The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-13 00:00:00

called the " Tea Party'f), and urged that if it had not been
for the action taken by the 52 gentlemen who attended on
that occasion the bill might never have got into com-

mil tee.
Mr. HUBBARD expressed the regret he felt at being
compelled to vote against the Government, because he
considered their bill meant household suffrage, and to that
_ _ .

he had an invincible objection.
Mr. HORSMAN (who spoke from the front bench of
the Opposition) owned that he was in favour of fixing the
line at a £5 rental, and that in his opinion five-sixths of
the house (including the vast majority of the Opposition)
would be better pleased with it than with the plan of the

Government.
gr. HARDY, in an able speech, defended the measure
of t& Government, contending that it would admit every
man to the ;:anchise who cared to possess it, and who
worthy of it by bearing the burdens
proved himself to hd
of citizenship.
Mr. BRIGHT—Mr. Dodson, I a!"11.1 not keep the house
to a very late hour, but I should like to make a few obser-
vations before the debate concludes. The right af,f`n• gen-
tleman made himself merry with the fact that last night
the noble lord the member for Stamford and I rose toga-
ther, and that I was willing to give way to him, and ho was
willing to give way to me, because we were engaged inthe
same cause. If the noble lord has made any advance to my
opinions—and I suspect since last year he has honestly and
honourably made some—l can only say that I should wel-
come him not to this cause only, but to any good cause, as
one of the most powerful of advocates that it could pos-
sibly receive. The noble lord and I have never exchanged
a word in private ; but I take this opportunity cf saying
that I listened when he was in office to a speech on a sub-
ject very foreign to this night's debate—on a subject con-
nected with his own office, the annexation of the territory
of Mysore— and I say I have never heard a speech in this
house which contained nobler sentiments, delivered in
better language, and in a manner more calculated to im-
press the house. I regretted the noble lord felt it his duty
to leave the Treasury bench. But if I may bo satisfied that
the noble lord has approached me by a very little, I may be
as much gratified, not by the small steps, but the large pro-
gress, that the right hon. gentleman has made since last
year. If it were worth while to refer to the pages of Han-
sard, it would b 3 possible to show that there was scarcely
a member of this house who on that occasion felt, or pre-
tended to feel, a greater terror at the admission of the £7
householder than was felt by the right hon. gentleman
himself. But I will not reproach him or his colleague, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am only too happy to
find they are willing to proceed even to the length of the
measure which they have introduced, and 1 shall not
break my heart if the measure, as it comes out of this
house, should not take precisely the shape I should like;
but I shall console myself that the past barriers
against a just representation are broken down, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues
have utterly repudiated the whole of the past with which
they have been connected. (Cheers.) Now I shall ask the
attention of the house to the precise point before us, be-
cause I am not about to discuss this question as a matter
of party. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer
made a bargain with us at the beginning of the
session, that it was not to be a party question for the over-
throw of Ministers. I shall treat it in that sense. Last
night I was surprised at the speech of the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), because
it was only three or four weeks ago when the right hon.
gentleman threw out a hint to the house that it would be
desirable possibly to alter the law of rating, and draw a
low line excluding some and admitting great numbers.
The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of te Exch
al e-
quer) seized upon that hint, and gave a certain h
c ordi ap-
proval of it; and 1 am not sure that my right hon. friend
(Mr. Gladstone) has not been in some degree induced to
take the step he has taken in .3onsequenee of the powerful
support of the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers
oh.) Now, sir, what is the amendment before the house,
and
?
It is simply this : It affects the borough franchise only,
it proposes a very reasonalsle proposition—that every per-
son to whom you offer that borough franchise should be
placed on exactly the same terms, with the same facilities
for obtaining it, and with the same powers of enjoying it,
that every other person shall have. It means that the
present householder from £lO and upwards, and the house-
holder from £lO and as low dosvn as the house may go,
shall be exactly on the same footing, and that the
poundcorn-
o ve
over
t householderhe
compound abovehoosehtlidershbelloiwh7lo. advantagenoltmeans, in
fact, that you shall not select from amongst your consti-
tuencies special classes for special privileges; but that,
having determined who are the persons on whom you will
confer the franchise, you will deal honestly, fairly, gene-
rously, and equally with them all. (Cheers.) But at this
moment that is the state of the law, with scarcely any ex-
ception. Tho Reform Act deals in a certain way with the
£lO occupier. There has been a difficulty with regard to
the compound householder ; but that difference does not
exist by law, but it esists:byahe practice of the overs:ers of
the poor. I was told to-day by a gentleman who was
very profoundly versedin these matters that it was the law
at present that all occupiers' names should be upan the
rate book. If that be so, of course the instructions which
I believe some time ago went out from the Poor-law board,
that the rate book should be so formed, will be in accord-
ance with the law, and henceforth all occupiers will find
their names upon the rate book, whether they aro payers
of rates directly or of a composition rate. Well, what will
happen ? I believe that the Reform Act intended that all
those persons' names should be upon the rate book and
upon the register, and that it was not Parliament which
has kept them off, but lawyers' law and the decisions of
revising barristers, and for a time the decisions of the
courts. But note, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Hardy)
in his able speech never attempted to point out any real
ground why the compound householder below £lO should
be treated differently from his brother above £lO. I wish
that to be explained to the house. I see no reason shown
for any such exclusion, and I venture to say, in opposition
to what he has said, that that exclusion and that differ-
ence must be held to be a direct violation of the principle
of the law as it now stands. Does he deny that at the
present moment the landlord's payment is, for the purpose
of the franchise, the tenant's payment ? If there were any
doubt on this matter, it maybe set at rest by my reading to
the house an extract from a letter in which is quoted
the opinion of two very eminent judges on the matter,
judges who are especially eminent• on all questions con-
nected with appeals on the registration law. The writer
of this letter is himself a registration agent in the north
of England. The hon. gentleman here quoted the rulings
of Mr. Justice Tindall and Mr. Justice Maule in the Court
of Common Pleas, most emphatically laying down the
doctrine that for the purposes of the franchise the landlord's
payment of rates was the tenant's payment. Tho hon.
gentleman went on to say : Well, I think that quotation
from three eminent judges clearly settles what is the law
now with regard to the matter, and I wish now to ask the
Chancellor of the Exchequer why he proposes to change
it ? Has the law been found to be a bad law ? It was
passed through both Houses of Parliament without any
division, and it has remained uncomplained of and uncon-
tested in both Houses of Parliament for the last sixteen
years. I wish to know then why, merely for the purpose
of a large disfranchisement and exclusion, the present ab-
solutely satisfactory condition of the law is to be objected
to and interfered with. Now, the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Hardy) tells us this measure will allow people to
come in. I shall tell him how it keeps them out. He
blames the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) for a bill
with a line which makes no moral selection whatever.
What will the bill of the right hon. gentleman do? It will
give a vote to a man who lives in a hovel worth not more
than £3 a year, if that man by any means pays his own
rates in his own name—(hear, hear)—and it will exclude
every man whose rental may be £8 or £9 value if he pays
his rates through his landlord. (Hear.) Well, I think
there is a capriciousness in that which will be found most
unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) But let us leave for a
moment the capriciousness with regard to individuals,
and see how it affects towns. The honourable
and learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck)
made a speech the other night on this bill. Taking the
gross numbers, be will find that in the town of Sheffield
this bill would immediately give the chance of getting on
the register no less than 28,334 persons—(hear, hear)—
which I believe is 11 or 12 per cent. of the whole number
—that is, immediately ander this bill in the first year of its
operation, that is the number it would give a chance of
being on the register. But what does it do now for the=
in this respect—unfortunate town which I am permitted,
in conjunction with my colleague, to represent in this
house ? Birmingham is a town, as the house knows, con-
siderably larger than Sheffield. It is concerned chiefly in
the same manufacture as Sheffield. I would say no more
for Birmingham now than I have said for it before I repre-
sented it ; but I say there is not in this kingdom a town
whose population is more industrious and, as connected
with their industry, more intelligent than the population of
Birmingham. (Cheers.) What does the bill do for the
town of Birmingham ? It gives a chance of admission to
2,384 persons—(hear, hear)—and it excludes, under the
Small Tenements Act—(no, no)—wait till I have finished
my sentence—(hear)—it excludes, under the Small Tene-
ments Act, and under the various local rating acts, no
fewer than 36,177. (No, no, hear, hear.) "No." I know
very well what hon. gentlemen mean. They mean, of
course, that to accommodate the capricious measure of the
Government—(hear, hear, odes oh) -• and the caprice of that
measure is in no degree essential to a sound measure of re-
form—(hear, hear) —that in Birmingham they are to get rid
of the Small Tenements Act, if they can make up their
miud to that, and they are to come here in order to get
Parliament to consent to a bill to repeal their local
rating act. (Cheers.) I am not surprised that
the member for Sheffield or the member for Old-
ham should think that, as regards that particular spot with
which they are principally connected, there is something
useful in this bill. (Hear, bear.) But I have a higher
opinion of the people of Sheffield—(hear, hear)—and of
the people of Oldham—(hear, hear)—than to believe that,
for the sake of a special advantage to them in this respect,
they would prefer that a bill should be passed which would
do such grievous injustice to Birmingham, and the great
majority of the boroughs of the kingdom. (Hear, hear.)
Not longer ago than last night, when this matter was under
discussion, I had an opportunity of speaking to three gen-
tlemen from Birmingham, who were here on a matter