The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

technical words, and that I was not speaking with legal
precision. The right hon. gentleman said that the com-
pound householder would not lose any of the privileges that
properly belonged to him under Sir William Clay's Act ;
but the bill in its operation and effects upon the compound
householder would deprive him of his present privileges.
He was, by the bill, to claim to be rated personally, and the
owner of the house Was to be released from all liability.
The equality between the voter above £lO and the voter
below £lO was gone, so that they were going back instead
of going forward. The right hon. gentleman, I think, did
not perceive the seriousness of what he proposed in rela-
tion to the compound householders above and below £lO.
The right hon. gentleman had made a liberal admission
when he said the compound householder paid in form of
rent to his landlord the whole rate, and he says that I, too,
entertained and expressed that opinion. Now that is a
proposition, as far as my memory serves me, that I have
never asserted. The question was one which had been
considered by a court of law. An hon. gentleman said,
" The compound householder has taken the necessary
means to pay the rate by paying it in the rent." To
pay it in the rent was the form most convenient to
him, but by this bill he would be required to pay it in a
form the least convenient. He (Mr. Gladstone) con-
tended that it was not for Parliament to erect a flimsy
barrier between man and man under the plea of setting up
securities. All over the surface of the country a vigorous
expression of opinion had been given on this subject. In
every great town there had been manifestations of public
feeling on it during the last four weeks. There was not one
of those towns, including Sheffield, where this arrangement
for the compound householder had not been indignantly
resisted. The hon. member for Oldham was in favour of
sweeping away all existing acts for compounding ; but the
Small Tenements Act, which had been in operation for 20
years, had been voluntarily accepted by 5,000 parishes. This
was a strong evidence of public confidence in the measure.
If the Small Tenements Act were repeated what would be
the result except to introduce that pure and simple house-
hold suffrage which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
said could not be tolerated. It was impossible for the house
to make the repeal of this and similar enactments a practi-
cal part of their present deliberations. It was convenient
for landlords and compound householders those acts should
be maintained. Nothing could be more convenient than
that a man dependent on weekly wages should be enabled
weekly to dispose of every charge made on him. There was
by this arrangement an economy of labour, which was as
valuable as an economy of money. (Hear, hear.) It was a
great advantage to him to have the payment of rates in-
cluded in the rent. It would be very difficult for the work-
ing man to save up those small sums and pay them all at
once. The working man could not always keep money in
hand to meet the demands of the tax collector. (Hear.)
He (Mr. Gladstone) would now give his view of the ele-
ment of the sums paid by the occupier of a house to his
landlord. The occupier, in the first place, paid his rent,
and then a composition rate. The landlord had a bonus of
10 per cent. for collection of therates. This was an advan-
tage to the landlord, and entailed no charge on the parish.
But by the present bill that 10 per cent. was to be thrown
into the sea. At present the landlord received some
compensation for the deficiencies of the insolvent
tenant. The landlord's share in the composition ranged
from 25 to 33, 60, and in some cases to 75 per cent. This
was much larger than the compulsory assessment under the
Small Tenements enactment, which gave 0n1y25 per cent.
Could there be a doubt, then, that to remit this would be a
ffne on the landlord ? He compounded at present for some
houses that were occupied, and for some that were
empty. lie took from the solvent tenants in occupied
houses enough to pay the composition rates for insolvent
tenants and for empty houses. Under the bill the occu-
pier would take from the landlord everything he had paid.
He (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to have a distinct and specific
answer to this question—lf the solvent occupier of a £lO
house sought enfranchisement, paid his full rate, and with-
drew from the tenement, how was the landlord to be in-
demnified for paying the rates of the insolvent tenants and
of the empty houses out of his own pocket. (Hear, hear.)
Enactments unjust to the landlord might be passed, but it
would practically be very difficult to oppress him. He had
arms which could not be taken out of his hands. The
injustice which you attempted to perpetrate upon him he
would by an easy process transfer to the tenant. The land-
lords would never consent to pay that fine—they would
break up the composition. They would raise the rent and
throw a double burden on the occupier. The whole scheme
was a moat ingenious device to make the landlords the
enemies of popular enfranchisement. (Hear, hear.) It was
impossible to conceive of anything more mischievous or
injurious, it would not only break up all the arrangements
between landlords and compounders, but by a perverse in-
genuity it would bring both parties into direct antago-
nism. (Hear, hear.) Some would say they were pro-
moting the privileges of the compound householders. But
were the landlords to be sacrificed for that purpose? Cer-
tainly not ; they had a perfect right to discourage any
attempt to give, at their expense, those privileges to
the compound householders. The whole. scheme
would lead to this inconvenience, that contracts be-
tween landlords and tenants would have to be unsettled
from year to year. It would lead to great soreness, from
that to anger, and thence to opposition to law and order.
The hon. member for Hels.ou looked at this"as a great in-'
convenience. Ho said it was a test of public virtue, but it
was no such test. Hundreds of large property holdets would
avail themselves of this means of acquiring influence. By
taking out wholesale orders from the Post-office, and send-
ing them round by a steward to get signatures, transacting
the whole business and paying every farthing, and con-
verting men into ratepaying householders without there
ever being the smallest difference in any process connected
with their tenure, under the name of a Reform Bill, the
rotten boroughs of ancient times would be revived. This
was a perfectly original method of accomplishing that ob-
ject, but it was once the mischief of which when once in-
troduced would with difficulty be removed. His hon. friend
proposed to take his stand on the act of Sir W. Clay, but
then he must say that ho wasastonished at the superfluity
of fears which possessed the designers of the bill, when
they were not content to take their stand upon that act.
What really was Sir W. Clay's act? He granted that the
act had in three or four towns, through the aid of registra-
tion agents and societies, led to the signing of 5,000 oreven
10,000 names, and that so many names had been inserted
on the register in consequence; but that was not the pur-
poses of Sir W. Clay. His purpose was the same as that of
the Government, to enable occupiers to obtain enfranchise-
met
individually.
to a imu Sir ,
aWnd Clayhosufficientcient those obstacles
very wisely reduced the
obstacles
had been found. He would like to know 'whether at this
moment there were 500 voters on the register in tho whole
country that had been enfranchised by individual compli-
minm
anco with the act of Sir W. Clay. Ile did not believe there
were 500.
Mr. BRIGHT—Not 100.

Mr. GLADSTONE —He took a large and liberal estimate
and he challenged contradiction. Why did the Government
not trust the act of Sir W. Clay? Would not that have
done for them? Well, but it was said that there were others
on the register. Certainly, and they were supposed to be
enfranchised by the act of Sir W. Clay ; but the number of
householders quoted by the hon. member for Oldham (Mr.
Hibbert) had not been enfranchised by that act. He as-
serted with some degree of indistinctness in his informa-
tion as to proportions, so far as he could learn, from the
small number of householders who had come upon the re-
gister since the passing of Sir W. Clay'e Act, by far the
larger majority had been placed upon the register in utter
disregard of the conditions of that act. They never claimed,
they never paid, they never tendered—neither the one nor
the other. They complied with no conditions at all, but
parish officers— benevolent and philanthropic as they might
have been—(a laugh)—or strong political partisans, as he
was afraid it was often the case, sometimes by the vigorous
exercise of benevolence shovelled them by thousands on
the register. (Hear.) That was the way that enfranchise-
ment, for the most part, happened under the act of Sir W.
Clay. Even then what did this act do ? It did this. The
total number of male occupiers at and above £lO was, he
thought, 639,000. Of these male occupiers 95,000 were
compound householders; and therefore 544,000 were direct
ratepayinFinhabitants. The 514,000 ratepaying house-
holders yielded 78 per cent, of the voters, and the 95,000
compound householders yielded 27 per cent. of the voters.
(Hear, hear.) Was that too many ? Why did the Govern-
ment not take Sir W. Clay's Act ? Now, really, could they
desire anything more than this to be able to trumpet to
the country that they had enfranchised with unparalleled
generosity 100 men, and yet to enjoy the comfortable con-
sciousness that out of that 100 72k per cent. would never
come upon the register? He did not think it was neces-
sary to take all this trouble to provide additional securi-
ties. (Laughter.) Their humane minds might have been
spared the sympathy he was sure they would all feel
with all the torture they were going to inflict upon the
compound householders. They might have accepted
these provisions in the act of Sir W. Clay, and might
at the same time have gained both the objects of a vast
nominal enfranchisement, and the more vital object of
a very narrow real one. (Hear hear.) But the present
state, he must say, of the compound householders was not
the praise, but the opprobrium of the electoral law—(hear,
hear)—that out of three compound householders who ought
to be on the register only one could find his way there,
and that by accident, by lottery, by the particular inclina-
tion and disposition of the overseers' of his parish, and not
by his own efforts, nor in proportion to the measure of his
political capacity. He had so much respect for any vote of
that committee and so much desire to attain, if it were pos-
sible, a settlement that would meet the substantial claims
of the country, that if it was considered necessary to main-
thin this phantom of personal rating—for such it was, in his
estimation—if it were considered necessary to maintain the
decencies of what was called the principle of the bill, let
the compound householder send in his claim, but do not fol-
low up the claim by the really preposterous condition of
requiring to change the tenure of his dwelling. He might
be wrong, and he excited a cry of disapproval when he said
that in his opinion it bore the character of a most odious
class legislation ; but it was his most conscientious con-
viction. (Cheers.) He wanted to know how gentlemen
sitting on the benches opposite, or on the benches around
him, would receive an Act of Parliament which made their
access to the franchise depend on their changing the tenure
of their houses. If they would repel it, and treat it as an
insult and an injwy, which they lyQuld, let them be careful

as to the estimate they might be disposed to form of the
feelings of the people. It seemed to him that they ought
to avoid above all things the suspicion, which he was afraid
they were likely to incur, of dealing falsely, and pretend-
ing to make a large enfranchisement, and at the same time
of taking care to give a small one. His own opinion was
that they might do anything with the people of England if
they wore treated honestly and above-board ; but fraud, dis-
simulation, circuitous methods, would have no effect.
(Oh, oh, and cheers.) Ho spoke of legislative fraud ;
they might call it what they liked. Ho was afraid
plenty of people would be found who would em-
ploy stronger words. He did not use tho word in
any personal sense ; he gave gentlemen opposite the same
credit with regard to their motives, intentions, and rules of
personal action as he claimed for himself. Ho would, how-
ever, withdraw the word "fraud" altogether. Any ad-
justment of provisions in anAct of Parliament which should
produce upon the public mind, as these provisions were now
widely producing, the impression and the conviction that
Parliament was paltering in a double sense with the people
of England—professing to give that which it meant in sub-
stance, as to the far greater part, to withhold—instead of
being a settlement of the question of Reform, would be a
blow to the honour and credit of the Legislature, and a
serious injury to the institutions of the country. (Cheers.)
Lord J. 3IANNEns and Mr. 3finsti supported the amend-
ment.

Mr. GREENE, in a humorous speech, recommended
the Opposition to withdraw their hostility to the bill, and
predicted that if they did not they would be defeated by a
large majority.

Mr. WHITBREAD urged that the proposition, if agreed
to, would be tantamount to inflicting a fine on the land-
lord, who, in his turn, would recoup himself by raising the
rent on his tenant.
Mr. KENDALL supported and Mr. FAWCETT opposed the
amendment, the latter arguing that its immediate effect
would be to fau the flames of agitation out of doors.
After some observations from Mr. GOLDNEY,
Mr. J. B. SMITH expressed his intention to support the
amendment, chiefly on the ground that as the house was
about to admit a new class of voters to the franchise they
were entitled to make terms with them, and to say that if
the compound householder did not discharge all the duties
of citizenship he was not entitled to all its privileges.
Mr. LOWE commented upon the unsubstantial principles
. . . .

upon which the bill was based, and asked with what show
of consistency could the Government insist upon the per-

sonal payment of rates when they were ready to admit
the lodger, who bore no portion of the public burden, and
discharged none of the duties of citizenship.
Mr. BRIGHT —1 shall neither entertain nor weary the
house with any condemnation of the acts under which land-
lords compounded their rates. We have had a good deal of
that, and my hon. friend near me has been particularly
strong upon it. lam willing to accept the fact that in 170
boroughs in England and Wales the practice of compound-
ing exists, more or less; and I agree with the right hon.
member for South Lancashire that it is something in favour
of the system that gradually, under a permissive bill, not
less than 5,000 parishes in England and Wales have adopted
the system ; and I am unwilling rudely, without knowing

enough of it, to condemn it for the purpose of framing an

excuse fora measure which, taken in connexion with that
system, I hold to be ono of the most extraordinary, and
one of the most unequal and one of the most unjust that
was ever offered to the English House of Commons by any
Ministry. (Laughter and cheers.) Gentlemen must re-
member that, whether they on that side of the house, or
whether I and those on this side of the house may be right,
this is a very serious question we are discussing ; and con-
sidering the mistakes you made last year you must at
least be a little modest. (Laughter, and hear.) You may
fairly, at any rate, consider the arguments which may ope-
rate against your present views. Now, will the house fol-
low me just a little on this ono point ? The Chancellor of
the Exchequer has stated, in answer to questions from
Scotch members, that in the Scotch bill the franchise will
be so arranged that it will be practically household suf-
frage throughout all the boroughs of Scotland ; the only
question will be that the franchise will not be extended
to the persons under £1 rental whose rates aro not paid
by the occupier. In fact, I believe occupiers are not
rated in any way below .£4 ; but above £1 to every
person who pays his rates the franchise will be given.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that he made no statement in regard to the £4 line.
Mr. BRIGHT.—I did not intend to say that the right
hon. gentleman had made such a statement. 1 only said
that he proposed in Scotland to extend what ho called the
principle of the bill, and what followed was merely an
explanatory remark of my own. (Hear, hear.) By and
by a bill will be introduced for Ireland, but no promise
will bo given in regard to the ;node in which the franchise
will be arranged. Irish members tell me that in that coun-
try, to a point of .£1 rating, the rates are paid by the laud-
lord—(hear, hear)—and to above £1 half the rate is paid
by the landlord and half by the tenant ; and I ought to
have said further, that in Scotland half the rate is paid by
the landlord and half by the tenant. In England there
are 29 boroughs that will be practically about in the same
position, and in which the franchise will be very largely
extended ; so that we have the principle of the bill of the
right hon. gentlemen applying, I presume, to Ireland, but
certainly to Scotland, and certainly to 29 boroughs in Eng-
land, without the enormous and moat unfortunate limita-
tions which the same bill will apply to 170 other boroughs
in England and Wales. 1 do not believe the right hon. gen-
tleman or his Government would have proposed this plan
if they had known when it was first thought of that this
result would be attained. i am inclined to agree with the
right hen. gentlemen the member for Caine (Mr. Lowe)
that this is a misfortune attending their bill which the
right hon. gentleman probably wished did not exist to so
great an extent as it was now found to do. But I have main-
tained from the beginning of these discussions that there is
no real difficulty in accommodating this matter, and being
equally just to all the boroughs. It seems t o me something ,
like a pedantic perseverance, by which the Government or
the right hon. gentlemen, for he appears to be the Govern-
ment—(laughter) —stands by a proposition which I believe
ho would not have made if he had seen the return which
the Secretary to the Treasury obtained some time ago, and
which he must know as well as any man in this House
knows, that it is utterly incapable of defence, and that it
never can subsist for a single Parliament as it now is.
I am not now pleading for any particular point to which
you extend the suffrage; I am pleading only for equality
and fairness in this matter--(hear, hear)__and I say you
cannot afford—notwithstanding what my hon. friend said,
that Parliament has no right, and cannot exercise the
power without injury to itself and the country—to pass
a bill guilty of such enormous inequality and injustice.
(Oh, oh, and cheers.) If any hon, gentleman says there is
no inequality, let him stand up and show it to be so. I
argue that the remedy is simple and very easy, and that that
remedy to a very large extent will be found in the amend-
ment to this clause which has been proposed by my hon.
friend the member for Oldham. The words which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer propoSes to introduce are objected to
because they proven t the subsequent adoption of the amend-
ments, and we are really on these words discussing that
amendment as if 4 were not really before us. 1 say there
are 29 boroughs in England and Wales which under this
bill you treat with great liberality, and there are 170 which
you treat with a niggardliness, and I say with an injustice
which will be found to be intolerable, and which I believe
it is not statesmanlike or right on the part of the house so
to treat. (Hear, hear.) If you were to adopt the proposi-
tion of the hon. member for Oldham, I will tell the house
what would exactly follow. if you take population for
population in the 29 boroughs and in the 170 boroughs,
you would find that the number of electors that would
ultimately come upon the roll in the 170 boroughs would
not vary more than three per cent, from the number that
would come on the roll by this bill in the 29 boroughs ;
and if it can be shown that the proposition of the member
forOldham would so balance the whole case with that jus-
tice you are now dealing out to the 29 boroughs, I ask the
house whether it is not worth while, when you wish to
settle a matter which has disturbed you for many years, to
persuade the Government and the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to accept the proposition of the hon. member for
Oldham, and thus make what we all know it would be, and
what we all know the present plan will not be, a just and
final settlement of the question. (Hear, hear.) I have
sometimes given honourable gentlemen opposite a little
advice. (Laughter.) I shall not give them any advice
to-night. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) But
I may make one or two remarks to them which may not
be without some force. (Hear, hear.) I think I have shown
that reason demands some change in the proposition of
the Government. (No, no, and hear, hear.) Hon. gen-
tlemen have advanced so far that that terrible spectre of
household suffrage has no terrors for them. Hon. gentle-
men opposite from Scotland even can regard it as ad-
vancing on them without fear ; and English members on
that side of the house have now learnt that, after all, it is
not a thing greatly to be dreaded. The change that has
ceme over you has been more remarkable than I have wit-
nessed before since I have had a seat in this houss.
(Cheers and laughter.) But you will forgive me mo if I
wonder at it. (Hear.) Then, having made that change,
what I want you to do is to carry it out into action, so
that at least you may not have made a sacrifice of this con-
cession for nothing. But if I turn to the bench below me
bore, the gentlemen who sit on it, with some others at this
end of the house, have also, I presume, made some change.
(Hear.) They have advanced, I am told and believe it,
though Lord Russell has for many years held that house-
hold suffrage was a wise foundation for the franchise. See
ins, then, that all those who have been accustomed in past
times to follow his standard are quite willing now to assist
hon. gentlemen opposite in establishing that basis for
boroughs, if the house is unanimous for household suf-
frage, who should eve not act upon that conviction ? My
hon. friend near me (dr. J. B. Smith) says they ought to
pay less poor rates. If we wore discussing poor rates his
observation would be pertinent, but it is the very opposite
in a discussion of this matter. The people of Birmingham
have a right to claim the same just and equal treatment
as will be given to those of Stockport and Sheffield. There
may be men who are willing to follow Ministers in any pro-
position they may make—(cries of " Question" from the
Ministerial benches)—but I should be ashamed of myself,
and I hope the hour, if it should ever come, when I defend
a measure like this, so unjust —(oh, oh)—to the great majo-
rity of the tolY Ilnglancl and Wales, may be the last

when I shall stand before the Parliament of this country.
(Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches, and cries of
" Oh, oh.) Let me remind the house that if I speak of the
people of Birmingham in regard to this matter, it is because
I am necessarily more familiar with the facts of that town ;
but the same arguments may be used as to the 170 towns to
which this bill applies. Nov, what was done at Birming-
ham ? An act was passed in 1828 by the rich people of the
parish, for the objects and purposes of the parish ; it was
not an indulgence to the people. But what are you about to
do ? You are about to inflict a penalty—(no, no)—you aro
about practically to exclude 36,000 male occupiers iu Bir-
mingham, from the accident that they happen to live in a
town where 40 years ago their forefathers thought it desir-
able to establish a plan for the payment of rates, which has
been sanctioned almost universally by Parliament, and
which is now in practice iu 5,000 parishes in England and
Wales. Does any man deny that you are practically ex-
cluding them ? (A crylof " Yes.") You deny it. I think
I heard that cry from the brother of a Cabinet Minister
(Mr. J. Hardy), whom I see before me. If you do not prac-
tically exclude them, why nut freely admit them ? (Cheers.)
Why object to the amendment of the hon. member for
Oldham, if you do not know that it would to a large
extent admit them, and that by rejecting the amendment,
you would to a largo extent exclude them. The hon. gentle-
man (Mr. J. Hardy) evidently does not know where he is
going. (Laughter.) The other day he wont down to a banquet
at Wakefield. (No, Derby.) Well, Derby, a place equally
appropriate. (Laughter.) The hon. member was asked to
answer to the toast of " The House of Commons ;" and
what did he say ? (Laughter.) He wished the managers
of the feast had given him something that he could under-
stand, " The Army and the Navy," or " The Bishops and
the Clergy of the Diocese." (Loud laughter.) Ho said if
he had ono of those old toasts that he would have known
where he was, but having been given the toast of " The
House of Commons," he mall:- did not know what he was
doing, or where he was going, for the house was upon a
track which he did not understand. (Great laughter.)
Now, the hon. gentleman must be a little tolerant to me,
because lam trying to make him understand it. (Cheers
and laughter.) I would only ask one question, and it
should be in one sentence. I ask hon. gentlemen, in
inflicting this general disfranchisement on the occupiers
of the town of Birmingham and 107 other boroughs,
why they, because rating acts and compounding acts
exist in these boroughs, inflict upon men the very
penalty they would inflict upon crime and bribery ?
Was it nothing, in a free country, to deny aman his rightful
vote for a member of Parliament ? (An hon. member—" It
is not a rightful vote.") What are they doing, sitting
there, and what are the pretences of the bill ? I will say
that in the town of Sheffield—the hon. member for that
borough is sitting near me, and will contradict me if I am
wrong—ho is always ready to contradict anybody—
(laughter)—I ought to add when he thinks they are
wrong—(laughter)—I say that in that intelligent town
which the hon. and learned gentleman represents there
are 28,000 householders, not a bit wiser or better, nor more
political, nor more disposed to law and order—(ironical cries
of "Hear, hear")—than those of Birmingham, and yet
in that borough 28,000 are to be received in open arms by
the bill, while iu Birmingham, which is as good as Shef-
field--(laughter, and hear, hear)—it is so arranged that
it will not include 36,000 who live in that town.
In the town of Birmingham the 24,000 persons put on the
register under Sir W. Clay's Act, and who have been on
the register for five years, have during the last month been
omitted from the register, and have been disfranchised
solely by the act of the overseers. Sir, that is a matter of
some consequence, and any scheme which places in the
hands of the parochial authorities, or of any others, the
power to disfranchise persons, must be a scheme fraught
with every kind of evil. (Hear, hear.) I hope hereafter
you will be able to say you were the means of passing a
great and just bill—(hear)—and that if there was tempo-
rarily any kind of humiliation attaching to it, at least you
have this noble compensation of having done a great ser-
vice to the country. (Hear, and cheers.) Everybody is
now anxious to assist in settling that difficult question.
There aro millions of voices out of doors that ask you also
to settle the question. Now is the time. Last year you
might have had a settlement of a more moderate character
—(no, no, and counter cheers)—and of a duration which I
believe would last any one of you for your Parliamentary
life. You refused it. (Ministerial cheers.) I told you
what would come if you refused it, and it has come. But
now I ask you to do what you are professing to do,
but which you refuse to do that is, to make your bill
equal and just to all the boroughs of the country.
I have authority, I believe, for speaking for a very large
number of those out of doors who ask for Reform. If I
am not, no man has—(laughter from the Ministerial side)
—and I say I lament with a grief I cannot well express—
(continued laughter)—not that you are not making a more
democratic measure—l am not, perhaps, as democratic as
your leader is in action—(laughter from the Opposition)—
I am not complaining of your not acting in a manner suf-
ficiently democratic, but that you are not acting in a spirit
of equality and of fairness; and though anything I may
say to you may be utterly useless—(loud Ministerial
cheers)—on this occasion, as it has been oftentimes in the
past- (Ministerial cheers)—yet I venture at this last hour
to appeal to the honourable and just feelings of the house
that dealing with millions of people on a subject which
deeply touches your hearts, you should at least deal with
them in a manner which this great people will feel to bo
equal and just to them. (Cheers.)
After some observations from Mr. J. HARDY, chiefly of
a personal character, in reply to a reference made by Mr.
Bright to a recent speech of the hon. member at Derby,
Mr. lIEADLAM said he would be a craven and a coward
if ho did not give his support to the Government, inasmuch
as they had brought in a bill precisely similar to that
which he had himself advocated in the presence of his
constituents.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and
was greeted with loud cheers from the Conservative side.
The right hon. gentleman said : I will only detain the
committee for a few moments, but perhaps they will
hardly think it unreasonable on my part—and they will
perhaps allow me—to state the reason why we inserted
those words on which we are going to divide, and to make
some observations on the remarks of those who preceded
me. It was said by the hon. member for Bradford that
there was some ambiguity in the language of the bill,
especially in the clause which referred to the compound
householder, and which would have rendered the clause
different from what it was intended by the Government
to be. At any rate, it appeared to me to be extremely ne-
cessary, when so much controversy tookplace on the com-
pound householder, and when so many amendments were
proposed on that subject, that the question should be put
before the House when it came to a decision in language
that could not be mistaken, so that the House should not
discuss the question, and should afterwards arrive at re-
sults which were not contemplated. It was for this reason
that, at the time I brought forward the amended clause
upon which the amendment we are called to divide upon
has been moved, the expression "ordinary occupier" was
used. Our feeling in using that phrase was this :—Wo
wished the House clearly to understand that in considering
this question the proposition we really made was, that the
borough franchise should be conferred upon an individual
rated to the poor's rates and personally paying those rates,
Therefore the phrase "ordinary occupier" was used, in
order that there might be no mistake upon the subject,
and it was accompanied by the placing on the table of the
large clause affecting the compound householder with
which the committee is familiar. After having heard the
prolongued discussion on the subject with which we
have been favoured, we retain the principle as strongly
as ever, that the borough franchise shall be founded on
the personal payment of rates, accompanied, of course,
with actual residence. I must say that the right hon.
member for Caine, who this evening made one of his
usual attacks on the Government, appears to me to
have completely misunderstood the whole principle of
the measure. (Hear, hear.) He says we came forward
in the most distinct manner and said the borough fran-
chise should be conferred upon those who contributed to
the public burdens. I utterly deny that proposition and
statement of the right hon. gentleman. No doubt con-
tribution to public burdens is an item, and an import-
ant item, in the construction of the Parliamentary fran-
chise, but I deny that it is the chief item ; and it is
quite possible to conceive that payment of the public
burdens might be quite consistent with a position in
society not suited for the suffrage. What I said was
that the principle of the bill from the first was that this
right should be conferred on those who fulfilled a public
duty, being placed in that position of life which was con-
sistent with the performance of civic obligations. There-
fore the right hon. member for Caine has mistaken the
foundation on which we place the franchise. That is our
answer to those who are pressing the claims of the com-
pound householder to the franchise. But• it is said that,
although we have proposed to establish the borough fran-
chise on this broad and popular principle, we at the same
time have connected with it conditions and regulations, the
object of which is to prevent many persons from enjeying
it. Well, what do you do ? Are you prepared to admit
all the inhabitants of houses in these boroughs? (Hear,
hear.) The argument of the right hon. member for South
Lancashire was founded on the assumption that persons
not admitted under this bill were corrupt; while the whole
argument of the hon. member for Westminster was a view,
illustrated in a manifold way, to prove that the general
body of the people, iu the boroughs of England especially
—the portion to whom we do not propose directly to ex-
tend the franchise—were so corrupt that liberty and good
government were imperilled by them. (Laughter and
cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham himself—
what does he mean by that residuum upon which he des-
canted in so picturesque a manner to the House. He
persons,teei ea in his mind, ought not
to e very sensible view,
means
b e
entrustedthat ag r ewa t
am
theany f
no doubt. Then this arises :—We have a plan by which
we think wo can attain the best of those who do not pos-
sess the franchise. We propoee it should be given to those
who, by direct performance of public duty, prove they may
be trusted with the possession of a public right. We even
offer to those who do not come under our conditions means,
and very facile means, by which they may obtain it.
(Hear, hear.) What plan do the hon. members for Lan-
cashire, Birmingham, and Westminster suggest in order to
effect that object ? I have heard a great deal about the
and if I were to listen
corruption, of the people of England,

to the arguments and accept the conclusions of the great
Liberal leaders, I should be ashamed of my countrymen.
(Hear.) When you consider what is the condition of the
English constituencies, nothing can be more preposterous
than the conclusions to which these gentlemen, and espe-
cially the hon. member for Westminster, have arrived. In
a previous discussion I showed that these boroughs have
a constituency of 2,500. Only conceive what expenditure
must be incurred in paying the rates for all those. I
take it for granted that if the constituent had his sates

paid for him he would look upon it as a personal benefit ;
but he would probably like something more substantial,
and it is absurd to suppose that electioneering agents
could, by paying many thousands of pounds in rates, so
corrupt the constituencies as to secure their
This principle of personal rating is not one which can oe
perverted to any great extent as a means of corruption•
It can only be part of a very great scheme of corruption.
Long organised and extensively organised schemes of cor-
ruption in boroughs seldom succeed, therefore I cannot
believe that these allegations against the purity of our
fellow-citizens and this assumption of infinite and general
corruption on the part of those whom we have been told
were so worthy of the franchise, have any substantial
foundation. I wish to say ono word on the condition of
the compound householder. Notwithstanding the cri-
ticism on us, the result of our labours is that the corn-
pound householder will now very generally possess a great
privilege which before he did n 1 possess, viz., he will
be able to deduct from his landlord the amount of the
rates he will be called upon to pay in order to enjoy the
suffrage. With regard to Sir Wm. Clay's Act, I have ex-
pressed my opinion on this measure, and the more I con-
sider it the more I am satisfied that my opinion was not
ill grounded. I believe the hon. member for Holston
(Mr. Brett) was perfectly right in his statement to-night/
and that the hon. member for Birmingham was not sur-
prised at the oiservations which he made. I will not pot
my memory against that of the hon. member (Mr.
Bright), but my opinion is that the third clause of Sir W.•
Clay's Act was interpolated in a manner which was highly
disapproved by persons of authority in this house. So far
from Mr. Spooner being the only person who protested
against the insertion, allow me to recall words which We
both must have heard at that time. Lord John Russell, at
the time the bill passed in. 1851, said of the third clause
that it went beyond the Reform Act. [The right hon.
gentleman quoted Lord John Russell against the adoption
of that third clause as a proof that Mr. Spooner was not
the only member who protested, and then went on to say]:
I am surprised at the language with which the right hon•
gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) spoke of that Act to-
night, though 1 confess it was expressed with a fervent
violence, of which he is occasionally master. He said it
was the opprobrium of our electoral law. [Mr. GLADSTOSB
—No, no.] Well, this is litera scr4)tce monet. My memory
not only says that, but the right hon. gentleman repented
it. And yet it is this Act which the right hon. gentleman
has been pitting against the bill which we are endeavour-
ing to pass. (Cheers.) lam willing to believe that the
Act of Sir William Clay was not annihilated by the lan-
guage of the right bon. gentleman. I only hope that it is
equally untrue the account which reaches me that he
charged those who are sitting on this bench in their con-
duct of this bill with fraud and dissimulation. That is
language which one could hardly expect from any member
of this house. (Government cheers.) It is severe language
for those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs from
the lips of a gentleman who has himself taken a leading
part in public affairs, and who knows what such responsi-
bility is. I understand the hon. gentleman did withdraw
these words on indignation being expressed, but he
added, " There has been an adjustment and provision
framed, with the appearance of giving an extended fran-
chise,while care has been, at the same time, taken that the
apparent extension should not be realised." (Cheer!
and counter cheers.) I must confess, for my own part,
I prefer the original invective of the right honourable
gentleman. (Cheers.) The denunciations of Torquemads
to the interpretation of Loyola. I prefer to meet a clear
charge of fraud and dissimulation than to be told in lan-
guage like that I have just read to the house that we have
been guilty of conduct unworthy, in my opinion, of all
public men. (Cheers.) I wish the house now to dispas-
sionately consider the state of parties on this subject. The
right hen. gentleman last year brought in a bill to improvethe representation of the people. A considerable period
was employed in the discussion of that measure, but after
a time it was withdrawn. This year we have endeavoured,
under circumstances to which I need not again refer, to
the best of our ability, with great care, and under circure
if
we of considerable anxiety, we have endeavoured,
we could possibly, to bring to a solution this question, and
to-night will decide whether we have failed or not. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman failed last year; and if you de
tide against us to-night we shall, after having made an
arduous and anxious effort, we, too, shall have failed. But
in what position, if this question is brought on, as it must
be, sooner or later, in what position will Parliament stand
The section of public men who are the choice of England
will have no policy to guide them beyond the policy which
gentleman
yo u . willhave
not
onlyrejected
failed
which
a-lot
fanhut
slieegvgt
rehh3m,t
,tew.faaoert Becauser:tiewbruiatrytasking
dt
hoafi
se
otyt
huehtonaehult.
rejected
Wrihghpti hosr
weuot
proposi-
tion with
repudiated
oxeopnfpnueseaid;dt
iigaeeaaint.nie, experience
utti iatdm.tnhedtTehs
Therefore,
enci secures,
ehort eu,arseel
l d
when we appear consideration,bfore our con-
stituents there will bo but one scheme to decide ; there is
no counter project. (Ministerial cheers, and "Oh." If
there is a counter project it is ono that must be drawn
from the halls of Birmingham—(cheers)—where the boo'
member for Birmingham addresses his constituents
in a manner so peculiar, of which we have been
reminded to-night. Wo are told that we ought,
to repeal all the rating Acts; but a measure el
reform that would deal with those Acts appears to
be a measure which the united influence of both sides of
the House would scarcely succeed in carrying. The prin. ;
ciples upon which this measure is built are sound, and
ll
temperately avail, and will have an influence upon future
legislation with regard to rating. No doubt great changes
will occur in that respect, and they will be carried by the
good sense and feeling which characterises Englishmen'
Circumstances will adapt themselves to the new state of
affairs, and a result will be brought about which in raY
opinion will elevate the character of tho English people-7'
which will teach them a wiser habit of administering their
own affairs, and which will teach them that the perform-
ance of duties is the soundest principle upon which we can
found the enjoyment of rights. I have not alluded to the
failure of those on the opposite side of the House for all
irritable expressions which have been used. I will assume
for the moment that wo also may not be successful ; but I
put it to the House well to consider how very critical the
state of affairs must be with regard to this all-important
subject if that happens. On the part of the Government I
wish to express to the House our sense of the candour and
kindness with which our propositions have generally been
considered. (Cheers.) Wo have always felt that to the
allegiance and sympathy of the majority we had no ground
of appeal, except the common conviction that a sincere
effort successfully to deal with this question ought to be
encouraged and supported, from whatever side of the Hone')
it came. (Hear, hear.) We have omitted no legitimate
opportunity of showing how completely we deferred to the
views and feelings of the lHouse, provided we were net
asked to sacrifice the great principle upon which we
have at all times declared ourselves determined to up"
hold. We have reason to believe, from the course of
these discussions, that the principle is not unacceptable
to the House. There may have been some difficult
among us as to its application. The views of the ho
member for Oldham, introduced to us with dignity
and self-respect—(hear, hear)—though they appear utterly
impracticable, with the principles which are the fou nds-
tions of this bill, deserve candid consideration. We have
done as much to meet these views as is consistent with the
main principle of the bill. I deeply regret that the hon•
member has found it consistent with his duty to ask the
opinion of the house upon a question so critical. All I cgs
say for the Government is that we have had no other wish
in this business but to bring it to a happy conclusion. Not
for the sake of retaining power, not for the sake of obtain'
ing reputation—(laughter from the Opposition)—because
we were ready at all times to give to the House of Co"n
mons in the conduct of this business the influential posi-
tion which would show to the country that, if the measure
passed, it was the measure of the House of Commons, an'
not of the Government. (Cheers.) I commend it at the less
hour to the consideration of the committee, and I still will
hold that, with their aid, her Majesty's Government mai
conduct this business to a happy termination. (Cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE (who was received with cries or
"Divide" from the Ministerial benches, and cheers fr°lll
the Opposition, and who found some difficulty in obtain..
ing a hearing) said he never stated, as the right hon. gear
tleman said, that the clause was the opprobrium of the bill,
but that the condition of the compound householner Viet
the opprobrium of the present electoral law. The right
hon. gentlemen said ho imputed fraud and dissimulation to
the Government, and, upon being interrupted with an I'l_
_
dignant cry, withdrew those words. During the throe
months of the present session he had never censured the
conduct of the Government with respect to Reform. Nor
had he to-night made such an imputation on the Govern-
ment. The eagerness of four or five members—which the,
right hon. gentleman adorns by calling a " cry of indignt
tion"—prevented him from finishing a sentence which
would have shown that he was describing the impressiouct ,i,l,
twbleiiurchuNN,vuortuillduebnet,cbrueattbeyd elsewhere,t
co
pur-
sued a certain course. (" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial
side, and cheers from the Opposition.)
d tnooftt the htohues ec7(ll
__„l o'clock the committee divided, when
the At
' aq
numbersuart eery were—

-
For the Chancellor of the Exchequer's amend-
ment 322
Against
Majority for Ministers
The result was received with loud and prolonged
oheerti
from the Ministerial benches.
The words proposed were then inserted, and the Chair-
man reported progress. house
The remaining business was disposed of, and the ho
adjourned at 10 minutes to two o'clock.

- - _ —
London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM S
ANDREW ,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tut: SON Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County Of
Middlesex.—Friday, May 10,1807.