The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-25 00:00:00

«~,<~Z

k
Depu 'on to Mr. Gladstone on Refom.

On Saturday a deputation of the London Work-
ing Men's Association waited by appointment upon
the Right Hon. W. Gladstone with reference to the
Government Reform Bill, and to urge their views,
as the representatives of a very large body of the
London working men, upon the Ministerial measure.
Mr. POTTER, the spokesman, said the London
artisans particularly desired a lodger clause inserted
in the bill.

Air. GLADSTONE said he was as much persuaded
of the necessity of a lodger clause as they were
themselves; the difficulty, however, was to say what
would be a good lodger clause, that was to say
under what form could a lodger make his claim to
be placed on the register?
Mr. PorrEn, after some abuse of the Tories, said
—The principle advocated by the Working Men's
Association was a residential and registered man-
hood suffrage protected by the ballot, considering
that to be the only basis for a final settlement of the
Reform question, although possibly that principle
might not for some years be acknowledged by the
Legislature. They were therefore prepared to waive
that principle at the present time, if by so doing
' they could insure a Reform bill containing an honest
household suffrage and a liberal lodger franchise, in
the belief that by such a measure every man would
in a few years be educated up to the franchise point,
and be able to justify his claim to a vote.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in his reply, said he could not
help feeling that they had made a great sacrifice in
waiving their own principles, and for a time plac-
ing in abeyance what they believed to be their just
claims, thus strengthening the hands of himself
and others who honestly desired to serve them.
(Ilear, hear.) With regard to the general question
he quite agreed with the position which the depu-
tation had laid down that it was highly desirable
the question should be settled this year, and it was
of equal importance that it should be settled on a
basis satisfactory to the great body of the people. He
did not yet despair of obtaining a settlement this
year, for he believed the House of Commons were
now willing to do what last year it would not do,
sacrifice its time, comfort, and repose for the sake
of getting this settlement. (Hear.) There were, no
doubt, some parties in the house who were desirous
of delay, and when the bill got into committee
would say—Take the bill now before the country or
nothing ; but the friends of reform were quite awake
to this, and were prepared for such a proposition.
(Hear.) With regard to the lodger franchise, he
assured them that he was entirely with the opinion
of the deputation, and was prepared distinctly to
assure them that he would not give his assent to any
bill from which a liberal lodger franchise was ex-
cluded. (Hear.) However great might be his desire,
and that of those with whom he acted, to obtain a
settlement of the reform question this year, he
would not support any measure which did not afford
a reasonable hope that the question would be set-
tled for a long time to come, and he would unhesi-
tatingly vote against the third reading of any bill in
which a lodger clause was not inserted. (Hear.) If
such a franchise was not included in any bill now
passed, the whole question would come up again
next year. (Hear.) With respect to the county
franchise, he must say there were questions con-
nected with it which made it undesirable to have
too low a qualification. He was inclined to look on
the agricultural labourers as a rising class, advancing
in intelligence and skill through the introduction of
machinery and other agricultural improvements ;
but still it must be allowed tliat the educational
standard of this class was yet very low. Parliament
must deal with this point ina careful but just manner.
Then there was the case of the compound house-
holders. He should object to any proposition which
looked like pretences of creating rights to the fran-
' chise, while those rights were in realityrendered nuga-
tory by obstructions. Every right which Parliament
createdought to be easy of attainment. (Hear). To say
that men were to be enfranchised only by answering
questions about their rates, of which they knew no-
thing, and for parliamentary purposes ought to know
nothing, was neither honest nor just. Rates were
made for parochial purposes, and the parliamentary
franchise ought not to be made dependent on rate-
paying classes. To say that men paying under a
certain amount of rent should be fined for obtaining
the franchise was open to the same objection; for
the manner in which the present bill proposed to
deal with the compound householder was in effect to
fine him if he applied for the franchise, and it would
be more honest to call it a fine at once. He pro-
tested against these distinctions and these rate-pay-
ing classes. The bill, as proposed, professed to give
household suffrage, and then, by these fine-drawn
distinctions after household suffrage had been bla-
zoned forth to the country, took away from those it
professed thus to enfranchise fully two-thirds of the
number. (Hear.) There had been issued that morn-
ing a parliamentary return, brought out in conse-
quence of a question put to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, giving information with regard to the
compound householders, and he strongly advised
them and Reformers generally to obtain and study
it. It was No. 136 of this session. From it he had
gleaned some information with regard to this pro.
fessed Household Suffrage Bill. Now in Birming-
ham there were 2,381 people, less than 1 per cent.
of the popui.ation, who might be enfranchised under
the bill, as ratepaying householders not enfranchised
at present, but there were 36,137 compound house-
holders who would be disqualified. (Shame.) The
case of Brighton was still more remarkable and ab-
surd. The bill would enfranchise 14 persons who
paid their rates, while it would exclude 2,553. In
Kidderminster the number admitted by the bill would
be 24, and the number excluded 2,343. (Hear.)
There were many other boroughs where similar facts
were shown. 'There was a metropolitan borough
(Southwark) where 148 would be enfranchised, and
4,487 excluded. There were a number of places
where the Small Tenements Act was in force in
one part of the borough and not in another. There
were also boroughs where every occupier paid his
own rates, and in those places the householders
would be enfranchised, but these places were only
four in number. Take Stoke-upon-Trent, for
example. By the bill 15,171 persons would be en-
franchised, but what would be thought of a bill
which qualified for the franchise 15,000 in Stoke,
and only 14 in Brighton ? Thus, in a great mea-
sure, the bill would actually give the franchise to
the unskilled labourer of the small towns, while it
effectually excluded the skilled artisans of the large
manufacturing towns and of the metropolis. (Hear.)
No one could say that those who represented the
unskilled labour were so well qualified to exercise
the franchise as those who represented the skilled
labour of the country. The skilled artisans were an
intelligent class of men, men who read the daily
were
eent i h
newspapers, who were conversant with the great
public questions of the day, who understood the
principles of self-government, as evinced
r yltheir
o who
almost e
combinations and organisations for trade and pro-
videntrislirled labouring
e elassee
rclasses,y
dis-
tinctf
rponuirpc:hsees.
unskilled
almost invariably lived on the verge of poverty, and
tai
Nv means
stood
to of
od
whose whole thoughts were directed as to they
could tley
ainbasrtetehplaces subsistence.as
cßoyuldthbeestboilbl as n the
it now
Stoke these classes would be largely enfran-
chised, while the skilled artisans were ex-
cluded. If the bill were to pass as it now stood
he saw by the returns he had before referred to, that
in many towns the occupiers of houses on one side
of a street would be enfranchised while houses on the
opposite side would be excluded ; and this was
called a Household Suffrage Bill. The power of
conferring or withholding the franchise was placed
in the hands of parochial authorities. Should the
bill pats as now proposed it would be jntolerable,
and no sooner would it become law than the whole
country would be in a flame. (Hear .)I his must
not be. Theremust be an honest and liberal enfran-
chisement of the people—an equitable representa-
tion of the working classes ; not one which would
create invidious distinctions by dual voting as pro-
posed ; a bill embracing the lodger franchise, and
to no other bill would he—or, he believed, the
Liberal party—give any consent. (Hear.) If the
deputation would furnish him with the wishes of the
Working Men's Association in writing lie would
give them his best attention and set'ions considera-
tion.