The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-03 00:00:00

THE LICENSING SYSTEM

Mr. W. E. FORSTER aaked the Secretary of State fur
the Home Department what course he intended to take
with regard to the licensing of houses for the sale of in-
toxicating liquors.
Mr. WALPOLE said the bill introduced by the hon.
member (Mr. Graves) had been withdrawn, because the
Government could not, on financial grounds, agree to its
introduction. He had said on a former occasion
that the licensing system required to be fully
considered, and he had also stated that during
the time between the present and ensuing ses-
sion of Parliament he would consider the whole matter,
and lay the result of his deliberations before his colleagues
with a view of introducing a measure which would set the
matter at rest. That was what he had stated, and that
was what he intended to do. (Hear, hear.)
THE TORNADO.

Lord STANLEY said, owing to the position of affairs
at the present moment between this country and Spain,
he had to ask the hon. member for Honiton to abstain
from bringing the matter of the Tornado under discussion
to-morrow evening.
Mr. B. COCHRANE regretted that he had been asked
to postpone his motion, but he could not after the obser-
vations of the noble lord bring it forward. He hoped the
Government would enable him to bring the matter under
the attention of Parliament as early as possible. He would
take that opportunity of stating that the course the noble
lord had taken in his communications with the Govern-
ment of Spain he believed met with general satisfaction.
(Hear, hear.)
THE METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
In reply to an IloN. MEMBER,
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that certain proposals had
been made to the gas companies, but no definite result
bad yet been arrived at. If the proposals were accepted,
the bill would be read a second time, as a matter of course,
but if not then it would remain with the house whether it
would give its assent to the bill proceeding in the usual

way.
• RE PREbEIS TATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Earl GROSVENOR said that_usitcres,
hal consulted with several nPbt
uite
useless
in
bring.
thaendlashtediliv:itsdiocnomhoe
to the conclusion that it would
nig forward his aniLmdment:ini
r.tting franchise, and therefore •
shofUlvd°'nirot opfres'st that
part of his ani.mdmiut, but, at the same time, ho held
himself perfectly at liberty to bring
part of his amendment. (ffear, hear.) The
forward
rtehaseon thatsecond
had induced him to adopt that course was that he thought
it would be useless to occupy the time of the house in dis-
cussing. a matter which there was no hope of carrying.
(hear, hear.) His first desire was to see the bill made a
satisfactory one, and if it was not, then there would remain
the opportunity 6n the motion for its third reading of mov-
ing its rejection. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord then pro-
ceeded to defend himself against the charge of collision
that had been made against him, and said it was altogether
a mistake, as he had never acted in collision with any
member to defeat the bill.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
On clause 3 being read,
Mr. AYRTON moved an amendment, the effect of
which was to fix the time of residence necessary
for a qualification for being placed upon the re-
gister of voters at 12 months instead of two years, as was
proposed by the clause as it stood in the bill. He con-
tended- that the time fixed by the Government wa

altogether too long, and, although personally he was in
favour of less time even than he had proposed, he brought
forward the amendment as a compromise, which he hoped
would be accepted by the Government. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PARINGTON said he was sorry he could not, on
the part of the Government, agree to the proposal of the
hon. gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets. He
believed there was a sincere and earnest desire on both
sides of the house, and out of doors, that this long-vexed
question should be disposed of, and that a satisfactory bill
should as soon as possible be passed. He would further
admit that it was the duty of the Government, so far as was
consistent with their principles, to reciprocate the concilia-
tory spirit displayed by hon. members on the other side of
the house. It was, therefore, with great reluctance that
the Government could not consent to the amendment.
The object the Government had in view in fixing the
period of residence at two years was that the franchise
should not be open to the migratory population, but should
be limited to those whose station in life gave some security
for the proper exercise of the right. He thought that hon.
members would admit the Government were making large
concessions by offering the franchise to every householder
in the country who gave proof of his respectability and
fitness. lie was sorry to observe that in a speech recently

delivered by the hon. member for Birmingham, at Birming-
ham, the hon. gentleman had alluded to particular parts of
the bill in terms which were hardly consistent with the
facts of the case. The hon. member, in referring to the
bill, said that a two years' residence was a monstrous pro-
position—(Opposition cheers)—and that it was by such
mean and contemptible methods the Government, while
pretending to give the franchise, sought in a little dirty
way to prevent the people from obtaining it. He turned
for a complete refutation of such language to the Act
which regulated the municipal franchise. That Act was
passed by a Liberal Administration, and he wished to
know whether the hon. member for Birmingham would
charge them with having resorted to mean and con-
temptible tricks and little dirty ways when they in-
troduced that Act. Its object was to enable every
householder in municipal boroughs, who could give cer-
tain proofs of respectability and permanence, to exercise
the franchise in municipal elections. Those proofs were
length of residence and payment of rates. The period of
residence required in that Act was two years and eight
months, which was a longer period than that required in
the bill for those who were to vote at Parliamentary elec-
tions. He wished to remind the committee that the Muni-
cipal Act was not the only act introduced by a Liberal
Government under which a long period of previous resi-
dence was required as a test of fitness for the franchise. In
the Reform Bill Introduced in 1854 by Lord Aberdeen's
Government, of which Lord Russell and the right hon.

gentleman the member for South Lancashire were mem-

bars, the period of residence required was no less than two

years and six months, with the further obligation of the
full payment of rates. Offering, as they do, a very wide
extension of the franchise, the Government are bound to
take such precautions and securities as were adopted by
Liberal administrations. Fortified by these precedents,

and convinced that they are only asking a fair and rea-
sonable security, the Government must take the sense of
the house on the proposal now submitted.
Sir R. PALMER heard with satisfaction the statement
that the Government do not regard this as a question of
principle ; because it is an assurance that should the
house think it necessary to adopt
.the proposal, members
will not run the risk of all the alarming consequences

threatened on another occasion. (Laughter.)
Mr. M. T. BASS rose amidst some manifestations of im-
patience. He hoped the house would extend some little
indulgence to one who had been stigmatised as a traitor
and renegade for his honest vote in that house. With re-
gard to the amendment, it appeared to him impossible to
resist it on any just ground, unless you bring all alike to
the condition of two years' residence. Very hard names
had been applied to gentlemen below the gangway on ac-
count of a recent vote, and his hon. friend the member for
Birmingham accused him of treachery, and called him re-
negade for assisting an anti-reforming Government to pass
a bad bill, and even insinuated dishonesty. His hon. friend
abuses his great ability and power of speech when he at-
tributes to honest men unworthy motives. What would
the hon. member himself say were it imputed to him that
he was playing a part, and looking to office ? (Hear.) No
man could be better pleased to see him in office. He (Mr.
Bass) believed in his honesty, as he believed every gentle-
man to be honest who has not been proved otherwise.
(Laughter.) Such remarks were very unjust towards one
who had been 20 years a member of the house, and had
followed the Liberal party through good report and through
bad. Are wo not of the same flesh ? Are we to be cuffed,
and lie down and be thankful for it ? (Laughter.) The
member for Birmingham says it is a bad bill, but the mem-
ber for Bradford says there is a great deal of good in it,
and that it will admit 700,000 persons to the franchise.
Mr. FORSTER rose to explain that he had not made

that statement. He had said that, as far as the limit of
house occupation wont, the bill removed obstacles in the
way of 700,000 persons obtaining the franchise.
Mr. BASS —The hon. gentleman drew a distinction
without a difference. The member fur Halifax said
there was a great deal of good in the Government bill,
but those who voted for it aro called traitors to their
party. He (gr. Bass) had not deserted the leader of the
Liberal party, but had acted on his advice. What did
he tell us at his own house? (Laughter, and cries
of " Question.") The house should bear with him a little,
for he was on his defence. The right hon. gentleman said,
" You must have a bill from the Government, but you must
tako care to have a good bill." He appealed to what was
said by the member for Bradford. Well, he was for getting
a great deal of good. (Question.) It was said they ought to
throw out the bill and trust to a dissolution; but he pre-
ferred a bird in the hand to one in the bush, especially a
bird of such varied plumage that you cannot make out
whether it is fish, flesh, or good red herring. (Laughter.)
He did not desert the party ; the party deserted him. (Loud

laughter and Ministerial cheers.) The right hon. gentle-
man would not accuse him of any disrespect for saying tlmt
no one had set so many examples of independent voting.
Who has oftener left his party than the right hon gentle-
man ? The hon. member for Birmingham, though a Liberal
member, did his best to turn out the Government of Lord
Palmerston. He (Mr. Bass) voted to get a Reform Bill— a
good Reform Bill, or as good as he could get; and he be-
lieved that in doing so he voted in the best interests of
the country.
Mr. BRIGHT—I am very 'sorry that anything I have
said anywhere has given any pain to my hon. friend the
member for Derby, but it seems to me my hon. friend is in
a rather unfortunate position through the course which he
has pursued, seeing that he has had to write two long
letters to the public papers, and that not being sufficient,
he has made a speech to-night, which for him is unusually
long, in explanation of that course. (No, no, and hear,
hear.) lam sorry, too, that my hon. friend felt that the
observations which I made were so suitable a oap for him
that he put it on, because I made no reference to him, as
the house knows, by name, for ho was not in my thoughts
at the time, as he certainly could not be when I was saying
anything unpleasant of any of my countrymen. (Hear,
hear.) My hon. friend ought to be a little more just himself
before he is so critical of others, because in one of his let-
ters he referred to what had taken place after the division,
and did not hesitate to express an opinion in regard to the
hon. member for Sandwich, I suppose, by his having men-
tioned him to-night, and the course which that hon. mem-
ber took on that evening. My hon. friend said that those
1 sitting on the front Opposition bench did not like any
I longer to be left. out in the cold. (Oh, oh, and laughter.)
I Well, I believe that is not a very pleasant observation to
make to one's friends; therefore the hon. gentleman should
not be so very thin-skinned when ho puts into print what
he wrote, not in the heat of debate, but in the cool and
healthy state a man is likely to be in who has spent half a
day fishing on the Spey, and then sits down and pens such
a letter about his friends. (Hear.) Now, one word with
regard to the point before the committee. The right hon.
member for Droit wieh has quoted some words that 1 said
at Birmingham, and he thought I used language which
might be said to be damaging to, and depreciatory of, the
bill of the Government in this particular. I can only tell
him I believe I expressed most accurately the opini,m of
5,000 or 6,030 of his countrymen to whom I spoke; and
looking at the discussions which have taken place through-
out the country, both at meetings and in the newspapers,
that is the opinion which has been formed by the classes
affected by this particular portion of the bill. I will address
what I have to say to hon. gentlemen opposite. Some
people say you never convince anybody in this house. You
do not change votes perhaps, but I believe you do some-
times a little alter the sentiments of those to whom you
speak. At the present time we have come to the conclu-
sion that there should be a large extension of the borough
franchise, and we are rather seeking for qualifications on
L which to admit them than for restrictions under which
to exclude them. (Hear, hear.) According to the speech
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Government
could pick out another half million who were, from
his point of view, qualified, they would have no objec-
tions to admit them, because the house has lost that ab-
surd terror of numbers by which it was, in some degree,
actuated during the former discussions ou this question,
1 and particularly last year. (Hoar, hear.) This is a re-
-1 striction which is not founded upon any proved or sus-
pected disqualification. It is simply a res:riction you em-
ploy when you wish to get rid of numbers, and it is not
founded on the assumption even that the numbers are not
fit for the franchise. It is beside the question to tell us
what we proposed to do in 1854. You have made some
progress since last year—(laughter)—and it would be
absurd to suppose that the right hon. member for South
Lancashire and his friends have made no progress in the
same period. (Hear, hear.) There were many objections
to the bill of 1854, some because the Government was not
so good as it ought to be ; but we are not to say that, be-
cause Lord Aberdeen did this or that, we in this new world,
whore everybody is a refdpaer, must be so absurd as to go
back to that. Some persons suppose that the clause would
keep vat poor people, and those not fit to be electors ; but
beat in mind, it would keep out the rich people as well as
the peer. I met a gentleman last night who came up from
ILancashire, and who said that under the present restriction
he had been a year and a half before he could get a vote for
his borough. He is a man of great property, and, in all
probability, in next Pailiament he w.il be a member of