The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, I UESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1867.

is the ono great blot on the present system, the one point
on which the present system cries aloud for amend-
ment ; and I believe it will he totally impossible to pass a
Reform bill through this house which does not improve
the position of the compound householder. The right
hen. gentleman, therefore, has been Conservative where
an innovating or at any rate an improving disposition
would have been most desirable, instead of maintain-
ing in activity that most objectionable provision which
places a compound householder paying £l5, £2O, or £25
a year rent in a position of inferiority by imposing
upon him conditions in the town franchise which
exclude him, with the most insignificant exceptions,
dependent on the spontaneous action of parish authori-
ties or well-paid registration agents. The right hon.
gentleman may teuly say that the compound householders
above £lO are but a small part of the non-ratepaying
householders. That is perfectly true. The fifth of these
classes to which I have referred is placed in a deplorable
position. There aro 500,000: of whom we were told by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Monday that they
were perhaps just as good men as their neighbours, and he
would give them every facility for attaining the franchise.
Examining the bill, I ask myself how that promise is to be
fulfilled, and what idea ho has in his head when he says
he will give these compound householders every facility.
What am Ito understand by that? These persons who
pay rates only in the form of rent have, by the authority
of Parliament and by the joint action of the local autho-
rities, but without their own consent, been excluded from
the actual and ordinary payment of rates. Under these
circumstances we promise them the franchise, and say we
will give them every facility. And how do we begin ? In
the first place we impose upon them every restraint borne
by the present compound householder—l am speaking
generally, for I have not been able to count the units—and
effectually exclude 99 or 08 per cent. of all tke persons on
whom it operates. The right hon. gentleman, in his
anxiety to give every facility, begins with this restraint,
but he does not stop there. In this memorable clause, the
24th of the bill, he introduces this provision, with respect
to the new compound householder, under £10; " provided
that the rates to be paid by such occupier in order to en-
title him to the franchise shall bo rates calculated on the
full value of the premises." I do not wish to take a
polemical advantage ; I believe I speak the strict and
literal truth when I say that by that clause you fine
the compound householder below £lO if he attempts
to obtain the franchise. (Hear, hear.) I do not ask
the house to accept that statement merely on my
authority. It is a very grave proposition, which goes very
much to the root of the matter; it affects 500,000 out of
the 750,000 proposed to be enfranchised. (Hear.) Setting
aside tho extremely rare cases when the landlord's rates are
in arrear, the compound householder is only to be amerced
in point of time and trouble for trying to obtain the fran-
chise. Because the construction of the law is this: If
the 75 per cent., or the composition, whatever it is, has
been paid to the landlord, therate has been paid in full, and
consequently there remains nothing for the compound
householder to do. But when we come to the new com-
pound householder below £lO, who has then to pay his
rate in full, let us see what is the meaning of the phrase.
I have received information, which can easily be tested to
this effect. " The cause of Dodds and the parish of Bilston
was heard in the Queen's Bench on the Bth N0v.,1865 ; 13
Law Times, 589. The parish officers had taken in the case
of compounds 52 times the ordinary weekly rent as the
basiror first quality for ascertaining, under the Parochial
Assessment Act, the gross estimated rental free and clear
from tenants' rates and taxes. The question was, to make
this quantity free from rates, must you deduct the full or
the compound rate ? The Court held that you must de-
duct the full rate." The Court held that the compound
householder had already paid the full rate, because I can-
not b 3 told that the owners of compound houses are satis-
fied with less profit than owners of non-compound houses.
Therefore the compound householder had already paid the
full rate, and that which he has already paid he is to be
called upon by this clause to pay over again in order to
get the franchise. (Hear, from the Opposition side of the
house, and No, no, from the Ministerial benches.) Wait a
moment—l have not concluded yet. I should have been
more strictly accurate if I had said, part of that which he
has already paid he is to be called upon to pay over again.
(Hear.) But how much is that part ? supposing it were
25 per cent., it would be extremely hard in principle and
practice— (hear, hear)—but the deduction made to the
landlord is not 25 but 50 per cent. (Hear, hear.) The
deduction from 50 per cont. is made upon the principle that
the composition money is intended to cover full houses and
and empty houses alike. That composition having been
paid, when the compound householder goes before the
parochial officer or revising barrister to make his claim, he
has to pay 50 per cent. more, that is, according to the judg-
ment of the court, he has to pay the full rent over again—
and therefore he has to pay for using the house which he
inhabits, and for the house which his neighbour might in-
habit, but which stands empty by its side. (No, no.) That
is the strict and literal truth. (No, no.) What part of it

is not true? Thole is no doubt that it is true. lam
bound to say that in every one of these cases, which will
be numbered by tens of thousands and fifties of thousands
throughout the country, II ore can be no doubt that it is
the intention to make the compound householder pay hid
rate twice. (No, no.) Perhaps the lion. gentleman will
explain.

Mr. GREEN interpolated a few words, but his remarks
were almost inaudible amidst the loud cries of " order"
with which he was received, and he resumed his seat.
Mr. GLADSTONE—If the statement I have made is
understood, lam so far satisfied. In the case where the
composition is 50 per cent., it is fixed upon empty and full
houses together, and the householder is lined to the extent
of that 50 per cent. for the attempt to obtain his vote.
(Cheers.) Don't let it be understood that I state that, in
all cases, the sum is 50 per cent. ; I have not said anything
of tha kind. It is 50 per cent. in a very large number of cases,
in many it is 25, and in some 33; and it varies between 25
and 50. At 50 it rises to the doubling of the rate, at 25 it is
less ; but the principle of fine is the same. NV hen I asked the
right hon. gentleman about the compound householder he
replied that he could not deal with exceptional cases.
But according to the statement of the right hon. gentle-
man himself, the exceptions are twice as many as the
cases under the rule. There are between 500,000 com-
pound householders below £lO, and between 200,000 and
300,000 above £10; and the right hon. gentleman tells
me he would provide for those between 200,000 and
300,000, but he cannot provide for the exceptions which are
double the number.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I never
said any such thing.

Mr. GLADSTOSTE—The right hon. gentleman said he
could not undertake to provide for exceptional cases.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have no
recollection of having said so.
Mr. GLADSTONE—I paid great attention to what fell
from the right hon. gentleman, and my opinion is that his
memory at this moment a little deceives him. But whe-
ther he said it or not, it is a very small part of my purpose
to establish a contradiction in his statements, if there was
any. What I want to point out to the House is—that of
these cases of compound householders, at least two-thirds
are below £lO. Now, I think the Government have been ledinto a great error in this way. They know very well
that compound householders, with certain exceptions, are
at present excluded, and they have thought it would be
safe for them to deal with the compound householder be-
low £lO as unfavourably, or more unfavourably, than the
way in which the law now deals with those above £lO.
But the proportion should be kept in view. In every con-
stituency where there are £lO or £l5 compound house-
holders, there is discontent ; but this does not disturb the
country, because the towns in which these cases exist are
few; and, as a whole, the present householders form but a
small proportion of the entire constituency. But it is a
totally different thing with those below £lO. You cannot
carry it below £lO, and, having 750,000 persons to deal
with, say "'We will arbitrarily take one in every three of
you, and exclude two in every three," and then be under
the delusion of supposing you have settled the question
of Parliamentary reform. (Cheers.) What I contend
upon this subject is, that not payment of rates considered
as a matter of fact, but the condition of a man in life,
as such, his presumable character, amount of education,
and independence, are the criteria to be employed
for ascertaining who are to have the franchise.
(Cheers.) And here I would venture to explain more
clearly a suggestion I made on a former evening. I think
the Government have committed a fundamental error, even
assuming the test of personal rating to be the true test, in
adopting our actual system of law as the basis of their
measure. Those laws aro infinitely various, and have a
different effect in different quarters, and never were in-
tended to be placed in contact with the question of the
political franchise. Local Acts represent nothing except
the will and view of tho local community; and in the case
of the Small Tenements Act they ale not only voluntary as
to their acceptance, but as to their duration. It is impos-
sible to conceive anything more unfitted to be the basis or
limit of the parliamentary franchise, when you justly say
that your limiting boundary ought to be a firm and solid
one, such as as will endure. (Cheers.) It seems to me
that if you employ the condition of personal rating at all
respectsgrebeat
s—atains
fda
clt
idoon
tnoto ndlaenn that
mind a t sa
and
dm pml
iogyhmt einnt
mwould give
useful—(Ministerial cheers)—you must employ it quite
apart from this system of voluntary legislation, with which
I defy you to make your legislation feasible. (Hear, hear.)
You may fix a certain figure of rateable value, not touch-
ing the present Acts at all, but leas ng them to their
operation precisely as they stand, and you might by an
enactment uniform and running through the country, say :
Below that figure no occupier shall be liable to payment of
rates; below that figure no man shall enjoy the franchise ;
above that figure every man shall enjoy the franchise.
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. HENLEY—lncluding payment of rates as well as
being rateable?

Mr. GLADSTONE—I take the payment of rates to be
a separate question from that of personal rating, and I
do not think the same importance attaches to it. The
suggestion I have made touches the subject matter, and
is of the greatest importance. By a suggestion of that
kind you might really erect personal rating into some-
thing that might be called a principle; but if I make
personal rating a principle, even though popularity wore
to be gained by such a proposal, I would never promise a;

man the franchise, and then, by regulations proceeding
from my own will and pleasure, put in his way insuperable
difficulties. (Cheers.) If he is fit to have the franchise, let
him have it in the easiest and simplest manner. (continued
cheering.) If all aro not to be enfranchised, the proper divi-
sion is that between class and class. Some classes have
more independence and education; others, unhappily, have
less. Some among us may hope to see the time when want
of education will no longer be a reproach to this country.
(Cheers.) In the present state, partly of dependence and
partly of ignorance, that to our shame prevails, I assume
that it is right to have some distinctions, and not invest all
men with the right of political franchise. But let us be open
and aboveboard. (Cheers.) It has been said that the £6 or
£8 voter cannot bo a very good elector unless he is ready
to pay a few shillings for the franchise. In the first place, I
am afraid he will have to pay these few shillings every
year; and in the second place, if we take the compensation
of 50 per cent. you will find that the shillings are not very
few. But what happened on the passing of the Reform Act?
(Hear, hear.) You were dealing with no man below £lO in
boroughs, and with landowners, leaseholders, and occupiers
of £5O and upwards in counties, and you enacted the pay-
ment of Is. registration fee. But the country rose, morally,
in arms against the payment of the shilling, and you were
obliged to repeal it. (Hear, hear.) And now you put a
mush heavier payment in the way of the compound house-
holders under £lO as a condition of their obtaining the
franchise, and you say, unless they are willing to pay that
they cannot be very anxious for enfranchisement. (Hear,
hear.) I think I can see what is the idea of the Govern-
ment, and if it were an idea entirely supported by facts,
I am very far from saying it would be a very bad idea.
They want a legislative condition to perform the office of
something like what Mr. Darwin calls " natural selec-
tion." (Laughter.) They want to discover the finest
specimen of the British citizen in the humbler orders of
society, and the method adopted is to test him by difficul-
ties. We have known from the schoolroom and upwards
that "difficulty is the nurse of excellence"—(laughter)
accounts of struggles with difficulties form most interesting
biographies. It is thought that you can apply this test to
the 500,000 householders below £lO, who have been com-
pelled to compound for their rates, so that you can select
the good ones by ascertaining what man is willing to go
before the parish overseer to get up the state of the law on
the question, and to pay two years' rates in arrears, amount-
ing to 25 or 50 per cent.; when he has done this you say
he is fit for the franchise. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
am inclined to say that such a man is worthy of the fran-
chise, and a great deal more ; but such is not the clay of
which human nature at large is made, and it is too severe to
require the spirit of a hero and a martyr in a man with 3s.
or 4s. a-day as a condition to his attaining the privilege of
the franchise. (Hear, hoar.) You therefore effect no
natural selection ; but what you do is this, you allow the
parish officials to take up the matter by hundreds and
thousands, and you allow the registration court to come
down and pay the fines to which I have adverted. I know

that the Government have said that the payment of rates by
agents shall be bribery. The intention is no doubt good,
but at the same time a more nugatory provision never was
introduced into an Act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
How are you to establish a corrupt intention in the pay-
ment of rates ? It is absolutely impossible. 1 will give a
practical example of the way in which the law works at
present, and I will leave the house to judge how it will
work when the pecuniary fine is added. Take the case of
All Saints, Poplar, in the Tower Hamlets district. In

All Saints, Poplar, there are 4,053 houses for which the
owners are rated. Of these, one-fifth are occupied by
females, and only 23 of the occupiers of these houses are
on the register. The vestry clerk says that the average
number of claims to be placed on the register has not,
during the last ten years, exceeded 20. When a person
makes a claim, and fails to appear, he forfeits the claim,
and the vestry clerk adds, 6. I am of opinion that if the
persons
entitled to be put upon the register were to make
their claim, and attend to establish it, the number on the
register would be increased threefold. But the usual reply
I receive when I explain to them the necessity of their at-
tendance before the revising barrister, is, " Oh, I am not
going to lose my time in going there ; I shall not trouble
myself any further." (Hear, hear.) A benevolent parish
official, or a registration agent, would possibly perform the
function for them; and, therefore, what we come to is this,
that, as a general rule, whether they are excluded, or whe-
ther they are admitted, they will be admitted or excluded
wholesale, and not by the selection which you have in view.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, all this appears to me to be grave
matter for the consideration of the house ; but the point to
which I am most anxious to bring the mind of the right
hon. gentleman is this, the utter hopelessness of any idea of
settling this question, and fixing this question by such a
measure. (Hear, hear.) You may obtain a settlement—
you may obtain fixity by drawing a line between class and
class, if it be reasonably drawn ; but if you choose to make
selections as arbitrary as if they were made by lot between
members of the same class, why is it not plain what will
happen ? The excluded, if they are strong enough, will
never cease to agitate until they have knocked down the
artificial wall of separation, and will then rush in in
masses to the possession of the franchise. (Hear, hear.)
Now, let us consider this important question by the light
that is thrown upon it by the return printed on Satur-
day last. It is about a fortnight or ten days ago that I
asked the right hon. gentleman that it should be pre-
pared, and I have now to thank both the right hon. gen-
tlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Presi-
dent of the Poor-law Board for the diligence used in
its production. It is a most important return. It is a
return, which, unless 1 am much mistaken, contains facts
and figures which may leave it open for the Government
to choose some other method of proceeding, and which
show their proposals to be tatally and absolutely valueless.
And, sir, what I observe is this, that the knowledge con-
tained in this return was not on last Friday night in the
given
; but the right hon. the Presi-
dent doubted whether it could.
possession of the Government. The right hon, gentleman
itdtheonutgohftthe -L
pcooualrdboaw
Thu CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER -I simply
inquired of my right hon. friend whether the return could
be given in the form required. I thought that it could be
given in the aggregate.
Mr. GLADSTONE—I know that the aggregate could
be given, but what I wanted was particulars. (Hear, hear.)
It was the examination of details—the minute anatomy of
the working of the bill—which constitutes my justification
when I venture to predict that it cannot become law, and
cannot receive the sanction of this house. Now, from this
return it appears that, as regards London, which contains
a population of throe millions—one-third of the entire
borough population of the country—the bill is a nullity—
(hear, hear)—and it is a nullity for two reasons. First, of
all, is there good ground for enfranchisement in London ?
People look at its constituencies, and see them multiplied
by thousands, and assume that there can can be no great
object in increasing them. But that is not quite the right
way of looking at the subject. These three millions of
people are not inferior to the rest of England. On the
contrary, London contains the flower of the working men
of the land, and yet you have got in London not a larger
but a smaller proportion of the aggregate population en-
franchised than you have in the average of boroughs
throughout the country. Therefore, there is a case for
looking to London. But if you do not intend to pass
them over, how must you proceed ? You can only pro-
ceed in ono of two ways. There are two barriers which
prevent enfranchisement in London—one is the state of
the law as to lodgers ; the other is the state of the
law as to compound householders. Both these you
omit in your bill, and, consequently, you pass over in the
metropolis three millions of people, or nearly one-third
of the population of the boroughs of the country. I ask
seriously the right hon. gentleman if it is possible, to settle
this question, which it is admitted can only be settled by a
liberal enfranchisement, if you begin by a bill from
the scope of which the whole metropolis is excluded ?
(Cheers.) Now, sir, after having commanded this return,
lam still bound to warn hon. members that the figures
are more favourable to the proposition of the Government
than the facts warrant. In other words, it greatly over-
rates the numbers to be enfranchised, not from any fault
of the Government or the officers, but from this fact
that, as I believe, there area class of cases where the rates
of occupiers are paid by the owners, but which do not ap-
pear on this return. The right hon. gentleman stated that
there are 237,000 persons who are rated and pay their
rates. Prima facie on this paper that is so, but in reality it
is not so. I take the case of Liverpool. If you look to No.
2, you will find that, as regards Liverpool, there are
16,317 persons who are represented by this return as being
within the beneficial scope of the enfranchising provisions
of the bill. Bat what is the fact ? Why, that in Liverpool,
there are scarcely
any such persons at all. (Hear, hear.)
The practice in Liverpool is this—that with regard to
houses under £l5 the rates are habitually paid by the
owner, and that not in virtue of any provision of a law, but
by arrangement between the owners and the parish autho-
rities. (Hear, hear.) There is not one of those who would
not be in the position of compound householders—nay,
worst, because I very much doubt whether any of these
occupiers could be under the bill admitted, although they
were willing to go through all the steps of the process that
are provided in the case of compound householders. I
will call attention to another class of cases. I wrote down
to one of the rural boroughs to know what was the prac-
tice in them. The answer was this—and I rather found
fault with myself for not having perceived it-that it
would be governed by the custom of the country ; 1 moan
that there is a custom in the country under which,
when a farm is let, the cottages upon the farm are let
with it to the farmer, and there is but one rate for the
farmhouse, the farm, and the farm cottages. (Llear, hear,
and dissent from the Government benches.) What is to be-
come of the occupiers of these cottages ? All that class of
persons must be deducted from the estimate of the right
hon. gentleman. (Hear, hoar, and No, no.) I venture to
assure the right hon. gentleman—and I am as conversant
with the figures in this matter as most hon. gentlemen—
that the enfranchisement of ratepaying householders by the
household suffrage clause of the Government bill would be

somewhere between 100,000 a1;1120,000 persons. In point
of fact, it would be the veriest mouthful beyond the unfor-
tunate £6 rating bill, for which I seemed to be tho only

person in the house who cared a farthing. But I ask the
house to follow me while I give them the figures to show
with what astonishing blindness this bill would operate in
different towns of tho country. I shall first refer to the 57

towns where the Small Tenements Act is in operation.
How will it act in these boroughs ? I compare the number
who will be qualified as ratepaying householders with the
number of those who will be excluded as non-ratepaying
householders. In Abingdon 35 persons will be qualified ;
574 excluded. In Caine, 25 qualified ; 695 excluded.
(Laughter.) In Carlisle, 406 qualified; 3,571 excluded. Iu
Chippenham, 20 qualified, 727 excluded. In Christchurch,
41 qualified ; 523 excluded. In Devizes, 55 qualified ; 487
excluded. In Dudley, 232 qualified; 6,315 excluded. In
Evesham, 40 qualified; 464 excluded. In Gateshead, 173
qualified ; 5,571 excluded. I have taken these towns as
examples of the class, but in all 25,004 will bo admitted,
and 139,377 excluded. I come now to the towns in which
the Small Tenements Act is partially in operation. There
are 98 of such boroughs, and if we take the totals they
are not so very unreasonable, because 10,633 are admit-
-1 ted and '130,602 excluded. But when we look into par-
• ticulars, what do we find ? I take the very first
borough —Andover. In Andover, 40 are qualified ; 623
excluded. In Aylesbury, 416 are qualified ; 3,514
excluded. In Barnstaple, 151 are qualified 1,017 ex-
cluded. In Bridgewater, 56 are qualified ; 1,231 ex-
cluded. In Frome, 38 are qualified; 1,363 excluded. In
Kingston-upon-Hull 64 are qualified, 12,027 excluded.
(Hear, hear.) Is it possible that right hon. gentlemen on
the Treasury bench can rise and commend to us a clause
which will produce such extraordinary results ? (Hear,
hear.) But, sir, here arises a point of the utmost import-
ance, on which I have not yet touched and which I be-
lieve and am confident is of itself a conclusive objection to
the plan of the right hon. gentleman. Having looked at
the anatomy of the towns generally, let us now look at their
anatomy town by town. Take the case of the 2,500 at
Greenwich. Upon what principle are these distributed?
It is a listribution which divides the people on one side of
a street from those on the other side. (Hear, hear.) In
one side of a street, according to the plan of the Govern-
ment, you will nearly have manhood suffrage, and on the
other an .£8 rental franchise. I use the word £8 rental
franchise, because the £6 rated houses in the Small Tene-
ments Act would as nearly as possible correspond with an
£8 rental francnise ; and in the 93 boroughs I have already
referred to the inequality which the bill proposes to intro-
duce would become most intolerable. If the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Poor-law Board is to fol-
low me, I ask him whether he believes he can divide 98
towns parish by parish, and in one side of a parish estab-
lish household suffrage, and in the other side of it establish
an £8 rental franchise, and that this will be accepted as a
settlement of the question? (Hear, hear.) I will now
turn to towns which have local Acts, and which will he
found at page 9of the returns. These towns which have
local Acts are not unimportant, because they contain
329,000 male occupiers, or nearly one-fourth of the whole.
In Bewdley you will enfranchise 6 persons, but you will
exclude 1,880. In Birmingham you will enfranchise 2,300,
and exclude 36,177 ; in Brighton you will exclude 2,553,
and enfranchise 14. (Hear, hear.) Is that a settlement of
the question of reform. (Hear.) In Kidderminster you
will exclude 2,553, and enfranchise 24. I really do notknow
how to argue upon such figures ; for if they do not carry
conviction to the minds of hon. gentlemen when stated, it
is impossible that any comment of mine can do so. lam
bound to give the Government credit for being ignorant of
those facts when they prepared their plan. Let us now
take the towns having local acts. According to the pro-
posal in the bill the number of persons to be entitled to the
suffrage as ratepayers will be 10,638, while those excluded
as non-ratepayers will be 87,774, and the expectation that
these 87,774 persons will be contented because the bill ad-
mits a handful of householders who pay the rate cannot be
entertained for a- moment. Then come, lastly, tho open
towns, where there is no restriction, and where every man
may be expected to do his duty. In these towns not one-
tenth, and in some cases not one-twentieth, will bo admit-
ted under the ratepaying suffrage. In Oldham, to the
present qualified body 11,800 will be added; in Rockdale,
to the present body of 1,858 will be added 5,500; in Shef-
field, to the present qualified body of 10,000 will be added
28,000. (Hear.) My hon.friend the member for Sheffield
is in a state of delight at the prospect of having 28,000
more persons to shake hands with when he makes his next
canvass, but I am sure he would not accept this as a boon
while it excluded his neighbours from the franchise. In
Stockport to the present qualified body of 1,695 will be
added 7,257; in Stoke-upon-Trent, to the present body of
3,419 will be added 15,100. (A laugh.) Tho enfranchised
portion of the bill seems in many places to admit a prin-
ciple of needless breadth. By the restrictions to which I
have adverted two-thirds of the occupiers will be disfran-
chised, and that in a manner which will aggravate ten-
fold the inequality, and render it intolerable, so that if you
could pass this bill to-morrow there would be fresh agita-
tion. (Cheers.) I am bound to say that the enfranchisement
proposed under £lO is insufficient. I think Ido not esti-
mate it unfairly when I say the number will not exceed
120,000. In the bill of last year we proposed to enfranchise
200,000. That was a moderate proposal. I do not feel my-
self qualified to proceed by a sweeping measure, but I think
I have shown by the deductions proper to be Made that the
237,000 stated by the right hon. gentlemen as likely to be
admitted, will not actually exceed 120,000. (Hear, hear.) I
may not only take exception to the measure of enfran-
chisement as insufficient, but also to the inequality as ob-
jectionable. I think, although there are many intelligent
persons among the present constituency of Stoke, and they
have given proof of it in sending my hon. friend here —(a
laugh)—but still among the 15,000 to be added, there must
be a considerable number who have only had a limited ad-
vantage of education, who only earn small wages, and who
are in a state of dependence. The principle ought to be to
give the franchise to the most intelligent and independent
of the working classes, and not to select indiscriminately
whole masses of the population. I think I have done some

thing to establish the inexpediency of creating by legisla-
tion artificial distinctions among meu belonging to the
same class. It is a practice wholly new to the constitution.
([fear, hear.) I admit that since 1832 the anomaly of artifi-
cial distinctions has grown up; but wo ought to grapple
with them instead of giving them fresh sanction by logic-
_

lotion. (Cheers.) But though distinctions have been
created by the Act of 1832, yet nowhere does it make the
slightest difference as to the facility and manner of enjoy-
ment of the franchise between those who are called upon
to discharge the common duty of r eturning representatives
to Parliament. The principle of equality among all classes
of the constituency is an old and wise principle from which
this house will not depart. (Cheers.) If you wish to arrive
at a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform,
you must keep in mind the necessity of dealing with men
upon the principle of equality; but if you desire to continue
agitation, you cannot more effectually attain that end than
by the introduction of artificial inequalities. (Cheers.) I
would ask the right hon. gentleman to give us upon these
points as explicit answers as ho can consistently with his
sense of public duty ; and in saying this I do not mean to
convey any taunt whatever. I merely ask for explicit
answers from a sense of my responsibility in this matter.
(Hear, hear.) I know that the rejection of this bill and
setting up another plan in lieu of it unless it, should be
necessary, would be a great evil, because it would bo
against the early settlement we so much desire. lam
therefore desirous of exhausting every means for going
into committee on the bill, in the hope of bringing it to a
satisfactory issue. The answer which the right hon. gen-
tleman gave this evening shows that there is no intention
of postponing to any distant day the committee on the bill.
The debate on the second reading may close 'to-night, or
at least to-morrow evening ; and if so, we may be able to
approach a decision on the main questions either on Mon-
day or Thursday in the next week. If we do not approach
it next week, we will not be able to do so until after Easter,
and this course would greatly narrow the chance between
this bill or no bill. I will now specify three things : First,
does the Government mean to introduce a lodger franchise ?
—for without that some hon. member next July, before
which time we can hardly hope to get through committee,
may propose such a clause, and then there may be no
remedy but to throw reform over to another year. Ido
not wish to be drawn into this difficulty. Secondly, I wish
to know the precise arrangement to be observed with re-
gard to those householders who pay rates and those who
aro on the verge of exclusion on account of the non-pay-
ment of rates. But above all I ask the right hon. gentle-
man, and this I regard as the key of the bill, will he proceed
to ask Parliament to define what classes of persons, be they
many or few---ask Parliament to define the outer limit of the
constituency, and remove all artificial distinctions, and plan-
ing all, whatever their education and standing, upon an
equal footing as regards the franchise ? (Cheers.) If the
right hon. gentleman will establish for the future the old
constitutional principle which comes to us from the past, the
equality of all voters in the eye of the law, equal access
and enjoyment of the franchise, then I think, although we
may have a heavy task before us, we may enter with
hope into committee upon this bill. The dual vote will then
disappear. The distinction with regard to ratepaying house-
holders under and above £lO will then disappear. The fine
will disappear, and the restrictions placed in the way of the
ratepaying householders will disappear. (Cheers.) We will
enfranchise those classes whom we think entitled to it, but
we will place them on a footing with others of their class
as regards access and enjoyment of the franchise, by which
means alone we can hope to make our legislation effectual
either for the purpose of improving the constitution of this
house or attaining the ends of legislation, or producing
that content in the country without which, although we

may legislate, debate, or divide, it is vain to call ourselves
the Parliament of England, it is vain to call ourselves mas-
ters of England's destinies, it is vain to suppose that we
give to the work which we send forth as our act these
hopes and prospects of duration by means of which it can
have value iu itself or draw respect upon ourselves. (Loud
cheers.)

Mr. HARDY declined at this stage to give any pledge
which would commit the Government to any particular
course. No bill could be passed without mutual concession
and forbearance, but if, as Mr. Gladstone said, every lead-
ing provision of this bill required revision, then he asserted
with strong emphasis, and eliciting loud cheers from the
Ministerial benches, the division ought to be taken at this
stage, and if such division involved an abandonment of the
leading principles of the bill, he should refuse to be a party
to its progress. He denied that it was a household suffrage
bill, or that it had over been represented as such ; it was a
rating franchise bill, and so far from excluding anybody—
as Mr. Gladstone had argued, inconsistently with another
argument in which he declaimed against the bill aS making

indiscriminate admissions—it opened the franchise to every
ono who chose to claim it. Combating other arguments of
Mr. Gladstone, he denied that a compound householder
would be fined for going on the register, as he would be
able to recover whatever rates he paid from the landlord ;
pointed out the extreme practical difficulty of working a
lodger franchise, and that its object would be effectually
supplied by the assessed taxes vote; and admitted that the
payment of rates and the two years' residence wore meant
as limitations, contending that they were reasonable, and
would be approved by the country. To the argument,
derived from the figures, that the bill would work diver-
sely, Mr. Hardy replied by pointing to the argument used
against the bill of last year—that it was disgustingly
monotonous; and while justifying the dual vote by re-
minding the house of the numerous corrective proposals,
such as the cumulative vote, which had been made at
various times, he invited discussion upon it, and intimated
that the Government would be open to conviction. After
devoting a few words to the defence of voting papers, and
urging that any defects of the machinery for the admission
of compound householders to the register might be reme-
died in committee, ho repeated that the Government de-
clined to accept Mr. Gladstone's dictum that certain things
must be given up. They wished for discussion, which
would separate the chaff from the wheat, and if met in a
reasonable spirit they would not show themselves unrea-
sonable, though they would stand by the main principle
of accompanying a free enfranchisement by judicious
limitations.
Mr. HEADLAM, assuming that personal payment of
rates was the cardinal principle of the bill, examined it at
length as a constitutional principle, tracing the history of
the compound householders and the Small Tenements Act,
and concluding that it was a fatal mistake to ignore the
non-ratepayers. He shadowed out a compromise some-
thing in the nature of Mr. Gladstone's, fixing a limit below
which rates were to bo paid by the landlord, accompanied
by a careful enfranchising clause for the non-ratepayers
above £5 or £6 ; and in canvassing the redistribution
question he suggested a reconstruction of the electoral map, '
leaving the counties and large borough constituencies un-
touched, and expanding small borough constituencies until
their limits touched.
Mr. YORKE advocated a variety of suffrages—a high
franchise in large towns, and a low franchise in small
towns—and, being averse from household suffrage, inti-
mated that he should oppose the bill unless he were satis -
fied the securities in it would be permanent and effective.
Sir F. GOLDSMID condemned the bill as at once nar-
row and revolutionary, and expressed his preference for a
£5 rating. lie foresaw also that the 34th clause would
open the door to corrupt practices, for the rates of the com-
pound householders would bo paid by election agents.
Mr. R. J. HARVEY replied to some observations of Mr,
Gladstone the other night concerning the borough of Thet-
ford—where he emid 350 voters would be admitted by this
bill as against 50 last year—and iusisted on the claim of
the peasantry to increased representation.
Lord AMBERLEY, while congratulating the house on
the improved tone in which Reform was discussed this
year, urged that moderation might be carried too far, and,
as the Liberals had long had a definite policy, the conces-
sions ought to come from the other side. He discussed at
length the assertion that the bill was founded upon a prin-
ciple, professing himself unable to see the difference be-
tween a ratepayer and a compound householder, as both
paid rates, though one of them paid them to his landlord ;
and he rejected unreservedly the argument that a com-
pound householder who would not pay his own rates was
not worthy of a vote. Ho deprecated the connexion of an
extension of the franchise with jealous checks and pre-
cautions, and predicted that legislation in such a spirit
would be futile.
Mr. B. STANLTOPE, after arguing in favour of the dual
vote, explained the reasons which had induced him, as a
stanch Conservative, to support the bill the chief of
which was that it was the only mode, as he showed by an
exhaustive examination of previous projects, in which a
permanent settlement could be attained. He warmly eulo-
logised the principle of personal payment of rates as a rea-
sonable barrier against democracy, and combated Mr. Glad-
stone's arguments as to the " fine" to be imposed on com-
pound householders, insisting that any defects in the
machinery of their registration might be amended in com-
mittee.

Mr. ROEBUCK rose to support the second reading of
the bill, and he wished to make some remarks, firstly, as to
what he did not hope for ; and secondly, vi hat he did not
desire from this measure. In the first place, he did not
hope to better the character of that house. Since 1832 it
had produced a body of legislation such as the history of
the world cannot parallel. If it was asked why, then, he
had been all his life in opposition, it was that he was very
young when ho entered the house, and sanguine and im-
patient. (A laugh.) The combating of minds is of great
benefit, and ho believed that he and others who sat in op-
position, by urging on others, had wrought out great benefit
to the country. I know it is an insane phrase indeed, but
we aro told men have a right to the suffrage. I deny the
whole thing. (Cheers.) A right is the creature of law, and
where law has not produced it it does not exist. Then fore
that is no argument whatever. Justice is not justice unless
it is thought to be justice. No tribunal that does not satisfy
the people is a tribunal that ought to remain; and this
house, though wiser than any other legislative body of the
same period, will not satisfy the people. There are large
bodies of our countrymen who are not represented in this
house. My opinion is they ought to be represented, and
they won't be quiet until they are represented. A portion
of them possess as much intelligence and sagacity as
any men I see around me. I would as soon put faith in
them, and I would like to see their opinions represented in
this house. Another portion are not educated, and are
not fit to have in their hands the power to govern man-
kind. Therefore, I say, can we adopt means to bring into
this home those who deserve to be represented, and to
keep out the others? I state it boldly, and make no
mincing of the matter, there is a large class whom I desire
to keep out, and there is a large class whom I desire to see
in. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer lets
in everybody who is an inhabitant householder in a Par-
liamentary borough, with the provision that he should
have lived in that borough two years, and bo rated with
those rates which are levied on it. Now I want to know
if that is not wise. (Conservative cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says you ought to make
no distinction. Why, then you must go to manhood suf-
frage. (Cheers.) Even then you must make a distinction,
unless you give it to women. (Laughter.) I want to give
it to men of intelligence and virtue ; but I cannot go into
the street and put my hands on a man's shoulder and say
this is an honest man. Wo take a man as he lives. Ho is
not a vagabond, ho is not a wanderer, ho has lived a vir-
tuous and quiet life. (Much laughter.) I really don't know
what I have said that excites laughter. We judge that ho
is quiet by the fact that he has lived in a society for two
years, and has paid his way and paid for his house ; and
we therefore hold him worthy of the franchise we are about
to confer. (hear, hear.) I want to ask men of common
sense and of the world whether that is not a wise test. I
do no object to fancy franchises. I cannot see they do
any good, and I cannot see they do any harm; and if hon.
gentlemen are pleased with that rattle, they can rattle it.
I have heard a panegyric pronounced on small boroughs,
and I am not sure that that panegyric was not a wise one.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not believe in geometrical divisions of
a county. What we want is a variety of interest, and I
believe we can get more of that at haphazard than by any
geometrical measure. As for the compound householders,
if the landlord pays the rate and makes it less for him, and
he wishes to remain in that way and yet to have a vote, ho
must not b 3 allowed. He must do as other voters do.

(Cheers.) The phrase "a fine" is quite unworthy of the
hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) It is only calling upon men
to bear their burdens in the State, seeing they have a share
in the representation of the country. (Cheers.) That is
all I have to say, except that I hope the Government won't
shrink in the matter. Depend upon it, the intelligent,
virtuous, and sagacious are desirous of a settlement of the
question. (Hear, hear.) I hope hon. gentlemen opposite
will not be frightened by any anathemas spoken against
the bill—not be frightened by pettifogging taunts. Lot
them do their duty. Do not let them stand upon precon-
ceived notions, because they have been preconceived, but
let them with a large heart yield when truth and intelli-
gence teach them to yield, and lot them not fear the taunt
of being inconsistent.

Mr. LOWTHER, speaking from the Conservative
benches, opposed the bill on the ground that the securities
Were inefficient, and that the result must be to give a pre-
ponderance to one class.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL assured Mr. Roebuck
that the Government was not intimidated by anything
that had happened yet, and, in an elaborate legal argu-
ment, defended the bill as based on the ancient principles
of the constitution, and showed, in reply to Mr. Glad-
stone, that in many cases the ton-pounders were fined,
just as he complained the compounders would be. The
Government, believing in the genuineness of the demand
for an excension of the suffrage, proposed that every man
living in a house for a certain time should have a vote if
he chose to pay his rates, and he derided as a reflection on
the intelligence of the House of Commons. Mr. Glad-
stone's vehement assertion that it was impossible to devise
provisions for carrying out that principle if once it were
accepted. This, ho pointed out, was what the ten-
pounder had to do do now, and the personal ratepayer
would not be placed in any worse position ; and he argued
that there was nothing " newfangled" or unreasonable in
the proposal. Tho fancy franchises the Solicitor-General
defended seriatim, quoting on the savings-bank franchise
from Mr. Gladstone's speech of last year, and on the Dual
Vote he urged, on the principle that "half a loaf is better

than no bread," that it is no more unfair to give two votes
to a man who pays rates and assessed taxes to a certain
amount than it is to draw an arbitrary line, and to say
that all below it shall have no vote at all.
3lr. A. PEEL condemned the Dual Vote and the two

years' residence as securities, and discerned the elements

of a settlement in a £5 rental, accompanied by a modifica-

ion of the Small Tenements act.

On the motion of Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, the
debate was adjourned until this evening.
The other business was disposed of; and the house ad-
journed at half-past 12 o'clock.