this be
so, call it an £8 bill. Tell the truth, and defend it if you
can. You are about to re-enact the exclusion of 1832
of the working classes. (Oh, oh, and counter cheers.)
The honourable gentleman having referred to the opinion
expressed on the subject of household suffrage said
I believe that the honest and solid basis is that all persons
rated to the same tax should bo admitted to the franchise.
In 1859 in speaking on the bill I had prepared, and I ven-
ture to say in opposition to the character given of the pre-
sent bill by my right hon. friend the member for South
Lancashire—(laughter) -that was the very beet bill—
(laughter)—that
ever was proposed-in speaking on that ;
bill I stated that there was this class which I thought it
would not be any advantage to—the class itself, to the ;
constituencies, or to the public—to admit to the franchise.
I should not have mentioned this subject except to observe '
that the hon. member for Caine, in the preface to a volume
of
l I
sehis
withsldp e
nhe
oci
mht
.ss
yl
fh_wa s(1, ioaniaes cgs
arbt el
toe
_thlir
:_aabeprup aauvitentet
er gr
yvai
rth
wholesale—or
to tatoohtioeht
tivorehi whichemen!yaloerfm—d workingtaaohn he l
sre—aps
llcevarhimlhink
oeoaipne,
sSI
mapal e aedaek )tnhpgli iscoafot theosenr
vocafltai solshni:sat,c,
caret
atwh
wholeoawould
dw lib throughout
ot
advantageous
dhnvciasl
unpolitical
thegseo o
mu
esosocr
boroughspob
eirneinso
einonfisfevai
aetr
lr
very
the
are.-whether wum thehaa elf
constituency
oodenrnsKsitilitntubugeeednnloci
cemy:
eaesct
l
some hundreds in others, a few thousands perhaps in the
largest, of a class of which there are unfortunately too
many among us, namely, the excessively poor—many of
them intemperate, some of them profligate, some of them,
it may be, only unfortunate, some of them naturally incap-
able, but all of them in a condition of dependence such
as to give no reasonable expectation that they would be
able to resist the many temptations which rich and
unscrupulous men would offer them at periods of election,
to give their votes in a manner not only not consistent
with their own opinions and consciences, if they have any
upon the matter, but not consistent with the representa-
tion of the town or city in which they live." Now, I am
prepared to repeat that. (Hear, hear.) I hold that in
every borough with which I have any acquaintance, even
with the £lO franchise, there are a few men whose ab-
sence from the constituency would be an advantage to that
constituency, and, I believe, an advantage to themselves.
(Hear, hear.) But these remarks did not and do not apply
to working men between £lO and £7 rental, but to that
small class at the very bottom of the scale; and therefore
I must say that the member for Caine did me an unfriendly
sort of au act-(laughter)—when he hung up my picture
alongside his own for the observation of the working men.
(Cheers and laughter.) In that bill to which I refer I
made this proposition : that all those persons who were
rated, whether they paid rates themselves or Lot—in all
cases if they paid the rates themselves—and in cases where
the landlord paid a composition rate down to the point of
£4.rental or 1.3 rating, they should find their way to the
rate-book and to the register. (Hear.) Now, I am not
about to say that is the exact limit that should be fixed.
The house may think a £4 rating or a .£5 rental, or even a
.£5 rating, low enough. On a groat question like this,
when you offer to the working men a real and generous
measure, you will not find them—l am sure you will not
find me—intolerant of any reasonable proposition that may
be made. (Cheers.) Now I have never changed from
that view. I hold it now as strongly as I held it then,
and 1 am willing to allow that at this moment I do not
believe there is a majority in this house who are in favour
of household suffrage pure and simple. (Hear, hear.) But
mightt take a
e thiss we could
course of (hawing
allwiu thosega line
wn oioh whichso
ad b
wouldl e
exclude, i e , as far
excluded by their own non-payment, if no such thing as
compound householders existed. (Hear, hear.) And this
seems to me the true policy of the house. If the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would accept some proposition
like this, I do not doubt that we might proceed with this
bill, and so far, at least, as this groat and vital part
of the question is concerned, we might come to some
conclusion during the present session. Now let the
house understand me —you would have the household
basis with limitations corresponding as nearly as you can
got to the ancient limitation of the non-payment of rats,
itnd that, I think, would satisfy the demands of our
ancient constitution, and therefore the mind of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hoar, and a laugh.)
Now, sir, if such a measure as this were passed. I should
hold it to bo a real and generous extension of the frau-
ales ; and I give you my word—whatever it may be worth
—of this, that I believe it would be felt that no class of the
people were intentionally excluded, and that none who
could be expected to be in were shut out. And, if with
these you would admit those who are entitled dwellers in
apartments within the districts of the metropolitan boroughs,
you would at once close tho offices of the Reform League
and give general satisfaction to the whole of the people.
(Cheers.) I have two or three observations on other parts
of the bill, and I will dismiss them in the smallest possible
space, and in a few moments.' I want to put to the right
hon. seutleula mud his colleagues, and to the house, this '

point in regard to the county franchise. 1/1'1859 they
brought in a bill to which I presume most of you were as-
senting parties, with a £lO franchise. In 1860, under the
Government of Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell intro-
duced another bill with a £lO franchise for counties. Last
year the right hon member for South Lancashire —his mo-
deration is now known to all men—(laughter)—introduced
a bill offering a £l4 franchise, to which the house on a
groat division assented. Now, if you are about to lower the
borough franchise considerably, as certainly the house will
do, whatever becomes of this bill, is it not ot vious that the
persons living in the counties —those millions the right hon.
gentleman is always talking to us about—and the people
living in those villages, for whom ho expresses such a strong
affection when it suits him, but for whom he cares little
when they ask for the franchise. What will they say if you
leave them at a £l5 rating, being from £l7 to £2O, when
you are going to bring down the franchise in boroughs to a
rating qualification of .£5 or £6? I say that a settlement of
this kind would be no settlement at all. I say that it is not
a democratic proposition, and I trust the house when we
come to that part of the bill will act courageously and ra-
tionally, and adopt a measure at least as liberal as Lord Pal-
merston—by no means a democratic Minister—adopted in
1860. I will say nothing about voting papers. Everybody
who speaks to me about them says thero could be no more
effective means of corruption, and I could recommend to
the consideration of the house merely this opinion, that this
system would withdraw all the influence of the public eye
without setting up the dominion of conviction or of con-
science. The hon. member for Wiok has stated a most ex-
traordinary fact, but not extraordinary to me, for I have gone
through this schooling many a time with respect to the re-
distribution of seats. Referring to the speech of the hon.
member for King's Lynn last year, he said, when towns
like Birmingham, which has now 15,000 electors, shall
hare 30,000; when Manchester, which now has 34,000
shall have 40,000: and when other constituencies are nearly
double, what will they think of boroughs like Arundel and
Caine? Do you think they will leave those boroughs?
There is also another proposition to which the attention of
the house should be called, that is the proposition to dis-
franchise four boroughs.- Ono is Lancaster, with 2,672
male householders, and another is Yarmouth, with 6,660.
If this bill passes it is clear that in these two boroughs
would be created as nearly as may be an entirely new con-
stituency. It seems to me, therefore, strange that in the
preamble of this bill nothing is said about the disfranchis-
ing of those boioughs that have sent members to Parlia-
ment for 500 years, and there is not a word to indicate the
period at which they were swept away from our represen-
tative system. I wish only to say this, if the house will
bear with me for a moment, that I am as much against cor-
ruption at least as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear,
hear.) It has always been held in this house, since I have
been here, and for a much longer period, that it was a
grave matter to disfranchise any constituency; and I say
that you are cutting off ie Lancaster and in Yarmouth,
not only the population who would come in under this
bill, but their children and their children's children who
would be enfranchised and represented if the clause were
not passed. I say it ought to bo brought into the house
by a special bill; and the question ought to receive
careful discussion and deliberate consideration ; that it
should not be put into a clause of a bill like this, to enable
the right hon. gentleman to give seven more members to
counties than he could otherwise do. Now, sir, 1 have
said to the House what, at this stage of the bill, I think it
is necessary to say. The bill, as a whole, I regard as very
unsatisfactory and as very bad. I think it has marks upon
it of being the product not of the friends, but of the
clever men will will do /then a dozen of them are shut up
enemies of reform. (Hear, hear.) It is wonderful what
in a room. Now, look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Loud laughter.) Why, he is a marvel of cleverness, or
else ho would not hare been for twenty years at the head
of hon. gentlemen o Plxeite to lead them into this—what
shall 1 call it ?—great dillculty at last. (Laughter.) Teke
the right hon. member Who sits next to him, representing
a very Cambridge. Take the president
of tits iiPoor
n-e Law
nivßoearrsdit,y,
,r
ho represents the wisdom, and it
may ba to some extent the prejudices of Oxford.
(Laughter.) Take the right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwitch. (Laughter.) I fear to speak of so potent
a personage. (Laughter,) Why, at this moment he directs
the whole of the armies of the empire. There is not a
soldier who shivers chid the snows of Canada, or who
sweats under the son of India—(cries of " O h")—but shivers
and sweats under the influence of the right hon. gentleman.
(Cheers
High
Lord laughter.)
Admiralughter.)oyff it was only the other day ho
w
hingland. (Laughter) Why,
in metaphor, " his march was on the mountain wave, his
home was on the deep." (Loud laughter.) But all these
gentlemen retire into a
andH i
mysterious apartment in Downing-
street, and they set to work and concoct a Reform Bill,
and with all their capacity it seems to me to come out a
bill marvellously like that which would have been made
by the hon. member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks
Stanhope.) (Loud laughter.) That hon. memborlast uight
gave us an account of his conversion. Anything more
affecting or more truthful there could hardly be in any
class meeting. But he !peke of "we " all the time—what
" we" did, what deterrelestesss " we" had come to. In
thinking over it to-day I have come to tho conclusion that
he is the author of this bill. (Loud laughter.) Now I
complain of this bill, and I don't do it in anger. I hope I
have not said a word to-night which can be considered
anything but fair and just. But I say it is a bill, to nee, in
which, looking at the working class question, there is no-
thing clear, there is nothing generous, there is nothing,
statesmanlike. I believe that if the. house were to proceed
ito pass it there would be universal nissatisfaction through-
out the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe it would aggra-
vate the wounds it is intended to heal. It would leave the
greatest question of our time absolutely
unsolved. (Hear.)
Well, now I am grieved to say this, but it is true. I tell
the house frankly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will believe me when I say there is not a man iu this house
who would be more glad than 1 to give the warmest sup-
port, whatever it may be worth, to a fair and honest mea-
sure on this question. (Cheers.) I regret what hon. gen-
tlemen opposite did, led by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and his • friends, last year. (Hear, hear.) I shall
never cease to regret it, and never cease to blame them—
but still I would help any Government. to bring this ques-
tion to a just conclusion. But, it seems to me impos-
sible to assist a Government which will not tell us frankly
what it intends, what it stands by, what it will get rid of
—which asks us to go into its confidence, and yet is pro-
bably the most reticent Government that ever sat on those
benches. (Hear, hear.) If any gentlemen on this side
were to treat you as you treated us last year, I should de-
nounce them with the strongest language I could use. I
hate the ways, I scorn the purposes, of faction—(" Oh,"
and cheers) —and if I am driven now, or at any stage of
this bill, to oppose the Government, it is because the mea-
sure they have offered to us bears upon its face marks of
deception and disappointment, and because 1 will be no
party to any bill which shall cheat the great body of my
countrymen of the possession of that power he this house
on which they have set their hearts, and which, as I be-
lieve, by the constitution of this country they may most
justly claim. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Sir, ;the
hon. member for Birmingham has commenced his speech
with his usual protest against gentlemen on this side of
the house presuming to deal with the Liberal monopoly.
(Hear, hear.) SG long as the hon. gentleman and his
friends are allowed to remain the only ameliorators of the
condition of the people, then we may receive from the
hon. gentleman all those encouraging remarks which in
his milder moments he knows how to confer upon us. But
I have always protested against this opinion of the hon.
gentleman. I hold that we have a full and constitutional
right, by any means which we think best, to improve
the representation of the people in this House of Com-
mons, and I will assert that right at all times against
the dogmas of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentle-
man tells us to-night that I have brought in a bill on
the part of the Government which is full of false pre-
tences. (Cheers.) He imputes to me statements which I
never made, and opinions which I have never pro-
fessed. But how easy- it is to show the utter fallacy and
want of foundation, on the part of the hon member, for
any statement which he has made in this respect. The
honourable member said, "You made statements which
gave an impression to the house that you were
bringing in a largo amount of franchise for the people."
My statement must be still fresh in the recollection of
the Houle. What did I say? I said, if the measure
which I proposed was passed, if all the persons under the
£lO line were now rated to the poor and paid their
rates, the number of 210,000 would be qualified to avail
themselves of this ()pews
g—(hear)—if they complied with
the constitutional conditions which I expressed. Now,
what happens? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
—(meaning Mr. Gladstone, the right hon. gentleman's
lnpsus causing groat laughter)—l can only say I hope that
is not a prophecy. (Renewed laughter.) The right hon.
gentleman, I have no doubt well informed, having, I am
sure on his part entirely by a misapprehension, im-
puted to me the statement that 240,000 men would be
added to constituencies, will take from me that it is
not the statement which I did make. I said they would be
"qualified." The statement is now adopted by the hon.
member for Birmingham that half of those would be added
to the constituencies. I won't impeach his accuracy. We
will assume that it is true. But how is it that half the
amount is taken irons the 240,000 who will be qualified ?
We know the reason that one moiety are either of a mi-
gratory character or Paupers. We have evidence of that.
I am not speaking of compound householders now ; I am
speaking of those who pay rates, and who would be qualified
by this bill. Does the hon. member for Birmingham wish
this moiety, w— ti
ottronligratory paupers, to have the suffrage
or does he not ? (Cheers.) He knows very well he does
not wish a migratory pauper to be an elector. Well, then,
what becomes of the charge against me, that I am bringing
in a bill which excludes men from the right of voting. It
is utterly shallow. If it is true that you must make these
deductions from the 240,000 who are at present rated to the
poor, why it is equally true that the same deductions must
be made from the great body of the compound householders.
(Hear, hear.) I never hoard anybody dispute that.
The hon. member knows it is perfectly accurate ; ho knows
that the deductions must be even greater. Would ho give
the suffrage to those who would be deducted under those
circumstances and for these causes ? What, then, becomes

' of his charge of this revolutionary measure? It is so treated
one night, and on another night as one of extreme restric-
tion. Why, sir, it is a measure founded upon a popular
and rational principle; it is of general application, without
any restriction whatever; and any person who fulfils the
conditions, which I believe aro entirely approved of by the
great body of the people, may possess and enjoy the suf-
frage. (Hear, hear.) This subject has been very little
discussed, considering the importance of the bill before us,
considering the great attendance that has always been in
the house when any reference to this question has been
made; and it is remarkable how anything like Parlia-
mentary discussion has been, as it were, evaded. When
I asked leave to bring in the bill, what happened? The
right hon. member for South Lancashire rose and delivered
a speech of invective against a measure which ho hal never
even seen. (Cheers.) He founded many of his conclusions
on assumptions which, when he had the bill in his hand, ho
saw had no foundation at all. (Cheers, and oh, oh.) lint if
the right hon. gentleman, on the motion for bringing in
the bill, made a speech which was adapted to the second
reading, when the second reading was moved, instead of
allowing general discussion to take place, the right hon.
gentleman jumps upat once and makes a speech which was
only adapted to committee. (Cheers.) If the course which
the right hon. gentleman indicated last night had been fol-
lowed out the discussion would be ended that evening, and
probably at a very early hour. (Hear, hear.) Is that a pro-
per way to treat a question liko this, when the attendance
of the house has shown how deeply interesting to the house
and the country the subject was, and are these the means
by which to discuss a very important and interesting sub-
ject, and of course very important to the Government which
introduced a measure of this kind, by which alone they can
obtain cognisance of the judgment and opinion of the
house? Is that a fair and proper way to treat the question?
Tho right hon. gentleman said last night, in a very solemn
tone if this were a proposition for the third reading, the
measure involves principles that it would be impossible to

pass. (Hear, hear.) As if that is not the fate of every bill,
if you were on the second reading, and it was to be treated
as though it were the third reading; and as if any Reform
Bill, of all bills in the world, when the second reading was
moved, it could be expected to pass the third reading in
the shape in which it was presented to the house. (Hear,
hear.) This is not a fair criticism. And then the right
hon. gentleman gets up and addresses me in a tone which
is' very unusual in this house—not that I care for any
tone which anybody uses towards me—(laughter)—but
which, coming from any gentleman who useally conducts
the business of the house—(oh, oh, and cheers)—l do
not like. I do not like that the right hon. gentleman op-
posite, divided as we may be, should address me with a
tone and air of a familiar of the inquisition. He puts mo to
the question, and says, "This must be altered, this must
be rejected, this must be amended, and this must be done."
(Opposition cheers.) I can fairly say that I neither wish
to accept conditions from the right hon. gentleman, nor to
offer them; I shall endeavour to treat the house, as I at the
first of this business said her Majesty's Government was
perfectly willing and anxious to do. I never supposed we
could bring a matter like this to any conclusion without
the candid and cordial co-operation of the house. It is
only by discussion that wo become acquainted with the
different views of members, and by mutual concession and
arrangement that any conclusion whatever can be attained.
The right hon. gentleman made yesterday a very stern ap-
peal to me on the subject of the lodger franchise. He said,
"the lodger franchise must be conceded." (Hear, hear.) I
thought that was a very extraordinary tone to address to
one who certainly, on the subject of the lodger franchise,
cannot be supposed to have any great prejudice against it.
I believe I am the father of the lodgerfranchise. (Laughter
and cheers.) I certainly was the first Minister who ever
proposed its adoption to this house. (Hear, hear.) 'We hear
a great deal of abuse of what are called "by-franchises,"
or "special franchises." Wo are obliged to the right hon.
gentleman for giving a decent epithet to describe them,
after the phrase of the hon. member for Birmingham.
(Laughter and cheers.) We hear a good deal against these
special franchises, but I believe the opinion of the majority
of the House of Commons—though it may sometimes jest
about them—is in their favour. (No, no, and cheers.) I
believe the calm opinion of the country is in their favour.
(No, no.) Who is the author and who are the great
patrons of these special franchises ? They emanate not
from me ; they do not come from this bench. They were
suggested by a Whig Prime Minister, a coalition Prime
Minister, and a coalition Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Laughter and cheers.) One of these franchises has re-
commended itself to the ardent sympathies of the people,
but that was never inducted by a Whig or coalition Minis-
ter. It is this very lodger franchise which now, I am told,
must be conceded, as if it were asking me to make an enor-
mous sacrifice. (Laughter.) I have had considerable diffi-
culty on the subject of the lodger franchise—l speak can-
didly to the house. I brought the subject before my col-
leagues, and I do not know that any of them were particu-
larly averse to it; but of course it is inconsistent with a
bill founded on tho principle of rating. (Hear, hear.) That
is a very important consideration, but it is not ono which
may not be overcome. (Cheers.) My colleagues would not
have been prevented by that consideration alone from tak-
ing into consideration the question; but there happens to
be this : They said, " It is inconsistent with our principle ;
we have no prejudices on the • subject—but it is inconsis-
tent." (A laugh.) What there is to laugh at in that I do
not know. It is inconsistent with the rating principle. Iu
1859 several members of the present Cabinet brought for-
ward a lodger franchise ; but the right hon. member for
South Lancashire, the leader of the Opposition, said last
year that the lodger franchise was an insignificant affair,
and would produce but small results. If that is so, what is
the use of our deviating from the principle of our bill ?
(Cheers.) But now we find the lodgerfranchise is the groat
question of the day. (Ministerial cheers and laughter.)
There were 7, or 17, or 27 points—l forget which—of
which we heard last night, and which were mentioned at
some of those meetings of what is called the "mob" of the
House of Commons. (Laughter.) Butthis is put forward as
the great point—the point upon which the fate of the Go-
vernment depends which secretly-prepared resolutions
are to be moved, and upon which we are never to go into
committee. It is a great first clause. The lodger franchise
must be conceded. Well, I dare say if we get into commit-
tee it will be discussed with great candour and calmness
and if a proposition should be brought forward which recom-
mends itself to the house, no doubt the house will adopt it.
(Much laughter.) But, says the right bon. gentleman, in
the second place—and this is most important—. means ,
must be taken to prevent traffic in the lowest class of house-
holders." I should like to know what that moans. I should
like the right hon. gentleman to have been more specific.
Of course we aro all very anxious to prevent traffic among
the lowest class of householders. It would be very expe-
dient if wo could establish some means which would con-
trol the conduct of a higher class of householders. (Hear,
hoar.) But what surprises me most is the assumption of
the right hon. gentleman that the persons to be introduced
into the constituency by this bill are anxious to be bribed.
(Hear, hear, and No, no.) No, says the right hon. gentle-
man. Well, then, a magical line is to be drawn, as if those
wicked vestrymen and cunning electioneering agents would
not soon convert the £1 householder into the £5 house-
holder. If these people are what you assume them to be,
but what I don't believe them to be, this imaginary line
would be, as the great counsell6r of those who profess
manhood suffrage says, a very feeble barrier against demo-
cracy. Some years ago, when the militia was about. to be
restored, the Government of the day determined to estab-
lish the militia on the principle of the ballot. Lord Palmer-
ston opposed it very much, but the Government said, " If
you have the militia, you must have recourse to the bal-
lot." "All those arguments," Lord Palmerston said, "are
irresistible, and all this display of parliamentary force is
very impressive ; but the arguments of my friend rests
upon this assumption, that the people of England cannot
be trusted." And it was upon that issue that he took the
opinion of the House of Commons, and the Government
was changed. (Hear, heat'.) Was he right or wrong?
Why, you have the militia established as a voluntary
principle, and you find that the people of England can be
trusted. (Cheers.) In like manner the remarks of the
right hon. gentlemen the member for South Lancashire
are based on a like assumption. He assumes that every-
body is anxious, and is already prepared to be bribed
(cries of "No, no," and "Hear, hear") -and th it overy gentle-
man who expects to be a member of Parliament is propzr-
ing to be a briber. Lot mo remind the right hon. gentle-
man of the extreme difficulty and cf the extreme cost of
bribery under the bill. Why, it would exhaust all thoso
fabulous resources which have recently been the subject
of investigation by committees of the house, and with the
efforts of which the member for Birmingham so peculiarly
sympathises. I take the 57 boroughs where the Small
Tenements Act is entirely in force. In these the average
number of occupiers is 2,415 ; and are the wicked vestries
or artful electioneering agents likely for two years to pay
their rates? (Cheers and laughter.) Nay, more, if you
take the average existence of Parliaments—three and a
half years—they would have to pay the rates for a longer
period ; and then when they had paid them, what hold
would they have upon the parties ? (Hear, hear.) And yet,
sir, this is the sort of argument that is used—this is the
appeal to the impossible, to show that that which politic
and necessary ought not to be adopted. (Cheers.) The third
measure of the right hon. gentleman was of this nature—
that distinctions between the different classes of rate-paying
householders must be abolished. Well, air, that is a very
serious question, and ought not to be decided in haste. I
very much doubt the policy in a country like England to
attempt by artificial means to obtain anything like a simi-
larity of suffrage at the sacrifice of what I may be permit-
ted to call natural circumstances. The difficulty has been
felt before. A distinction was drawn between the £LO
householders and the new classes proposed to be enfrane
chised in Lord Aberdeen's bill, and that was made, mark
you, when a £6 rating was the limit of reduction, instead of
the great reduction which we propose. The right hon. .
gentleman says that I sin happy at remembering the
mistakes of my predecessors. Well, that may be a
taunt, or it may be a philosophical observation.
(Laughter.) But referring to the immortal subject
of the lodger's franchise, why even in the bill of last
year that favourite offspring of the intellect and passion
of the right hon. gentleman--(laughter.)--a lodger fran-
chise—was
introduced; and it was strictly enacted that
there should be a qualified term of two years. (Ministerial 1
cheers.) What becomes, then, of all this idle rhocloraontade

- about our new-fangled schemes and principles which the
people of England cannot endure? (Cheers.) I impress upon
the house that this is a most important question ; and I can
assure them that, in the many communications which we
daily receive from the working classes, amongst others,
there is expressed a readiness and willingness to accept as
a condition of the franchise the municipal term of residence.
(Hear, hear.) It is recommended to their good sense, and
accepted by the integrity of Englishmen ; and I believe
that we shall make a very great mistake if we depart from
that proposition in the bill. I admit that there may be
something invidious in the distinction, but if you can make
any proposition in committee which will remove its invi-
dious character, we of course shall be perfectly ready to
consider it. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition, and
counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It has been
proposed that the term with regard to £lO householders
shall be increased to two years. That is worthy of consi-
ratien—(hear, hear); but depend upon it the house will
commit a great error if they suppose that by reducing the
term of residence as a test of fitness for the exercise of the
franchioe they are doing that which the working classes
desire or approve of. (Ministerial cheers.) I now approach
the fourth head of the impeachment. As to the contem-
plated savings bank franchise with which so much fault
has been found, I can only say it is a franchise which was
proposed by previous Administrations. It was first pro-
posed in 1852 when Lord John Russell was Prime Minis-
ter. In that year Lord John Russell had to prepare a Re-
form Bill. Generally speaking, it was an easy task to him;
I but wishing to mix some novelty with it he framed a fran-
chise upon the payment of taxes. He consulted the most
experienced men in the Inland Revenue Department, and
acting upon their advice he proposed tho franchise which
has been so severely condemned in the present bill. Mark
what happened in the two years between 1852 and
1854. The question of the income tax became the ques-
tion of the day, and the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for South Lancashire gained great and deserved dis-
tinction for the manner in which lie dealt with the income
tax. He was a man remarkable for his knowledge of
finance, but still more remarkable for his knowledge of
direct taxation. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman
himself seemed to have drawn up the proviso in the bill
of Lord Aberdeen's Government with regard to the rights
of £lO householders. It is in his style. (Much laughter.)
1 say it is difficult to reconcile the part then taken by the
right hon. gentleman and his language that the proposed
franchise will create fagot votes. Such is not the opinion
of Sir C. Pressley and others conversant with the subject.
At the same time, I do not say but it is a franchise which
may be improved in committee. (Laughter and cheers.) But
what is the use of going into committee, if not to enable the
house to improve the proposal of the Minister. Well, to
come to the sth article of impeachment, with regard to the
redistribution of seats, we are told in language peremptory
and authoritative, that the scheme must be enlarged.
(Hear, bear.) The gentleman who cheers is bound to tell us
what his plan of redistribution is. (Laughter.) I will not
do what the right hon. gentleman did last night, in calling
upon a gentleman to make his maiden speech as a paren-
thesis to his own observations. (Laughter.) I want to see
the right hon. gentleman's plan of enlarged redistribution ;
for when we aro trying to settle the most difficult question
of the day, I think we have a right to expect from him
what his enlarged views of redistribution are. We may be
contracted in our views and limited in our application, but
our plan is known, whereas the right hon. gentleman op-
posite conceals his scheme from his followers and friends
whom at the proper time he may stall to the heart. (Loud
laughter and cheers.) It is impossible for him to proceed
without destroying his most intimate friends. I can under-
stand how persons may say that there are new views which
cannot be adopted without changing our whole system. I
respect such opinions; but is a man representing. a groat
party to tell us when a great question is brought forward
that our redistribution is to be enlarged ? With regard to
the county franchise I have not heard that any much greater
reduction is proposed; but this is a matter of secondary im-
portance. (Opposition cheers.) If it is the opinion of the
house that there ought to be a further reduction, it will re-
ceive our best consideration. The hon. member for Sheffield,
who ought always to be described as the member for Shef-

field, said he saw nothing objectionable in voting papers.
[Mr. Roebuck—l never said anything of the kind. 1 Then it
must have boon a pleasing illusion on my part. (Laughter.)
The hon. member for Brighton very properly said that the
great question is that of the borough franchise. You have
been trying to deal with it for 15 years. Five Governments

have attempted to deal with the question unsuccessfully,
but you believe that you would arrive at a fair solution of
all the difficulties and perplexities by taking refuge in a £5
franchise, giving to electioneering agents and vestries full
power to convert householders of £2, £3, or .£l, into £5
ratepayers at any time. Wo wished to establish this fran-
chise on a distinct principle, and we said if a man pays his
own rates, and has resided a certain time, it is a prima facie
evidence of responsibility, and as good a test as you can
have. The hon. member for Birmingham is against all
tests. If he saw a man without a coat he would hardly
say that man was qualified for the franchise; but if he had
a coat, there was a prima facie proof of some fitness.
(Laughter.) I think the conditions required by this bill are
prima facie tests of fitness in a man to fulfil the trust.
(Hear.) Let every man not rated to the poor have the right
to call on the offi :ial persons to place him on the register
as the payer of the rate; an I the right to the franchise is
thus practically within the reach of ovary person who ought
to be entrusted with it. The principle is distinct, and its
extension vast and unlimited. I remember in a great party
struggle, when the member for Lancashire belonged to the
same party as myself, on a great party struggle with respect
to China, a great speech was made by a lawyer. Iremembor
that Sir James Graham—a name never to be mentioned
without respect—rose afterwards, and 1 recollect the stately
cynicism of his smile when he said. " Let us get out of the
regions of Nisi Prius." (Cheers and laughter.) When you
come to offer the franchise to the people of England, not-
withstanding the imputations of the hon. member for Bir-
mingham, iu a spirit of morality and truth—(laughter and
cheers)--and on a principle without any limit- and I
hear the observations of the hon. member for Richmond,
whose great abilities no one denies—l repeat, we must "get
out of the regions of Nisi Prins." (Cheers.) Then we aro
told that if we establish our franchise there will be no two
towns in which the same suffrage will exist. There are
57 towns in which the Small Tenements Act prevails, we
are told ; 92 in which it partly prevails ; and 27 in which
it does not prevail at all. Good God! what would bo the
application if such a proposition as yours were established ?
Why, sir, the very thing that the whole house has been
complaining of for years has been the dreary monotony of
the bill of 1832, and the identical character of the £lO
constituencies. We have been told over and over again
we must seek variety of franchise. Well, now, it has been
also said, and justly said, that some of the most remarkable
characteristics of this assembly are supplied by the small
boroughs of the country, boroughs called into existence al-
most at the time of the Plantagents—certainly in the time
of the Tudors and the Stuarts—and which have given to
England the men such as, with India and her various
colonies and settlements in two oceans, she demands. 1
say, these varied interests have done much good service

in establishing the constitution which we now enjoy.
Well, there are 27 boroughs which would under this
system almost have household suffrage. Well, what
would be the harm of it? (Hear, hear.) Have you not
year by year been deploring that you have no longer mem-
bers for Preston elected by household suffrage, no longer
the system which produced such men as a Hunt or a Cob-
bett ? But in twenty-seven boroughs where the Small
Tenements Act does does prevail, you have large constitu-
encies—in Stockport, Bradford, and Oldham for ex-
amples. Tbo right hon. gentleman the • other night took
advantage of the position in which he was placed, and
appealed to the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr.
Beresford Hope), who in consequence, I believe, delivered
a pointed invective against our bill, but what I want the
hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent to consider is, what
would be the difference if there was a £5 rating scheme
introduced in this borough. What would be the difference
then ? Why, sir, it would make only a difference of a few
thousands. (Laughter.) It would make the difference
between 15,000 and 9,000, or something of that kind. But
any one who knows my hon. friend knows that he is per-
fectly superior to accidents of this kind. My hon. friend,
who is member for the Potteries, will, in my opinion,
always represent the Potteries. (Much laughter.) They
like a man of social standing, a man of refined taste in the
arts, and they are not insensible, as none of us are, to the
charms of that rich and grotesque rhetoric which distin-
guishes the hon. member. (Great laughter.) Now, sir,
lot me ask the house to consider what is the result of our
proposition respecting the borough franchise. Our propo-
sition is that every householder who is rated to the poor,
and personally pays his rates, and who has occupied his
house for two years, shall possess the franchise. I never
wish, in arguing this question, to restrain its
merits to tho question of the exact number whO may
be admitted to the enjoyment of the suffrage. It
is a great mistake to suppose that mere numbers make
democracy. As long as you have fitness and variety it is
impossible that democracy can prevail. In the proposition
we have made we maintain that those elements do prevail.
1 mentioned the other night that in round numbers 210,000
persons would be qualified for the franchise. The hon.
member for South Lancashire tells me that it would really
only include 120,000. Now, we must have the opposition
to our bill on some debateable grounds. (Hear, hear.) Is
our bill a Radical bill or a Conservative bill? We must
have one ground or the other. We do not bring it forward
as a Radical bill, but as a Conservative bill and a popular
bi:l. I defy anybody to show a bill which this house would
pass of a more popular and at the same time of a more
Conservative character. I admit that 120,000 are the most
that are specifically admitted by the bill. We have con-
sidered this question, and we admit there are 420,000 com-
pound householders, but even the hon. member for Bir-
mingham says there are a great many whom he would not
enfranchise. The 460,000, on same principle that you have
reduced the 240,000 to 120,000, you must reduce to 230,000
if you apply the constitutional conditions on which we ask
the house to pronounce an opinion, namely, whether a man
who is invested with the suffrage ought to be rated to the
poor, pay his rates, and complete a certain term of residence.
If those are constitutional conditions which the house
approves of, then you must consider the question of mem-
bers with reference to those conditions. I believe the
members admitted within the pale of the oonAitution bit

the measure will far exceed the estimate of the hon
member for Birmingham. Our bill does not propose, like
that of last year, to admit a given number; but it lays down
a principle which admits of extreme application, without
endangering or disturbing the country. If every corn
pound householder fairly qualified exercises his vote, not
more than 250,000 would be disfranchised. With regard
to dual voting, I cannot under the circumstances recom-
mend an adherence to a provision that was proposed to
guard the middle classes from a great invasion of the poli-
tical power of the country. (Liberal cheers.) That dual
vote was not brought forward as a check or counterpoise,
but in deference to the intellectual movement of late years,
on the subject of the principles of representation. But we
cannot be insensible to what has occurred. It is the busi-
ness of the Government to pass a measure to extend the
representation of the people, and they must look
to the opinions of this house and to the opinions of
their supporters. Now, what support and encourage-
ment have wo received on our side of the house—
(laughter)—on the subject of dual voting? No ono has
spoken a word in its favour ; it was, therefore, worse than
idle to prsist. (Cheers.) All I can say, in conclusion, on
the part of my colleagues is, that, if wo have any wish or
desire at prosont, it is to have the co-operation of this
house to bring this affair of a Reform Bill to a settle-
ment. (Cheers.) Wo are only influenced in the course wo
have taken by a sense of duty, and no other conviction
animates us now, but the feeling that we ought not to
desert our post till this business is concluded. (Cheers.)
Rest assured it is not for the weal of England that this
settlement should be delayed. You may think the horizon
not disturbed now; you may think that the surrounding
circumstances may be favourable to dilatory action. Some
of you may think that in the excitement of the moment
ambition might be gratified and the country disappointed.
But it is not so. There is a deep responsibility in regard
to this question, not upon the country merely, but upon the
House of Commons. If you are prepared—and I think we
have shown our sincerity—to act with us cordially and
candidly, so far as we can consistently with the principles
which we have not concealed, we shall, if possible, gladly
conclude the question of enlarging the franchise of the
people consistently with the maintenance of the constitu-
tion. Act candidly and cordially with us, and you will find
from our side complete reciprocity. Only agree to pass a
bill, and you may change the Ministry to-morrow,
(Loud and long-continued cheering.)

The motion to road the bill a second time was then put
from the chair, and agreed to, with a single dissentient
voice.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pointed
out that the requirements of the public business would not
admit of an earlier day being moved for going into com-
mittee on the bill than April 8. That day, therefore, was
fixed for the committee.

Mr. GLADSTONE—I cannot think that is an ar-
rangement which will be most convenient to the house.
Tho right hon. gentleman has stated that it is of great
necessity that the financial statement should be made
upon the 4th of April. But there is no agitation of the
public mind to cause that necessity, and I know from ex-
perience that it is not convenient to take the financial
statement within three days of the commencement of the
financial year, because it is difficult at that time to get the
facts into a condition for presentation to the house. Will
the right hon. gentlemen tell us whether any great change
is contemplated in the financial system—whether there is
any large reduction of taxation which he is able to pro-
mise the country—(cries of "No, no," and interruption
from the Ministerial benches)—or any topic of first-rate
importance ? If these circumstances exist, I should not
object to the proposal of the hon. gentleman. I don't think
the question of such magnitude that I should wish to go to
an issue with the Government upon it ; but I hope the
right hon. gentlemen will reconsider his proposal. (No,
no, and hear, hear.) Much more ample time would be
allowed for the house either to go through any discussion
which may precede the Speaker's leaving the chair, or
upon the provisions of the bill, if you were to fix the 4th
instead of the Bth of April.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Of course
I will consider this in every point of view, but there aro
many reasons which convince me that the course I took is
the right course consistent with our duty to the public.
(Hear, hear.)
The committee on the bill was then fixed for the Bth of
April.

Tho house adjourned at 10 minutes past ono o'clock.