The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-07 00:00:00

MR. OSBORNE'S "MARE'S NEST."

Mr. B. OSBORNE called the attention of the house to
a matter which, he said, had assumed the shape of a per-
sonal affair. He referred to the memorandum which the
hon. member for Swansea had drawn up, and also to the
copy he had made known to the house. He was quite
prepared to produce his copy, and he thought the only
course open to the hon. member for Swansea was to pro-
duce the secret document. If ho was wrong in what he
had stated about the document, he maintained that the
memorandum was drawn up to influence votes, and that
his hon. friend had acted as a decoy duck, and that he
had succeeded in inducing fifty feathered and confiding
ducks to follow his example. He therefore called upon
the hon. member to produce the document as the only
way of setting the matter right.
Mr. DILL WYN said he was quite ready to produce the
original document if it was the wish of the house, but
unless that wish was expressed he should refrain from
doing so. He thought the proper course for the hon.
member for Nottingham to have pursued would have been,
after he had made his copy of the memorandum, to have
asked him whether his copy was correct or not. (Hear.)
Colonel TAYLOR said he had not one word to add or
to retract from the statement he had sent to the news-
papers. He considered the conversation he had had with
the hon. member for Swansea was of a private nature.
Mr. 0. STANLEY said he never stated that the copy of
the document read by the hon. member for Nottingham
was r% correct one. He stated that it was written from re-
collection after the reading of the memorandum of the hon.
member for Swansea. The proper time for him to have
denied the correctness of the copy was when it was first
read to the house by his hon. friend. This he had not
dune, and now he came forward and denied that it was in
consonance with the original document.
Mr. LuBBERT said he knew nothing about that mat-
ter, but ho thought from what had come to his know-
lodge that the original document was a private communi-
cati.m.

Mr. LOWE sail the name of tne Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer having been mentioned in connection with a mat-
ter which, it hal been said, had led `,o certain members

havi'ig been influenced in that house, it was a matter
that required some explanation from some member of the
Government.

The CHA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would, as there was then no question before the house,
take the opportunity of making some observations on the
'notion for going into committee.
THE FENIAN PETITION.

Mr. D. GRIFFITHS proceeded to refer to certain ob-
servations made by Mr. Bright on the presentation of the
petition relative to the treatment of the Fenian prisoners
last Fiiday, but after he had proceeded some time Sir
G. Grey said it was but right, before the subject was con-
verted into a question of privilege, notice of the fact should
be given.

The SPEAKER also decided that before the matter
could be properly before the house it was requisite that
notice of his intention to do so should be given.

THE IRISH CHURCH.

In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
tiir JO [IN GRAY 6aid he should proceed with the
mltter to-morrow.

THE MEETtgG IN HYDE PARK.

",Ir. YORKE asked the Secretary of State for the Home
D3partmf3nt a question with respect to the meeting in
Hyde Park. It had become known that cabs and custer-
►nnngers' carts had been admitted into Hyde Park, and
what he wished to know was whether the ordinary regu-
lations had altogether been set aside. _ _ _

Mr. WA I.POIE said he was not aware of the admission
cf cabs and carts into Hyde Park. All the ordinary regu-
lations with respect to that park were now in full opera-
tion.

THE REFORM BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
regretted he had not been able to place the exact words of
the amendment he had referred to in the hands of hon.
members. He hoped, however, to do so to-morrow even-
ing. With respect to the amendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Oldham, he had fulfilled his promise, and brought
the matter under the consideration of his colleagues, and
he regretted they could not relieve the compound
householders in the manner he proposed. The
right hon. gentleman then proceeded to state the
nature of the amendments that he proposed to
make in the bill with respect to compound householders.
It wa propose I that the compound householder should
pay the whole amount of rates and deduct the entire
amount from his routs. By other arrangements it had
been so set out that neither the landlord nor the occu-
pier would incur the fine that had been spoken of.
He proposed to make certain amendments to the 3lth
clause, and also to meet the repeal of the 13th and 14th
Viet., saving of course all existing rights.
Mr. BRIGHT would like to know • what was meant by
the last observation about existing rights ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
that any person whose name was on the register should
be protected in all the rights which he at present enjoyed.
The course ho thought that would be most advantageous
tc pursue was after they had finished the third clause they
should consent to the postponement of all clauses between
it and the 21th, and proceed with that, and thus at once
dispoee of the important question of the compound house-
holder. _ . _

Mr. BRIGHT thought that if the whole matter was
postponed for a few days, there was every prospect some
arrangement agreeable to all parties would be come to.
If the party of the right hon. gentleman would give
him the power of doing that which ho (Nlr. Bright) felt
certain he was desirous of doing, viz., to make the bill a
good and great measure, the better it would be for all

parties.
The question was then pat by Mr. Dodson that the
words "12 months" be inserted in the third clause, in
place of the words "two years," which was agreed to.
Sir B. PALMER asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the compound householder would be permitted
merely to make the deduction he then spoke of merely for
or
whether
to enable him to gut his name on the register,
o
he would have the favour of doing it every
y _tr.

The CLIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER eniti the
diquetion of course wonll ho nizolo every following yoar•
(Hoar, Bear.)

Sir R. PALMER moved his atn3ndln?iit to ),
which W 33 to omit the word " inhabitant." before that of
occupier, the effect of which was to make the qualifi-
cation of the occupier sufficient for the claim to be put
on the register.
Mr. GOLDING thought it would be unwise to strike
the word inhabitant out of the bill.
Sir It. COLLIER said the effect of the argument of his
hon. and learned friend was to place the voter below .£lO
in the saute position as the voter above that amount, but.,
b,ing opposed by Mr. Ay-rton, Mr. Clay, Mr. lleadlam, and
other gentlemen on the Opposition benches, Sir R. Palmer
ultimately withdrew it.

The Lodger Franchise" was then Illoved by Mr.
31-Cullagh :Cot rens ; the lodger to be witnitiod being de-
fined by Mr. Torrene as one who he occupied
:during the

12 months preceding any January sth, lodgings being
part of a dwelling-houss of a clear yearly value, if let un-
furnished, of -£lO or upwards, and has resided in such
lodgings during the six months immediately preceding the
last day of July, and has duly claimed to be registered as
a voter at the next ensuing registration of voters. In
support of it, he argued that without some such franchise
the bill would not be of the slightest use to the metropolis.
The amendment was supported by Mr. Locke, Mr. IL
Lewis, Dr. Brady, Sir M. Peto, and Mr. Alderman Lusk as
indispensable to the efficacy of the bill in London. Mr.
Smollett thought that as the number admitted by this
franchise would be infinitesimally small, it might be
safely granted. Mr. Marsh believed that the franchise
would admit a very respectable class of persons, but could
not see his way to a practical scheme.
Mr. GLADSTONE said they had now advanced to such
a point that it would be satisfactory to hear from the
right hon. gentleman whether he was disposed to accept
the moderate and judicious proposal of the hon. member
for Finsbury. It was true, as was stated by the hon.
member for Dumbartonshire, that he proposed a lodger
franchise in the bill of last year, and that he did not
venture to state the number that it would admit. At
that time he thought it was more likely to enfranchise
persons connected with the middle than the working class.
The proposal of the hon. member for Finsbury is a better
proposal than that contained in the Reform Bill of last
year ; for a very great flaw in the proposal of last year
was that it did not go to the extent of admitting
the lodger, like the householder, to the permanent pos-
session of the franchise as long as he continued in. his oc-
cupation. The bill of last year contemplated the annual
claim of lodgers ; but the amendment of the hon. member
for Finsbury would get rid of it. When he brought in
the bill last year, he was not aware of the intense
anxiety on the part of working men who were lodgers to
obtain the franchise. It was not right to draw a dispa-
raging line between lodgers and householders; but if any
distinction were drawn the lodgers, more than the house-
holders, represented the best class of working men. As
a rule the working man could not afford to pay himself
the rent of the house he occupied, and the result was that
he was compelled to let out a large portion of it to
lodgers. But as the trade or business of letting lodgings
was liable to risk and accidents, the best working men
were slow to encumber themselves with the responsi-
bility attached to it. The proposal of the hon. member
for Finsbury hail received almost universal assent. It
would be most desirable to supply those enlargements
and developments which are in this particular necessary
in order to make the bill applicable to the metropolis, con-
taining as it does one-third of the tows constituencies of
the country, and a large portion of the flower of the
working classes. The honourable member for Finsbury
had exercised a sound discretion in endeavouring to intro-
duce the lodger franchise into the third clause of the bill ;
but if the Government were favourable to its principle, he
would no doubt take counsel with them on the particular
form in which it shoulkbe inserted in the measure. He
did not, however, think that his honourable friend should
permit the standard of .£lO clear annual value, which he
had moved, to be raised, because that will represent a
rent of at least from £l6 to £lB a year, which is as high a
qualification as is likely to be acceptable. It would be a
matter for sincere congratulation if the Government would
accept the proposition.
Mr. BRADY regarded the motion of the hon. member
for Finsbury as a highly Conservative measure. No dif-
ference will be made in the members returned for the
metropolitan boroughs by such an increase of the consti-
tuency as will be effected by the introduction of the lodger
franchise ; and the same thing may be said of other large
towns. On the other hand, it will add to the number of
middle class voters in the small towns, and will thus tend
there to promote the return of Conservative members.
Sir 31. PETO could bear emphatic testimony to the
necessity of a lodger franchise in London and other large
towns. The increase in the value of property in these
places of late years has been such that houses are now
built in flats, and it is, therefore, absolutely requisite to
have a lodger franchise, in order to confer the suffrage
upon the highly respectable portion of the working classes
by whom they are inhabited. He would suggest that a
provision should be introduced into the bill compelling the
collectors to call for the rates and taxes, the payment of
which is requisite to qualify a man for the franchise. At
present this duty is often neglected, and voters are con-
I sequently disqualified.
Mr. Alderman LUSK also contended that the lodger
franchise is absolutely requisite to enfranchise the large
number of respectable men belonging both to the working
and the middle classes, who are compelled to live in lodg-
ings in London in consequence of the difficulty and ex-
pense of obtaining houses.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
rather struck by the variety of inconsistent arguments
rsed by hon. gentlemen on this subject. The late mem-
ber for Finsbury enlarged on the importance of respect-
, able persons who live in fists being enfranchised and hav-
iug the privilege of voting. But lam tinder a great mis-
apprehension if every person living in a flat and having a
separate door has not a vote already. (Hear.) Then my
hon. friend the member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett)
addressed us in a speech of rich humour, which appears to
;be hereditary. (Laughter.) His argument is that the
Government have brought forward a very revolutionary
measure, which nevertheless will not at all increase the

constituencies. Ido not, therefore, think that we shat

have any great difficulty with my hon. friend, because,
although he sometimes speaks against us, ho always gives
us his support in moments of emergency. (A laugh.)
Then comes the member forFinsbury(Mr. Alderman Lusk),
and he tells us that it is necessary to confer the franchise
upon lodgers because people cannot, on account of their
scarcity, obtain houses in London. But I cannot help
thinking that if there was this great demand the houses
would be forthcoming, and that there is, in fact, sonic
other reason than that referred to by the lion. member why
people who have all the requisite qualifications for en-
franchisement prefer i❑ London to live in lodgings rather
than to become householders. I have myself always been
of opinion that the claim of the lodger to enfranchisement
is a sound one ; but I wish to consider it in a spirit and a
mode very different from that in which it has been treated
by some hon. gentlemen, who have assured me that in the
small towns, at any rate, the voters thus enfranchised will
be animated by Conservative principles, while they have
at the same time assured their friends that the Liberal
seats for the larger towns will not be endangered. I have
the most profound contempt for these considerations. I
am perfectly convinced that, however wise we may think
ourselves in legislating so as to promote our party ends, a
few years will baffle all our calculations. I confine myself
to the considerrtion whether, in giving the franchise to
lodgers, we are extending it to men who would exercise it
with a due sense of duty. And I have always been of
opinion that lodger franchise, established on a sound basis,
would be a good franchise. I cannot say, however, that
I entirely approve of the manner in which the proposition
now before the house has been introduced to our notice.
The bon member for Finsbury proposes to foist into what,
if any, is a rating clause a provision which does not blend
with the rest of the clause, and which, iu some respects,
indeed calls on the house to assent to absolute contradic-
tions. I hope, therefore, the hon. member will consider
the suggestions lam now making. I say that we are not
only not opposed, but are friendly to the lodger franchise ;
and that if it is brought forward at a convenient time and
in a definite manner, it shall receive our favourable con-

sideration, with au anxious desire to adopt it. I should
be glad to have a lodger franchise, but I trust that the pre-
sent proposition will not be pressed in connection with the
clause now under consideration.

Mr. A YitTON said the proposition had been met to a
certain reasonable extent, but we ought to have a clear
assent by the Government to the principle of the lodger
franchise. There are different views as to what is a lodger

franchise. The one virtually before the committee pro -
poses .£lO, and we ought to know really what we are doing,
and it is desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should explain himself a little more clearly.
Mr. NASH had never been a sincere reformer. (Laugh-
ter.) No doubt the proposal would lot in a respectable
class, but he could not see how it was to be done, as there
can be no system of self-registration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, thought it
was unfair to call for an expression of opinion on what
was really a matter of detail. The proposition for a £lO
franchise is not really before the committee, and the hon.
gentleman ought not to force an expression of opinion.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had already expressed a general opinion on the ques-
tion of a lodger franchise, and if the amendment were
now withdrawn we should find ourselves exactly in the
position we were in on the second reading of the bill. The
right hon. gentleman says that the question of £lO is one
of detail. It must be admitted there are various forms of
lodger franchise. He should press for this, that before the
withdrawal of the amendment the views as to the lodger
franchise should be such as not to include the middle class
and exclude the lower, but fairly to admit the artisan class,
and that involved no matter of detail. (Hear, hear.) With
a less clear declaration the amendment ought not to be
withdrawn.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER remarked
on the doubtful meaning of the expression artisan class, for
he knew men of that class with larger incomes than usually
earned in the middle class. T ho right hon. gentleman was
not so anxious last year in admit f ho class. The
proposal was given up in despair on the drsinal description
of the effect of admitting so many of the middle class.
(Hear, hear.) The Government have already accepted the
principle urged by the member for Finsbury; they were
certainly not opposed to it; but there is no definite propo-
sition before the committee, not even for a £lO franchise.
Besides, it would be most inconsistent to engraft a lodger
franchise on a purely rating clause.
Mr. AYRTON urged that it was most important to have
some understanding on the point. What was meant on his
side was a £lO dwelling occupation, unfurnished, for 12
months.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
ought to be regulated by the strict rules of the committee.
The question is not before the committee. Several gun-
tlemen have left the house who are n Y. unfavourable to a
lodger franchise, but differ as to the 4.:.0114t. it should be

frailly open to them to express an opinion when an amend-
ment comes forward in a substantial form. Having so far
expressed an opinion, he did not. feel free to express an
assent to the proposal now submitted. After this general
statement, they ought not to be called on to decide on the
figure on this issue.

Mr. AYRTON, Mr. BRIGHT, and others pressed Mr. Dis-
raeli to consent at once to the line of £lO ; but, after a long
conversation, Mr. TORRENS withdrew his amendment with
no lux ther pledge from the Government as to the details,
on the understanding that he will renew it at the end of
the clause, the Government agreeing to accept the
principle.

At this point the Chairman was ordered to report
progress.

On the motion for going into committee on the Corrupt
Practices at Elections Bill,
Sir R. COLLIER, who wag seconded by Sir R. KNIGHT-
LEY, moved that it be referred to a select committee, and,
while approving heartily the proposal to hold inquiries on
the spot, objected to the power of appeal, and pointed out
other practical defects in the machinery of the bill.
Sir F. GOLDSMID deplored the omission from the bill
of the clause originally promised, transferring the seat,
when bribery had been,proved, to the unsuccessful can-
didate.

Sir G. GREY criticised sharply the provisions of the
bill, urging that it would deprive the house of many facili-
ties it now enjoyed of ascertaining the existence of cor-
rupt practices, and would be altogether a change for the
worse.

Sir S. NORTHOOTE assented on behalf of the Govern-
ment to the reference of the bill to a select committee, as
the chief desire of the Government was to ascertain how
far the house would go in this matter. Inquiries con-
ducted by independent tribunals, he argued, were the best
means of getting at the existence of corrupt practices, and
the Government was quite willing to omit the power of
appeal if the house would agree to it.
Mr. B. HOIT maintained that the most efficient means
of suppressing bribery was by a total change of elec-
tioneering machinery, and making illegal all colourable
expenses. _ _

Mr. B. OSBORNE in an amusing speech expressed his
utter incredulity as to the sincerity of the house in this
matter, and gave the Government great credit for having
dared to propose to commit these inquiries to an indepen-
dent tribunal. _

After some strictures on the bill from Mr. Sandford, Mr.
H. Berkeley, and Col. Sykes, it was ordered to be referred
to a select committee.
The Customs and Revenue Bill passed through com-
mittee.
The other business was disposed of and the house ad-
journed at 20 minutes past 12 o'clock.