The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-13 00:00:00

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

The Earl of DERBY said—ln rising to call attention to
the state in which the bill for amending the representation
of the people has come back to us from the other house, I
take it for' granted that it is the general opinion of your
lordships house that, except in a case of extreme necessity,
arising out of the continuation of some very objectionable
provisions on the part of the House of Commons, it is not
desirable that your lordships should take any steps that
may risk the rejection of a bill which has occupied the
attention of the House of Commons for nearly five months.
That rejection would lead to a great and not entirely un-
reasonable agitation during the recess, would render un-
availing all the labour and pains which the House of Com-
mons have bestowed on the subject, and would cause the
attention of Parliament to be monopolised next session, as
it has been for some previous sessions, by the subject of
reform, to the exclusion of every measure to which it is
desirable their attention should be given. I shall, there-
fore, pass over all the minor amendments which the House
of Commons has proposed to make, and among these minor
amendments I hope I shall not be considered to depreciate
the universities if I include amongst these that amendment
which your lordships introduced, whereby the right of
voting for the boroughs of Oxford and Cambridge would
have been given to students of the universities resident
in colleges and halls. That has been rejected by the
House of Commons, but I do not think that is a point on
which it is desirable that we should take issue with ,
them. I shall confine myself to three points, on ono of
which the House of Commons has agreed, and on two of
which they have disagreed with your lordships. The
first was the amendment made by Lord Cairns, for the pur-
pose of providing that in three-cornered constituencies
two votes only shall be given by each elector. That pro-
vision was adopted by an almost unanimous vote of your
lordships' house, and in deference to your lordships'
judgment the House of Commons and the Government
have thought it right to accept. the clause, and it now
stands part of the bill. I am myself not favourable to the
principle of three-cornered constituencies. They are a
novelty never heard of in this country before the Reform
Act of 1832, and a novelty which I do not think has
worked advantageously. But if it be thought desirable in
any case to give effect to the representation of a minority
—of which I say nothing, although I think it very doubt-
ful—then it is clear that the only cases in which you can
introduce this system aro in the throe-cornered constit-
uencies and in the City of London, which is represented by
four members. 1 do not object to trying the experiment
on this limited scale, but I shall certainly object to the ad-
dition to the number of three-cornered constituencies with
a view to the further introduction of the principle of the
representation of minorities. To the other two amend-
ments introduced by your lordships, the House of Com-
mons have, I regret to say, not assented. Ono of them is
the raising of the copyhold and leasehold county qualifi-
cation from £5 to £lO. In rejecting this amendment the
House of Commons have thought fit to state their reasons,
and upon looking over them I am forcibly struck with the
wisdom of the advice 'given to a judge on a certain occa-
sion :—" Give your judgment by all means, but not your
reasons." Moro inconclusive reasons have never been
given for any step than those which aro offered on this
subject by the House of Commons. They begin by saying
that every other franchise giver by the Reform Act has
been reduced, and that, therefore, the copyhold franchise
also should be reduced. But although it is true that all
the occupation franchises created by tho Reform Act aro
reduced by this bill, tho 40s. freehold franchise, which
existed before the Reform Bill, has not been lowered. And
when it is said that because 40s. freeholds confer a vote,

therefore leaseholds arid copyholds.of .C 5 should also confer
one, it should be borne in mind that no leasehold interest is
equivalent iri value or in point of stability to a fee:simple,
and that when the Parliament of 1832 retained the 40.8
freehold franchise, they deliberately decided that, notwith-
standing that, the copyhold and leasehold franchise should
be fixed at £lO. Then the House of Commons say that the
£5 copylrolders aro well qualified to exercise the frauchise.
But that is bogging the question. I do not say they ere
not, but the onus iwobandi lies on those who wish to admit
them, and not on those who desire to maintain the present
qualification. Those who will gain a vote under this fran-
chise within represented boroughs will be those who are
the lessees of an unoccup'ed and unimproved block of land,
not worth inere thati £5 annually ; while those who have
improved their property and have buildings upon it, wi
be disqualified as voters for the county because their tenants
will by its Occupitimi be quell fibd as borough voters. Then
the House of Commons say that, as the other provisions of
the.billynd to increase the number of voters qualified by
occupation, and proportionably to diminish those qualified
by piep6rty, it is desirable tcrincrease the latter by reduc-
ing the cOpyhold and leasehold franchise in the way pro-
posed. , But can any one suppose that leaseholders holding
property worth £5 a year on lease, having only one or two
years tp run ,or •dependent on a single life, represent a
stable proprietary interest in contradiction to a franchise
•
arising from occupation ? if the House of Commons is so
anxious to increase proprietary rights as against those-
connected with occupation, I want to know why they
forced on the Government the lodger franchise, and struck
out franchises based on deposits in the savings banks, and
ou the payment of taxes, that, really were connected with
the representation of property ? So much for the reasons
of the House of Commons. I think, however, as I have
idready:seid,' that it is most undesirable that your lord-
ships should differ flone,that house on any_ point that is
not of considerable or Virammitit importance. 'Now the
number of voters placed on the register under this clause
will not, except in two or three counties -Cheshire,
Staffordshire, and Lancashire -be very considerable, nor•
will their admission exercise any considerable effect. I
cannot say that I have much respect for the reasons as-
signed by the House of Commons, but considering-_ the
majority by which they rejected your lordships' amend-
ments, I cannot flatter myself that there is any chance
of their altering their mind, or that any good would result
from a conference between the two houses, which is of all
forms the most unmeaning. The only other matter of
importance is the rejection of the amendment relating to
voting papers. I.thisk that the introduction of polling
papers would undoubtedly have facilitated the access to
the poll of a largo number of persons who aro now ex-
cluded, and that in counties it would have greatly dimi-
nished the expense of elections. But, on the other hand,
the House of Commons were apprehensive that it might
increase bribery, corruption, and intimidation. They seem
to have thought that the machinery which we had devised
could not obviate the dangers incident to the introdUction
of the system. But even although this clause should be
exclUded from the bill, it d ies not introduce anything
objectionable. It-would have been an accessory--ea valu-
able accessory to the bill - but its omission does not pre-
judice the useful parts of the bill. It relates to a subject
which can again be brought under the consideration of
Parliament, and so satisfied am I of the wisdom and jus-
tice of the proposal that I am sure we shall-eventually
see it adopted. Therefore, seeing that the rejection of the
atneudinent does not introduce anything objectionable in
the bill, I do not think that it would be wise to insist
upon it. I hope that further reflection will satisfy the
House of Commons and the country, that with proper pre-
cautions, this principle may be introduced with the greatest
advantage, with a great increase in the number of those who
are practically admitted to the franchise, with no addition to
bribery and corruption, and certainly with a considerable
diminution of that sort of intimidation which arises from
tumult and disturbance. On the first occasion when this
subject was before them the proposition to introduce voting
papers was rejected by a majority of 38. On the last
occasion, although, with a view to disarm opposition, the
proposition was limited to the introduction of voting papers
in counties, the adverse majority was increased to 52, in a
House, including pairs-who, by the way, must have
voted without having heard the debate -(a laugh)- of
more than GOO members. Consequently any hope of
diminishing that majority would be quite illusory. This
being the case, I should submit to your lordships that you
should be satisfied with the important concession that in
one respect has been made to your lordships' feelings and
opinions, and that you should not run any risk of losing
a measure so important and so deeply interesting to the
country. Although I cannot say that the bill is altogether
such as I would wish to see it, yet I expect it will prove a
settlement of a question of pareenouut importance, and
under that e nvietion I must be excused for moving that
your lordships do not insist on your amendments, with the
'exception of one or two of a purely verbal and technical
character, about which no difficulty can arise.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, who was nearly inaudi-
ble in the gallery, expressed his regret at the coursetakon
by the House in rejecting the clause sanctioning the use
of voting papers. He was convinced that it would have
led to a much larger proportion of electors recording their
votes than can be induced to do so under a system which
compels them in many cases to run the gauntlet of a shower
of rotten eggs and brick-bats. Considering, however,
that the subject could be again introduced to the attention
of Parliament in a future session, he was not prepared to
ask their 15rdships to insist upon their amendment.
Earl STANHOPE said, that although he was prepared
to concur in the motion of the noble lord at the head of
the Government, he could not do so without some regret ;
for he believed that the adoption of voting papers would
prevent rioting and turbulence at borough, and inordinate
expenses at county elections. For his own part, if
voting papers had been once introduced he should have
looked forward to a time when their use would have been
not only permissive, but obligatory in county elections.
He must, however, admit that the reasons given by the
Premier for not insisting upon this are con-
clusive. At the same time he should not be ready to give
way had the other house rejected the securing the repre-
sentation of minorities in three-cornered constituencies.
He confessed that he entertained considerable misgivings
as to the effect of this bill. Ho thought that a more mode-
rato measure would have obtained the sanction of Parlia-
ment ; but as this bill is about to become law he was not
ed to indulge in any gloomy forebodings with
respect
trusted that it would prove beneficial to
dispos
to it.He
the country, that the working classes would prove them-
selves worthy of the confidence reposed in them, and that
men of intelligence, property, and position would not (as
has happened in the United States under a franchise
equally extensive) be deterred from taking part in public
life. It is the duty of every one to do his best to secure
the successful working of this bill; and he could only ex-
press his hope that if unhappily any attacks should here-
after be made upon the Church, the fundamental institu-
tions of the country, or the right of property, it will not
be found difficult to resist there by the combined opposition
of Pe classes who are most interested in the stability of
he country.

The Earl of CLAN CART Y expressed his regret that
the House of Commons had declined to assent to the
adoption bf voting papers.

The Earl of lIARROWBY did not desire that the house
should insist upon these amendments, bat at the same time
he trusted that the subject of voting papers would receive
further attention, and that in some future session a
measure would be passed for their adoption. Ho must,how-
ever, congratulate the house upon the sanction given by
the House of Commons to the principle of the representa-
tion of minorities. He trusted that the application of that
principle would be carried further than is done by the pre-
sent bill.

Earl RUSSELL said that he not only assented to the
conclusion come to by the noble earl, that that house
should not insist on these amendment; but ho entirely
concurred in the course taken by the Rouse of Commons.
Ho thought they were quite justified in adhering to the
reduction of the copyhold and leasehold qualification, and
he also agreed with them in the opinion that the introduc-
tion of voting papers would,have afforded increased facili-
ties for bribery and intimidation. Ile trusted that if any
bill for the adoption of voting papers should hereafter pass
the house, the lower house would refuse their assent to IL
For although a great deal is said about the interruption of
electiOns by riots and tumults under the present system, he
must say that, lia.ving attended many elections, he had
never seen any riots or tumults. (A laugh.) It was then
too late to enter upon any discussion as to the general'
merits of the bill. lie could only express his hope that
the newly enfranchised electors will exercis6 their powers
wisely, and that every 0113 who is in a position to do so
will exercise his influence and do his best to promote the
successful working of this bill.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH contended that voting
papers are absolutely necessary as a protection to voters
in Ireland.
It was then resolved that the house should not insist
upon any of their amendments, except one or two of a
purely verbal character, which aro rendered necessary by
an oversight on the part of the House of Commons. •