The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-23 00:00:00

said, " H I have to do it I shall not go upon
the principle of satisfying those who think no more
should be admitted, or those who • think that all
should:be admitted ;" but I added, " What I should
say, if I were a member of the Government ia, that
in the arrangement of a Reform Bill you must take
into consideration the opinions not only of the now
nnenfranchised, but of those who are enfranchised ;
and yOu must endeavour to ascertain what is the
average view of the whole country, and to propose
a bill which the whole country, with its general
knowledge and intelligence, will honestly sanction."
(Cheers.) I believe that that is a principle which,
if Mr. 'Gladstone were speaking here, he would be
willing to accept as the line of his own conduct. I
come, then, to speak of the proposition which he
was willing to make. First of all, he is against
connecting the voting power in any way whatso-
ever with the question of rating or payment of
rates. In the bill of last year he proposed to sweep
away with all above £lO. At the same time he is
altogether and most resolutely opposed to that
monstrous injustice which it is endeavoured
by this bill to perpetuate, in dealing with
what is called the compound householder on different
terms" from those offered to the man who pays his
own rates. At the same time, Mr. Gladstone; as
you know from his speeches, is altogether against
extending the duration of residence from one year
to two years. Perhaps you are not aware of the
effect which a " two" instead of a " one" may have
in making up a register. I will give you one fact
with regard to the town of Rochdale, in which I
live. The number of electors there is rather under
1,500 in a population of more than 40,000. How
many pefsons would you suppose who live in pre-
miseio have houses, shops, warehouses, counting-
houses, or other buildings of the. Reform Bill value
of £lO, and yet who are kept off the register because
they have not resided in the borough the full time
of 12 months? Not less than 300 persons out of
1,800. There are 1,500 now, and there would be
I,Bod if the 12 month's residence did not obstruct
thetn'; and if the figure were two years, I presume
there would be 600 kept off instead of 300. You
will therefore see the intense importance of the pro-
position of this nature. Mr. Gladstone is urgent
against any extension of the time from 12 months to
two years, and he can be no honest or earnest Re-
former who can tolerate a thing like that. (Cheers.)
It would be better to have a bill that was clear, simple,
and honest, and free from all tricks ; that did not
look' with alavourable eye on all the men who pay
their own rates at Sheffield, and look down with a
forbidding frown and' excluding gesture upon the
36,000 honest men who occupy dwelling-houses in
the town of Birmingham. Now the abolition of
the ratepaying clauses above £lO, it is calculated,
would add 60,000 votes to the register, and of these
60,000 a large proportion would be working men.
Mr. Gladstone proposed an amendment that the
franchise should be fixed upon a rating value of
£5 ;- but he found that the rule of rating varies so
much in different boroughs, that although in some
boroughs a £5 rating would be as good as a £6 ren-
tal, yet there are other boroughs in which it would
be no better than a £7, £B, or even £9 rental.
Therefore he found that a £5 rating alone would
not be sufficient, and he proposed in another form
to substitute for the £5 rating a rental value of
about £6, the result of which I will take the liberty
of explaining to you. Mind, there are a great num-
ber of pergolas who treat the question as if we can
do just what we like. Let us see what is the dif-
ference between the proposition of Mr. Gladstone,
which we may approve of or not, and the pro-
position of the Government bill. The repeal of
the ratepaying clause down to £lO would admit
60,000 voters ; a £5 rating or a £6 rental, from the
Government's omen returns, would give to -330,000
persons the chance of coming upon the register.
You would require to deduct from them one-third
to ascertain the actual number that would come on
the register with one year's residence, and that
would give 224,000. Add the 60,000 to them, and
it is clear that Mr. Gladstone's proposition, which
in some degree was at stake in the division of last
Saturday week, would have brought 284,000 new
voters into the boroughs, whereas the bill of the
Go'vernment, as it stand's on their own showing,
would not have added 100,000 new electors. Now,
I am obliged to admit, whatever anybody may say
to ibe contrary, that the proposition of Mr. Glad-
stone, which would admit 284,000 new voters with-
out any excitement —without any contest about
rating acts—without any fresh bargains with their
landlords—without any long correspondence with
the overseers—is a much better proposition than a
bill which, according to the admissions of Mr.
Hardy, the President of the Poor-law Board,
would not admit more than 118,000, but
believe not really more than 100,000 new voters
in the boroughs. This is not all by any means.
Mr. Beales comes from London, and he has there-
fore a particular sentiment in favour of the admis-
sion of lodgers. In London, without this, the bill
of the Government is not an enfranchising bill at
all, because as a rule all houses in London are £lO
in value or upwards. The great bulk of the work-
ing classes do not really rent the house which they
inhabit, nor occupy it entirely for their own families,
and this is the reason which makes a lodger fran-
chise so all important in London, and to a certain
extent so important in all the large towns. Some
people think—and in the House of Commons those
gentlemen to whom Mr. Scholefield referred as hav-
ing had salt put on their tails think—that Mr. Dis-
raeli is all in favour of a lodger franchise and would
have no objection to concede it ; but when Mr.
Gladstone spoke of it as having been conceded, he
sprang up and said that he had never made such a
concession. The lodger franchise will be of course
—what shall I say—a violation of the principle of
the bill, because you cannot expect a lodger to pay
rates, as he is not rated, nor considered in that sense
as an occupier. Therefore the principle of the bill,
which is the present payment of rates, fails altogether
when you apply it to the lodgers in a house occupied
by another person. Mr. Gladstone would not only
consent to the introduction of a generous lodger
clause,but the bill of the Government with regard to
three millions of the population in the metropolis will
be almost a nullity if such a clause is not inserted in it.
It comes, therefore, to this,—that Mr. Disraeli gives
the franchise to 100,000 new voters only in all the
boroughs of England and Wales, and Mr. Gladstone's
proposal would h4ve admitted 284,000 occupiers
without any trouble whatever, and besides these a
great number under the name of lodgers, whose
amount we have no accurate means of ascertaining.
(Cheers.) There are gentlemen in. the House of
Commons, and some in Birmingham—but I believe
and hope only a very few—who say we are on the
way to household suffrage. There is not one word
in the bill about household suffrage. The suffrage
given is nothing of the kind ; and the Govern-
ment, especially at the bands of Sir Stafford
Northcote, have repudiated in the strongest
manner the notion that the bill went in
any way in the direction of household suffrage.
If you want to get househould suffrage, you will
have, if the bill passes, to repeal its vital and lead-
ing principle. If this is the principle of the bill,
why should we set it upon its legs? It has never
been a principle acted upon or accepted in any legis-
lation of this country with respect to the political
representation ; and I ask you now, as sensible
men, why should there be any honest man of any
colour, who wishes to introduce so novel, so odious
a principle in the bill, under the pretence of giving
a great enfranchisement to the people? lam not
in favour of pursuing phantoms. I have spent 25
years in public life on political questions, but those
who are my greatest opponents, wherever they may
be found, will say of me that I have always pur-
sued'solid and great objects in my political warfare.
It was a solid and great object to struggle for the
abolition of the corn laws • it was a great object to
labour for the correction of the enormous and mul-
titudinousabus•.'s of our tariff ; it was a great object
to strive for the emancipation of the newsplper
press; it is a great object to extend the blessings of
our ancient and noble institutions to the great mass
of the people. (Cheers.) I, therefore, would rather
not now begin to pursue phantoms which fly as fast
as I can pursue them. lam not about to say that
there should be no rental, no value, no limit; that
there should be nothing other than absolute man-
hood suffrage, or a pure and simple household suf.