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

SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL.

This bill was read a second Limo.
THE REFORM BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
_ _

Mr. B. JOHNSON resumed the adjourned debate. He
thought the Government had mistaken their duty in
framing the bill, as they had introduced into it an egre-
gious and stupendous blunder of the dual vote. There
were some portions of the bill, ho thought, called for the
deepest consideration; but if, after that, it was not possible
to produce a perfect measure he thought it would be the
best course to pause before they gave their sanction
to any measure, more especially an important one. It
had been said that great disturbance would result on the
rejection of the bill, but he for one preferred revolution
to national disgrace.
Sir It. PALMER agreed with Mr. Hardy that this was
not a Household Suffrage Bill, though ho had formerly
declared he was not averse from household suffrage, be-
lieving it to be both a Liberal and Conservative measure,
and to contain the elements of finality, and he was not
afraid of its effects if it were established pure and simple.
But if it was to be accompanied with checks and restric-
tions they ought not to be such as would introduce new
differences, new causes of discontent, and new obstacles to
a settlement as this bill would. Taking as a criterion of
the bill the position in which it would place the new voters
in relation to the old ten-pouuders, he examined critically
the enfranchising clauses, arguing that they would draw
au invidious line between the old and new bodies, that
they would impose on the new voters " fines." such as
longer residence, the necessity of qualifying for an entire
dwelling-house, and the personal payment of rates, and
the payment, too, on the full rateable value, to none of
which conditions the ten-pounder was subjected. On this
Lost point, and referring to an argument of Mr. Hardy that
the tenant who paid his rates could recover them from his
landlord, lie maintained that the £lO compounder who
chose to pay his own rates had only to pay the amount of
a
the landlord's composition, and to enact that he should
hereafter pay the full rate would be to reverse the whole
course of Previous legislatiou. The bill entirely miscon-
ceived the nature of these compositions, and, whatever
arrangement was adopted, must involve this dilemma—
that it would put the new compounders in a worse posi-
tion than the old LEO compounders, or the landlords of
the old compounders would be mulcted of the difference
between the full rate and the composition. The dual
vote ho pronounced, by the light of the Solicitor-
General's proverb—" Half a loaf is better than no
bread," to be an attempt at mere half enfranchise-
ment, and though it must bo thrown overboard it would
for ever stamp the character and intentions of the
bill ; and, in the same way, after pointing out that the
county franchise would be open to the same objection as
the borough franchise, that it drew an invidious line be-
tween the old and new voters—he condemned the fancy
franchises as contrary to our present principle of local re-
presentation and local franchises. Though heartily desi-

rous that something should be made of the bill in com-
mittee, to pass it substantially as it stood would be a use-
less attempt to settle the question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maintained that the act
of 1832 must be the starting point for any changes in the
franchise, and argued that a ratepaying household suffrage
would bring in the best men, and formed the best basis of
a lasting settlement, or, as he defined it, comparing it with
the suggestion on the other side, that the ratepaying oc-
cupier of a house was a better man than the occupier of a
rated house. Ile made light of the difficulties started by
Mr. Gladstone and Sir R. Palmer, pleading that there
would be very little difficulty when the house had once
assented to the ratepaying principle in devising clauses to
carry it out ; and to the " fine" objection he replied that
it c-iounted simply to the payment of the difference be-
tween the f:!11 value and the composition—but this would
work itself right in .`" year or so, though the question of
requiring the full payment rates might be open to con-
sideration in c3mmittee. The .4_ t torney-General con-
cluded by arguing against the lodger franchise
as
impracticable and unnecessary, as the same classes R 71.-
be included by the special franchises.
Sir F. CROSSLEY, though believing that the Minis-
terialists had deserved little quarter from their opponents
by their treatment of the bill of last year, nevertheless re-
commended a co-operation between the two sides to ex-
tract from this bill a permanent settlement. Hs preferred
the bill of year, because it selected the best of the
working classes, but there was much to be said in favour
of the principle of this bill, though it would be necessary
to make a Small Tenements Act compulsory down to .£5,
and the personal payment of votes compulsory also above
that point. The dual vote and the voting papers he con-
demned unreservedly, the county franchise ought at least
to be brought down to the point settled last year, and his
chief objection to the redistribution scheme was that it
did not go far enough, though he preferred the proposal to
divide counties to allotting them a third member.
Mr. LIDDELL, being unprepared for house hold suffrage,
examined closely the securities and compensations of the.
bill, dismissing the dual vote at once as impracticable, and
approving the personal payment of rates, which, he said,
was strongly recommended by the experience of the muni-
cipal elections in the b 8 boroughs under the Small Tone-
nients Act. At Great Yarmouth, for instance, the act had
been rescinded solely to got rid of the corrupt practices
prevailing under it at municipal elections. Mr. Gladstone
had much overstated the difficulties in the registration of
compound householders, and it would be easy to draw
clauses to carry out the principle ; but before making
rating the basis of the franchise the laws of rating ought
to be improved. The lodger franchise he objected to as
unnecessary, and the redistribution scheme ho was of opi-
nion did not go far enough, and was faulty in not attempt-
ing to redress the under-representation of the counties.
Mr. Liddell concluded by a strenuous exhortation to mu-
tual forbearance and sacrifice of opinion to attain a perma-
nent settlement.

Mr. H. LEWIS, though strongly opposed to the dual
vote, voting papers, the omission of the lodger franchise,
and of the claims of the metropolis to increased represen-
tation, urged the house not to follow an obstructive policy,
but to take the bill in a forbearing spirit and to make a
settlement out of it.
Mr. P. WYNDHAM warned the house that its conduct
on this matter had excited grave dissatisfaction in the
country, and intimated that, though as a party man he
should vote for second reading and for going into coma-
tee, ha should vote for each proposition in committee ac-
cording to its merits, and would be no party to passing a
measure which would not satisfy the country, and would
lead to further agitation.
Mr. LAING summarised the result of the debate up to
this stage thus—that the majority of the house thought the
bill to be a bad bill, that it began to see its way to an alter-
native scheme which would be satisfactory, and that all
were agreed, if possible, to pass a bill this session. He
agreed with those who thought the bill a bad bill, and in
demonstrating this he went carefully through it, com-
mencing with the redistribution scheme, which he showed
would leave numerous glaring anomalies both in the
county and borough representation, and he insisted that
all boroughs under 10,000 population ought to be deprived
of one member; that boroughs under that number shouid
be more or loss grouped, by which 30 or GO members at
least would be gained to increase the representation of
large towns. As to the enfranchising clause; it depended
on the application of the securities whether they would
lead to a democratic invasion, or would be merely of re-
stricted action—whether 500,00 or 120,000 new voters
would bo admitted to the franchise. Of these securities
personal payment of rotes alone needed consideration ; for
two years' residence could not b 3 maintained, and the
novelty of duality was an insuperable objection to it. But
to personal payment as a security there were these objec-
tions—that it was to be applied at the caprice of the ves-
tries, that it might be evaded by corrupt election agents, or
by combination of trades' unions—and it, moreover, could
not be maintained as a permanent barrier. Consequently
household suffrage, pure and simple, must be the result,
half a million of voters would bo admitted, of whom
300,000 would come in at the lowest point. To this he
could not accede, and ho gave his adhesion to the £5
rating scheme, coupled with a lowering of the Small
Tenements Act, necking it compulsory, and to arrive at
that solution he recommended that before going into com-
mittee on this bill the broad outlines of that scheme should
be submitted to the house in a formal manner by some in-
fluential member.

Mr. BRIGHT—On the last occasion when I offered a
few observations to the house, I concluded by quoting
from what 831116 might consider a demand, and others
might regard as a prayer, uttered by the working men,
when they said, "Deal with us on the square." We all
know exactly what that means, and we are all conscious
in the vote we shall give at some future time as to
whether we shall be doing that which every working man
in this sentence asks us to do. (Hear, hear.) Now,
looking at this bill as it has been described by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer—looking at it as it was afterwards
described by the chief of the Poor Law Board—looking at
it as it has been described by members of both sides of the
house—does it not present itself as a puzzle, and will it not
be regarded as such by those it is intended to affect ? Ac-
cording to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, it is a measure of wide dimensions as an enfranchising
scheme. According to the view of the President of the
Poor Law Board it is a bill of many restrictions, compen-
sations, and limitations, and therefore a bill of a totally dif-
ferent character from that introduced by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) No hon. member in this
house knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that the question we are now discussing is more entirely a
working man's question than any other, and being a
working man's question, after what we have seen during
the last nine months, I think the house will be of opinion
the matter is ono on which it is desirable, if even it were
safe to delay, we should not be afraid to deal in any other
but fair and honourable terms. It is to my mind a most
unfortunate circumstance in regard to the Reform question.
(Hear, hear.) Their position apparently renders it almost
impossible for them to deal with this matter with the
straightforwardness which the question demands. (Hear,
hear,) Now, without going over every detail or entering
into recrimination with regard to what took place last year
—for I am too serious on the matter—without going over
the details of last year, I should like to road ono passage
from a speech delivered in the course of tho debates of last
session by a member of the present Cabinet, who has lately
been promoted to one of the most responsible positions in
the Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) He said he preferred to remain
at a £lO franchise; that he would be willing, if he consented
to make any change, to go very much below that ; and re-
ferring to the opinions of the late Attorney-General and
to my opinions he proceeded as follows : "And now we
must part company with the Attorney-General and the
hon. member for Birmingham. He was obliged with the
utmost sharpness and definiteness to say that ho thought
to descend to household suffrage at once or at any time
with any safeguards whatsoever would be the most mis-
chievous and reckless innovation on the constitution.
Upon these grounds he should oppose, and should always
oppose, any general lowering franchise beyond tho present
limit of £10." (Hear, hear.) And then he added, " that
being so, how was he to deal with this bill ?" Well, that
being so, I have to ask how has he dealt with the present
bill ? The extract is from the speech of the present Mini-
ster for India. (Hear, hoar.) I have not seen him in the
house to-night or last night, but no doubt he will be able
to explain the position in which ho stands. lam not
quoting this for the purpose of upbraiding the right hon.
gentleman, but of pointing out to the house the extreme
difficulty of the position of the Government, and the ex-
trreme difficulty which attends the question in the hands
of a Government pledged to a policy last year decidedly
opposed to the policy of the present bill. If we look back
to the year 1839 we find the question of Reform was in
the same hands, and met with the fate which probably may
attend the measure of this year. The scheme of reform
then proposed was the reduction of the county franchise
from a £5O occupation to a £lO occupation ; but by way
of compensation ho asked us to exclude 70,000 whose
qualification was found within the limits of boroughs.
With regard to the bill before us, while certain newspapers
aro preaching democratic doctrines outside the houss, the
President of the Poor-law Board has disavowed them. His
doctrine of limitations is the real pith of the bill. This
was a dealing with political flssh notes. (Laughter.) In
my remarks on this occasion I shall mainly confine myself
to the borough franchise, for I say, as I have said before,
that it is the first question for consideration, and which it
is necessary to come to some conclusion about. The hon.
gentleman, in introducing the subject to the house, dwelt
on the ancient constitution of our country, and, by the way,
I think I shall be one of the few persons' left in favour of
and to support that constitution. (Laughter.) The right
hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty amused me
once by tolling us that he was the only extant Peolite, and
it seems as if some of us here only will be left to defend
the constitution of England. (Renewed laughter and
cheers.) What does the right hon. gentleman say of the
constitution ? lie says that in ancient times the franchise
was based on the payment of taxes and the occupation of
houses. No doubt that was trao. I have urged that
sometimes in this house, much more frequently in other
assemblies ; and ill-judging persons have said that 1
was preaching revolutionary doctrines. But in the
old times, which we all love to look at, though