The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARILIITENT all points—most men may mean nearly the same thing by
that phrase. I think then the objects, so far as lam aware of
them from communication with members of the house, are
these three. First of all, that a legislative measure should
be passed without delay—that is, with the present year.
(Hear, hear.) Secondly, that that measure should be based
upon a liberal enfranchisement, on terms I will now under-
take to define, of the labouring classes. (Hear, hear.)
Thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important of them
all—that the provisions of the bill, that the conditions of
that liberal enfranchisement, should be so devised that the
bill may carry with it a fair and reasonable promise, if not
finality in the stricter sense of the term, yet of that kind of
fixedness which is all that the nature of public legislation
promises in such a subject, and we can expect or even de-
sire. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, it appears to me that in order
to realise the third of these conditions two rules, especially
and far beyond all others, must be observed. We must
have no exclusions from the franchise that are arbitrary in
their character, or that are other than founded upon broad
and intelligible grounds. (Clear.) I add then th 3 second
principle, that within the pale of the franchise we must
have no distinctions drawn—(hear)—by legislation which
are either of a vexatious or needless character, because
those distinctions go, more than any other form of defect
in a reform bill, to destroy the hope of that fixedness
which we all desire. Now, I proceed to examine the pro-
visions of the present bill in the light of these proposi-
tions. Before Ido so, I cannot help uttering a word of
regret for a production which no one has as yet candidly
regretted-1 mean the .£6 rating bill. Whether as a bill,
or as a measure sketched by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, I must say that did form, in my opinion, the basis
upon which a settlement might have been constructed.
There wore numerous points on which several other
gentlemen, on both sides of the house, would have been
at issue with the Government; but the issues were all of a
simple, straightforward, intelligible character ; and I am
satisfied, if the Government had refused to make
reasonable changes, or if wo on this side of the
house had demanded unreasonable changes, other minds
would have been directed to the merits of the controversy,
and we should by moral force have been compelled on one
side or the other, or on both, to arrive at an agreement on
the basis of the provisions of that bill. I therefore regret
Is brief and its untimely death.
" Ostendent terris hunc tantum fats, neque ultra
Esse sinent."

HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PETITIONS.

The Duke of ARGYLL and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY
presented petitions praying for the closing of public-
houses on the Sunday.

Lord DuFFEars presented a similar petition.
JUDGES IN CHAMBERS.

Tho LORD CHANCELLOR said that most of their

lordships did not know what were the functions of judges

when sitting in chambers. These functions, however,
very materially interfered with the ordinary routine of the
judges when sitting in their respective courts; and, con-
sequently, as it was considered that this duty might be
very well transacted by the masters of the courts, their
salaries had been increased, but still the burden upon the
judges was most inconvenient. He (the Lord Chancellor)
had great satisfaction in introducing a bill authorising the
judges to frame such rules and regulations as they might
think fit for the guidance of the masters of the respective
courts in conducting the business in chambers.
After a few remarks from Lord CRANWORTH, tho
bill was read a first time.
THE POET YOUNG.

Lord DETFERIN said that, with regard to the poet
Young, lie had heard of him at an early period of his (Lord
Dufferin's) life, and was subsequently acquainted with
him. He knew that he had been in very humble
life, but he had made a very 'trainable contribution
to the literature of the north of Ireland, and when he fell
into a state of poverty those who recognised his merit
had got up a strong memorial in his favour for the coun-
ty, which it was proposed should be granted by the noble
earl at the head of the Government. Both Protestants
and Catholics were unanimous in recommending Mr.
Young as a fit recipient of the bounty to be bestowed, he
trusted that the noble lord at the head of the Government
would, on all grounds, persist in granting the pension
which had been proposed to be given to Mr. Young.
The Earl of DERBY said that, in bestowing a pension of
that description he could not, in the position in which he was
placed, only be guided by the representations of the
memorialists. He quite agreed with what had been said
by the noble lord opposite about the ability which Mr.
Young had displayed in the works which had been pub-
lished by him.
After a few remarks from Lord STA-NROFE and Lord
LIFFORD, the subject dropped.

But it has gone, and cannot bo revived. We must make the
best of the measure which is before us. I wish now to in-
quire how that best can be made. Nothing can be more dis-
couraging to the prospect when we survey the main heads
connected with the settlement of the question involved in
this bill. I find these heads are ten. A bill on this subject,
as it appears to me, must contain a lodger franchise; but
this bill contains no lodger franchise. Next, it seems tome
that a bill of this kind, professing largely to enfranchise
downwards, must provide some means of preventing the
traffic in votes which wouldinfallibly arise on a large scale
with regard to the lowest class of householders. This bill
contains no such provisions. We must do away with the
vexatious distinctions which now exist between the com-
pound householder in a condition of life who is recognised
by law as St for the franchise, and those persons of the
same station, not being compound householders. This bill
does not do away with those distinctions; on the contrary,
it increases them. I think, sir, the taxing franchise must
be omitted. (Hear.) I think the dual vote must be aban-
doned. (Liberal cheers.) I apprehend there is no doubt that
the redistribution of seats proposed by the bill must be
considerably enlarged. (Hear.) I also venture to take it for
granted that the county franchise proposed by the bill must
be reduced. (Hear, hear.) I doubt whether the position of
a majority of the house will allow them to entertain the
important proposition for the optional use of voting payers.
And, finally, with respect to the collateral, the bye, the
special, .or the fancy franchise—the special, perhaps, is
the best name for them—my opinion is that, though in
principle no objection could be made to them or to some of
them, yet when we come to examine them we shall find, as
we gain acquaintance with the conditions of each proposal
that the advantages wo had anticipated continually dwindle,
while the obstacles and difficulties continually multiply,
and that there really remains a thin sterile residuum, or
else they altogether disappear. Here are the ten subjects,
and on them I will express such opinion as I have been
able to form. In the discussion which I will now attempt
I shall confine myself to the subject of the borough fran-
chise, as that is a subject involved by the provisions of the
bill as it now stands in hopeless intricacy and difficulty,
and since it must depend upon the assurances which must
be given by the Government with respect to the borough
franchise in the course of this debate whether, when we
come to the question of your leaving the chair, there will
be any prospect of really gaining ground by going into
committee on the bill. (Hear, hear.) Now, if I look
at the great enfranchising clause of this bill, clause 3,
I find it presents these prominent features : First, it ap
pears to convey the impression that we are now going to
abandon all attempts to distinguish between class and class,
and to recognise the universal fitness of all classes of the
community. But I confess it appears to me, with great
submission, if we do recognise that universal fitness, it is
not so very important as the right hon. gentleman seems to
think it is, whether we recognise it under the name of popu-
lar privileges or democratic rights. The clause gives the
public an impression that we are going to confer what is
called household suffrage. Without having any exagge-
rated apprehensions of the evil consequences that would
result even from an error which seems to be committed
in that direction—because I believe the good sense of the
country would effectually qualify and restrain the evil
consequences of such an error—yet I must say that it does
not appear to me to be at all sufficiently shown that we
are required either by the state of the population, or
by the wishes of the country at large, or by the state of
opinion in this house, or by its previous pledges, or by any
single consideration that can be brought to bear upon the
subject, to assent to that very broad principle. (Hear.)
Considering that as not essential which is needless, and
might produce in several particulars inconvenient results,
though I don't apprehend ruin or destruction from it, is no
reason at all for my adopting a proposition, if I think a
better measure can be devised. At present I merely de-
mur to that proposition, not as one under all circumstances
inadmissible, but as one which appears at present needless,
and therefore unwise. But, on going further into the
clause, I find that this immense concession is qualified by
a restraint which actually stultifies the concession itself.
(Hear, hear.) Three-quarters of a million of people are at
first enfranchised, but immediately after a condition is in-
troduced which cuts off half a million, or, as I think I can
show, more that half a million from that increase. Then,
again, this qualification is itself qualified, because in the
barrier of personal rating which prima facie shuts out half
a million there is introduced a little wicket through which
by a process we will presently examine, it will be in the
power of individuals to introduce themselves in a manner
its I shall show will probably make the provision for restraint
altogether nugatory. In that case you have household suf-
frage. Or it may be that this mode of entrance should prove
1 nugatory, and that the exclusion of half a million would re-
main without mitigation. But what is certainly an evil and
easily seen is, that if this were now law it would depend
on.the extent of the willingness of the local authorities,
and upon the extent of the willingness of registration
agents to determine whether wo were to be landed in
household suffrage or restricted within the narrow limits
of enfranchising one-third of the householders below the
limit of ..£lO. Now, whether we adopt household suffrage
or the narrow basis of her Majesty's Government, at least
let us keep in our own hands the determination of what
shall be the limits of the constituency. Do not let us leave
it to the parochial authorities of the country, or to the re-
gistration agents of the several political parties. (Hear.)
On examining the operation of this bill, I find it ranges
the borough constituency into a hierarchy of five classes.
At the head of these come those favoured children of for-
tune who are to be endowed with the dual vote. On that
dual vote I shall not trouble the house, because I think it
would be a waste of time. Next to the dual voters, who
have but little hope of realising that felicity, come the old
£lO householder voters of 1832. Their position is nomi-
nally unchanged by the bill, but it is really in every re-
spect changed most seriously, because a considerable num-
ber of minor voters—if I may so call them—are to be in-
troduced from beneath, so far diminishing the privilege
of the old £lO voter; while 30,000 dual voters are at the
same time to come in and swamp him from above. I
come now to the provision of the bill for what I will