The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-13 00:00:00

TI g SUN, I,OiWON, SATURDAY kV,E.LSINGIw APRIL 13, 1867

not at all connected with this debate ; and one of them was
an eminent officer of the Chamber of Commerce, and
another equally eminent in connection with the adminis-
tration of poor law affairs. I asked them—for I didn't
want to suggest to them any difficulties—" Would it not
be possible for you in Birmingham so to alter your position
with regard to the question of compounding for rates that
you could put yourselves very soon in as satisfactory a
position as is the town of Sheffield 2" They said they h -
lieved it to be absolutely impossible. In that town the
great majority of these 36,000 have never paid this poer
rate at ;all directly. It has not been the custom of the
town. And to ask them, for the sake of putting some of
I them upon the register, in accordance with the require-
ments of this capricious bill, to destroy the whole fabric
of the economic system connected with their poor rates,
is to ask what the house has no right to ask
--(cheers)—and we have no reason to expect it

will be complied with if we do ask it. I think the
house, and the .nembers for all the boroughs thus ad-
versely affected, have a right to complain that a bill has

Neon introduced having this essential quality, that it

must cause confusion in every borough when it has not

been shown, and never can be shown, that the cause of
ilia confusion is in the suiallest degree necessary to the
satisfactory settlement of the question of reform. (Cheers.)
Now, the house fa many cases proceeds very much upon
precedent. It likes what is old, and when things are 30
years old they have got a sort of respectability about them.
I have a great regard for the Reform Act, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer sometimes speaks of it as if ho had

a great respect for it. lam not sure that he is not ac-
tuated in his present Pours° in this session by a sort of envy
of Lord Russell. As Lord Russell is the great historic
authority on the Reform Act of 1832, he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer)hopesto become the vest laistoria name con-
nected with the Reform Act of 1867. (Hear, hear.) But
the principle of the Reform Act is extremely simple—
household suffrage, building occupation in towns, limited
by the value of £lO, That defines exactly what is in-
tended to be done ; and nearly all the bills that have been
introduced since that time have been based upon 0444
the same principle. That of the right hon. gentleman the
member for South Lancashire last year was based upon
the principle of a £7 rental. Nothing could be more
simple ; and, as far as it went, it was felt in all parts of
the country to be entirely clear and honest. (Hear, hear.)
But while that bill did definitely, clearly state what it was
intended to do, and could by no possibility deceive any-
body, this bill, capriciously proposing greatly to extend
the franchise, does actually exclude multitudes of those
who, if you touch this question at all, have a right to ex-
pect that their demand should be conceded. (Cheers.)
The remedy that the right honourable gentleman the
member for Lancashire proposes is very . much accord-
ance with the bill of 1832, and also with the bill of last
year. He wants to establish a definite ground and a
definite line, and to include the multitude, or a con-
siderable portion of them, that your bill must necessarily
exclude. (Cheers.) Now suppose-1 put this to the mem-
bers of the Government who are really anxious, as I am,
that this matter should be settled within the framework
of this bill—suppose that this point were settled which
now we are discussing—suppose that the personal rating
were abandoned, and that this great exclusion were said
to be unjust and were given up, and it was thought better
to offer something distinct and definite to the approbation
and acceptance of the people - well, then wo should have
to determine what the franchise should be. And it must
be one of two things. If the personal rating was given
up, it must be either household suffrage—(hear, hear)—
household suffrage pure and simple, or it must be some
line—it does not follow that it must be the line of the right
hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire—but it
must be some line above which, at present, tho franchise
should be given to everybody, and below which, at present
and may be, for aught I know, for another thirty years,
the franchise should not be extended. The right hon.
gentleman the member for South Lancashire has proposed
in his clause a £5 rating franchise ; and the President of
the Poor-law Board has made very merry, and expressed
astonishment at that part of the clause by which he pro-
poses really to say that, wherever the variations in the
rating are so great as to be manifestly defeating the object
of the house in the bill—that where the real annual value
is £6 or £6 55., in that case the suffrage should be given.
(Hear, hear.) The proposal of the right hon. gentleman
really comes to this—that it would have, as near as I can
judge, the same effect in extending the franchise as if the
house were to adopt the proposition of the bill of 18G0, and
give to the country a£6 rental franchise. (Cheers.) Now, I
am not going to chaffer about this matter. I believe honestly
that, whether the line of rating was drawn at £4, with the
rental at £5, or the lino of rating was drawn at £5 with
the rental at £6, either of these measures would be a better
measure for the country and far more satisfactory, and far
more a settlement of this question, than the bill as it is
now before the Houie. (Cheers.) I believe it because it
would be honest and equal. This bill is not equal ; and if
it is not equal it cannot be called- honest. And I believe
more, that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman the
member for Lancashire would include within the electoral
list more completely and fully all that the Rouse proposes
to take in, which is the best paid and most intelligent of
the working classes of the kingdom. (Hear.) Now, the
Chancellor of the Esc:limner, when he was making a speech
in favour of his bill on the second reading in 1959, made
use of an observation or two which I think he has now been
putting into practice. fie said, "I am perfectly aware of
all the tricks of management by which you can deal with
the borough franchise." (Hear.) He said, " How you can
manage to bo doing a vary liberal act, and yet keep out of
the franchise the very class for which so many persons ex-
press so much sympathy." (Cheers.) And he added, "
have all these plans in my pigeon-hole--(great cheers and
laughter)—and could have availed myself of them with par-
feet impunity." I dare say the noble lord the member for
Stamford (Lord Cranborne), if he were at liberty to explain
his explanation, might tell us how many of these curiosi-
ties from the pigeon-holes of the right hon. gentleman had
been laid before the Cabinet. But I suppose, afteefinger-
ing them all over, and weighing which would be the like-
liest to suit his purpose, the right hon. gentleman said that
this, after all, was the cleverest dodge. (Cheers.) And he
had a not altogether absurd vision that there were gentle-
men on this side of the House—enthusiasiic reformers
who would be caught by a proposition of this kind. (Hear,
hear.) There are gentlemen here who think that through
this bill they will get household suffrage. I understand
that the member for.Glasgew and some of his friends aro of
that opinion ; and they think they may gat it, not now, but
that this bill is so unpleasant, so unjust, and so insulting to
those whom it excludes, that it would be what is called
such a raw upon the public feeling and the public con-
science—(hear, hear)—that from the hour when the first
register is made up under this bill, there will be incessant
and irritating agitation in every one of the boroughs in
which it does not now confer household suffrage. (Hear,
hear.) That is the opinion of some of my 'friends on this
side of the house. (Hear, hear.) Well, these gentlemen
have not been remarkaNe for their activity in the reform
agitati▪
on. (Hear, hear.) I know not whether the member
for Glasgow and some others would be intending to take
what in▪ America is called the stump, and to fight this ques-
tion at great public meetings throughthe country. (Laugh-
ter.) If they are, all I hope is that they may find pro-
gross on this question requiring very much less labour
than I have found it to demand from me during the last
ten years. But now let me ask these hon. gentlemen a
question on household suffrage. lam for it--have always
since I have discussed this question of reform, been in
favour of that basis of borough franchise, but I am bound
to admit that I believe three-fourths of the members of
this house are not in favour of household suffrage.
(Cheers.) I doubt extremely, if all the gentlemen on the
other side were to leave the house, and the proposition
were put only to members on this side, whether it would
be carrried. (Cheers.) If that be so, I loan to the
opinion that it is not wise or statesmanlike policy to take
a measure partly because it is bad, and because that bad-
ness will be so unpleasant to the public that you hope
the public will rise against it, and in the very next
Parliament will batter at these doors, and ask this house
again to obstruct its business and course of legislation to
deal with the question you now leave unsettled. (Cheers.)
And let mo tell these hon. gentlemen that when that tim
does come these restrictions can no longer be maintained.
(Hear.) That that day will come I shall take no pains to
deny or to question. And when that time does come, the
House of Commons will take the very step then which the
right hon. member for South Lancashire asks it to take
now. (Rear.) It will not grant household suffrage pule
and simple; it will say, as I have said before and with
reason—because don't suppose that I have no sense—
(laughter)—of what is good, and honest, and independent
in a constituency. (Cheers.) The house will say then, as
as I repeat now, that is not for the advantage of the con-
stituencies, and not for the advantage of the poorest and
most dependent people, but greatly to their disadvantage,
that they should be placed in the condition of constant
temptation by being added to the electors. (Cheers.)
Therefore, though I have ever been, and still am, in favour
of household suffrage as the basis of your franchise, still
I believe it would be wise now—and I am afraid that our
population will not have vary much improved in the mean-
while as to make it unwise then—to draw a line a little
above the pure and simple household suffrage—(An lion.
member: No, no) —with the view of getting a better con-
stituency. Ido not know who the gentleman is who calls
out "No, no." I have discussed this question as much as
any man in England—(a laugh)—l have thought as much
about it; I have a larger interest in its being settled now,
and settled well, than any other man to whom I am speak-
ing—(oh, oh)--unless you put in the balance the interest
which the Chancellor of Exchequer has in being histori-
cally connected with this question ; and, sir, I might speak
of my historical connection with it. (Cheers and laugh-
ter.) Well, though the hon. gentleman calls "No, no,"
I believe that you might now settle the question by a
low line. I would recommend a line somewhat lower
than that of the right hon. gentleman. (Laughter
and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) In
my own bill of 1858 1 proposed that the line should be
drawn at the £3 rate or the £4 rental. In speaking on this
subject two or three weeks ago, I said I thought it was not
necessary, if the house could come to any almost unani-
mous or general conclusion, that we should make a fight
for the sake of a pound in this matter. But Ido believe
now that you may settle it on principle, removing all that

irritation on which hon. gentlemen near me are relying for
coming down to pure and simple household suffrage, and
you might give such a large and generous franchise to the
inhabitants of the towns that in the lifetime of the youngest

man in this house no further demand for the extension of

he suffrage in boroughs would be made. (Cheers.) _ I

know nothing at all, I have not an idea, of what is to be
the result of the division to-night. 1 wish we could have

no division—(hear, hear)—and that the Government could
put their bill into a shape that would meet the wishes of
the vast majoity of the nation. (Hear, hear.) But what-
ever the division may lead to, I state this with the utmost

•uth and conscientiousness, that I have not taken a step

in regard to this bill, or said one single word in connection
with it, but what was prompted by an honest and most
earnest wish—(cheers, and ob, oh)—that now at this mo-
ment —at this supreme hour of this question—it should be
grappled with with the wisdom of statesmanship, and
should be offered to the great body of the poople with that

generosity which belongs, I hope, at bottom to all the
great statesmen of this country. (Loud cheers.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then

rose, and was received with cheers from his party.
He said : Although, sir, wo aro in committee upon
this bill for the representation of the people, there
are two policies before the House to-night upon
tho most important portion of the measure. (Hear,
hear.) Though we shall be formally called upon to amend
the principle of the bill which I have had the honour to
and a counter proposition.
the member for South
introduce, we really are to consider, upon the borough
(Cheers.) The policy
Tahceornigtrahtryhon.gentleman
Lancashire proposes to draw a hard and fast line, below
which no person is to obtain the privilege or aim at the
franchise. On the other hand, we have proposed a measure
under which every inhabitant of a house, subject to condi-
tions which are in harmony with the habits and manners
of the country—which I think are approved of by the ra-
tional discrimination of thepeople—should obtain the fran-
chise; and at the same time, instead of drawing this hard
and fast line, we have said to all who aro not now in a
position to avail themselves of the privilege which is offered
by the proposed 014 uses, we wi.ll take care that you shall
have the opportunity, if you &melt, of acquiring the right
and enjoying the right. (Cheers.) Now,`sir, there are two
schemes for the settlement of the borough franchise which
are before the consideration of the committee to-night; for
it would be worse than idle to limit our discussion to the
few and scanty words which formally will be put, by you,
Mr. Dodson, for the opinion of the committee. Now to the
proposition which wo have made for the settlement of. the
borough franchise upon a rating household franchise, to ba
enjoyed by the occupier personally paying rates after a
duo residence—to that scheme the right hon. gentleman
has offered two main objections. He tolls us, in the first

place that the principle of rating is new-fangled and alien
I thought the principle of rating was one which was con-
sonant with the manners and customs of this country. It is
recognised by the common law, it is recognised by the sta-
tute law of the past generation, and in theage in which we
live it has been made part and portion of one of the most
famous laws connected with our political history— the Re-
form Act of 1832. And therefore, sir, I was somewhat asto-
nished that the law of rating or the priuciplo of rating
should be described by the right hon, gentleman as alien
and new fangled. Tho second objection to the proposi-
tion of the Government was that it was of too ex-
treme a character. That objection was scarcely
consistent with many observations subsequently made
by him, with many inferences which he afterwards drew,
and with many conclusions which his friends approved
and cheered, all of which seemed to express that the mea-
sure was of a very revolutionary and dangerous character ;
but now, according to the right hon. gentleman, its prin-
cipal of jection is that it is too exclusive. Well, sir, if these
are the objections which are made to our scheme, there are
also objections which are offered to the scheme of the
right hon. gentleman, which is founded upon a hard limi-
tation; and a great objection to that scheme, I think, is,
that it offers no settlement of the question. (Hear.) In
1859 we had to consider the question of parliamentary re-
form, and the result of our consideration of the subject was
that it was impossible, with any prospect of satisfac-
tion, to disturb the £lO franchise established in 1832.
We could not rely upon any such stand-point as £B, £7,
or £6 ; and in that state of things it was absolutely
necessary to leave the matter untouched. I am speaking
of 1859—0 r to proceed to the point we aro now offering
to the house ; we took the opportunity of ascertaining
the opinion of the country, and we wore convinced that
any attempt which would considerably diminish the bo-
rough franchise would be rendered impossible on account
of the determined opposition of the borough constituen-
cies, and we felt the only caurs3 to pursue was to recom-
mend to ilarliament not to deal with the borough franchise ;
but wo attempted to introduce a portion of the working
classes by other means. We were, however, met by a
great opposition, which seven years have accurately ful-
filled. The right hon. gentleman the member for Cainewas one of the most busy managers in organising a party
for reducing the franchise, and a resolution was passed
which destroyed our Government, and did more injury to
the Liberal cause than anyting before. The right hon.
gentleman, who was not right hon. then. [Mr. Lowe—l
bog pardon, I was right houourablel -(laughter) —the
right hon. gentleman preferred to a high office—[Dlr.
Low-1 was Vice-President of the Board of Trade in the
former Government, and Vice-President of the Council of
Elucation in the next] —we do not impute any improper
conduct to the right hen. gentleman for the part ho took
on that occasion. But the other evening, when the Secre-
tary for India expressed views which were worthy of the
integrity of his character,
.the right hon. member for Caine
jumped up and imputed his change of opinion to prefer-
ment to high office—(cheers)—and therefore I am right in
reminding the hon. gentleman, who is a ready critic, but
not apt to bear criticism, that ho ought to cast some
reminiscences over his own past career. (Cheers.)
It is said that the small rating Acts are the creations of
the civilisation of the age ; but nothing has been said
about jobbing vestries, rapacious landlords, and indi-
gent
'utbetn not
ea; i
phtaesstegivingtheinrise to those Acts. They were, how-
ever, n mego remarkable for public spirit, and
Small Tenements Act would be passed
in this age. (Hear, hear.) But I cannot believe, when
we are laying down principles and giving privileges with
in .the spirit which
h
reference to electoral rights, that we ought to be
scared from such a constitutional course by the
shadows and phantoms of those rating Acts. (Cheers.)
I cannot believeif we legislate
recommend in this bill, that many
of the
inconveniences will disappear. If the
principleste
rusn we n et
e'pnropose be sound, they will assert their
sway and overcome the difficulties which have been so
much dwelt on. (Hear, hear.) If under the arrangements
made and attempted there are inconvenient and injurious
consequences, why should they not be equally expressed
by the multitude who would come in under the fixed scheme
of the right hon. gentleman ? Surely
there would be many
more
thousands of compound or quasi-compound house-
holders than could be introduced by the arrangement we
propose. Under our proposal you could have all the men
you wish
to get ; and if there are men who do not take an
interest in politics, and will not exert themselves to obtain
the right, it is not desirable that they should do so.
(Cheers.) It is assumed that the.bulk would be men en-
gaged in the honegt pursuits of !de who. do not aspire to
political rights or to improve their.. condition ; but I do not
believe that to be a just description of the majority of our
countrymen. If we do not keep out individuals of a wan-
dering character, who may be wanting in the civic virtues
of method, regularity, and order, what is the harm of it ?
Your object is to obtain the worthy, and there is no harm
done in the unworthy not being able to enter. (Cheers.)
Then it is asked, What is the value of these securities?
and it is said that there will be a great agitation against
them, and that they will be disposed of in a few years.
It is a mistake to call them checks and securities ; but I
will tell you why they will not be impugned, but kept in
vigorous exercise. It is the persons who by submitting
to these conditions will guard them as the conditions
through which the privileges ought to be obtained.
(Cheers.) When they find that by personally paying
rates they have obtained the right to vote, they will look
with extreme jealousy on the claims that may be pre-
ferred by persons who do not pay rates, and who do
not lead the same regular life. Ratepaying is a condi-
tion of the Reform Act, and you have had agitation
against rates by demagogues to excite the multitude,
and organisations against them; but they have never
been abrogated, because the common sense of the people
has resolved to maintain them. Therefore, I think that the
charges against what are called securities are perfectly
fallacious, and made in ignorance of the character of our
countrymen ; and there need be no apprehension that these
conditions will be otherwise than observed and guarded by
the very persons who by submitting to the conditions ob-
tain these privileges. The hon. and learned member for
Exeter made some rather remarkable observations. He
said he was entirely in favour of household suffrage, but
that the country was not yet prepared for it; and having
favoured us with his creed, he favoured us also with a cri-
ticism of our scheme of household franchise. He said that
all these restrictions can't last, and that it will resolve
itself into household suffrage. But how inconsistent this
criticism with the hon. gentleman's creed. (Laughter.)
If ho looks on a household suffrago as perfeA, and regrets
that the country is not prepared, if we submit a scheme of
household suffrage with restrictions which he is sure will
break down, then surely he ought to congratulate us on our
wise and consummate policy. (Cheers.) There was one
objection made by the noble lord the member for Stamford,
which was very severe on the measure which ho opposed.
But it seemed to me that he proved too much. It might be
a very good argument against the measure, but it was also
an argument against all constitutional government. I will
not notice some remarks made by the lion. member for
Stoke-upon-Trent (I.lr.:Beiesford-Hope) for he evidently
expected that I was going to make an elaborate reply to
him. (Laughter.) I can aesure him I listened with the
greatest pleasure to the invectives he delivered against me.
Invective is a great ornament to our debates, but it re-
quires practice—(a laugh)—and, so. far as my honour-
able friend displayed his talents to-Right, I listened
with the greatest satisfaction. All his exhibitions in
this house aro distinguished by a drollery which charms
me, and when he talks of Asian mysteries I may tell
him that there is a Vathekian charm about his exer-
citations. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman opposite

(Kr. Gladstone) is a candidate for power: and I know
nothing more legitimate than the ambition of such a man.

I can perfectly understand that under ordinary circum-

stances he should be emulous of the honour of dealing
with the question. But the present are not ordinary cir-
__.. . . .

cumstances. Tho right hon. gentleman has had his
innings. (Cheers.) He has dealt with the subject of Par-

liamentary reform very recently, in a Parliament elected
under the auspices of a Government of which ho was a

member, and with the support of a large majority. Under
these circumstances we have a right to expect that there

should be no eagerness in making party attacks. Now 1
cannot but consider the amendments that have been placed
on the table a party attack, because they aro not amend-
ments to our bill, but a counter proposition. The right
hon. gentleman is justified in attacking the Government,
and I was justified in parrying it. I attempted to do so by
the letter which I addressed to my supporters, and which

has been so much misconstrued. The letter was not ad-

dressed to the louse of Commons. As to the house, gone-
rally speaking, I wish on the part of the Government to

say that so far as they are concerned, the Government
have never swerved from the sentiments that, with the
full concurrence of my colleagues, I expressed to them that

as we desire to co-operate with the house in bringing the
question of parliamentary reform to a settlement, and that
although we could not swerve in regard to the borough
franchise from the personal payment of rate, yet, with re-

gard to almost every other point, we were anxious, in com-
mittee afterfair deliberation, to adopt the course which the
house in its wisdom might deem expedient and desirable.
We are conscious of the heavy task we have undertaken,
and how much we must depend upon the assistance of the
house to bring the question of Reform to a happy oon-
clusion. But I really am a loss to know what are the con-

cessions of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). I
have been adcused ono night of givinglup everything, and
the next night of having given up nothing at all. But
there was an important point in our original proposition
which I reluctantly, at the desire of both sides of the
_ _

house, and particularly of my own friends, gave up. But
I am not conscious of any concessions having been made in
return. Whatever may be the course of the division, I
must repeat that the borough franchise in our bill is founded

ipon a principle groin which we cannot swerve. There is

nothing novel in saying that personal payment of rates and
adequate residence are the only conditions on which we
can consent to any arrangement of the borough franchise.
There aro many amendments on the paper on which it
requires a considerable time to form an opinion ; and if
we had an opportunity, we should be most happy to con-

Sider thorn during the holidays. We are most anxious to
change, modify, and adapt them in any practical mode
consistent with the general principles of our. measure. It
has been said that I pledged myself to introduce a lodger
franchise. I did not do so, for the very good lesson that
to introduce a lodger franchise that would be satisfactory
to the house and to the country is one of the most difficult
things in the world. All that I did say was that if a sen-
sible, well-considered proposition for a lodger franchise
was brought forward, we would candidly meet it, and if
it were established by argument, it might be adopted by
the house. The difficulty of dealing with this question,
which is by no means so easy as the right non. gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) made out last year, may be illustrated by
my experience with the deputation of a society very much
under the patronage of the hon. member for Birmingham.
1 mean the Reform League. They insisted on having a
lodger franchise ; but distinctly gave warning that if any
qualification, either in regard to the residence or value,
was attempted, they should look upon it as an insult.
(Laughter.) That is not an encouragement to anticipate
carrying a lodger franchise as easily as some honourable
members seem to imagine it may be carried ; but let it be
brought forward by any gentleman who has thoroughly
mastered the subject, and he will find from me a candid
reception of the matter. This is very much our position
with regard to all the questions about which I have been
asked. I consider the question of the county franchise is
one which will have to be settled by this house after ample
discussion. In fact, it is impossible to settle any of these
matters by question and answer, apart from discussion.
The question of the compound householders is one which
requires great debating in committee before it can be
settled. Let it be discussed there. Then, again, with re-
gard to voting papers ;on this matter we wished to con-
sult the feelings of the House of Commons. If the House
declares against this and other points, I shall, on the part
of my colleagues, give to their decisions all the considera-
tion they deserve. But let us have fair discussion and do
liberation. This is the spirit in which her Majesty's Go-
vernment wish to treat this question in regard to the House
of Commons. It is a disagreeable thing to distinguish be-
tween the house generally and the right hon. gentleman to
whom, as the head of his party, I wish to pay every
honour; but I am obliged to make that distinction—(cries
of " oh, oh")—because, between her Majesty's Government
and the House of Commons on this subject of reform there
was an understanding that we wore mutually to co-ope-
rate, and by mutual confidence and co-operation to bring
about and carry a fair measure of reform. This is au
understanding which I, on'the part of my colleagues, am
perfectly ready to fulfil ; and there is no suggestion which
has been made by hon. gentlemen, and which appears on
the papers, which will not receive from us all the conside-
ration which it deserves, with a desire to adopt it and
modify our measure to meet it. (Hear.) But when the right
hon. gentleman comes upon us suddenly with a counter
proposition to the main proposition of our bill, it is im-
possible for the to close my eyes to tho nature of the move-
ment. (Cheers.) I have said of the right hon. gentleman
that I cannot see any way to agree to the propositions he
has made. They would entirely oppose and interfere with
the policy we recommend to the Louse ; and I trust that
the right hon. gentleman will clearly understand that the
distinction I have made I have not made in the heat of de-
bate—because there is no heat, or at least I do not feel
any heat at this 'moment—(laughter)—but I wish, on an
important division, that there should be a clear and honest
understanding between her Majesty's Government and the
House of Commons on this matter of the Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) We have acted entirely in accordance with our
representations to the house. We believed we had expe-
rienced from the house a true candour and a generous con-
sideration ; and we are anxious at this moment-cordially to
co-operate with the House of Commons in the settlement
of this question. (Great cheering from the Ministerial,
and cheers and laughterfrom the Opposition benches.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said he held his position as leader
of the Opposition by the free choice of the members of the
Opposition, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
accept no proposition from him, he could not understand
how he would consult the house. He thought the late
Government —who left office in June last, when the majo-
rity of the house wished them to remain in it—wore not
amenable to the charge now made against them, that they
wished to turn out the Government. Referring to the
arguments, he urged that if it were right to compound, the
occupier should not be deprived of his franchise because
he lived in a compound house ; and if it were wrong to
compound let them alter the law. The principle which
he asked the house to adopt was one, of permanent ap-
plication, and was one which never could be wrong.
It was that those whom Parliament admitted to the fran-
chise should be admitted on equal terms. No bill laying
down the principle of personal rating could be satisfac-
tory; and, limit or no limit to the suffrage, Ins' objection
was the same.
Sir H. EDWARDS rose amidst loud cries of " Order"
and "Divide," to ask a question of the member for Not-
tingham, and hoped to have a straightforward answer. He
wished to know whether that hon.. gentleman, before
bringing forward the matter discussed earlier in the even-
ing, had given notice to Colonel Taylor—(order)—he meant
the hon. and gallant member for Dublin; and how and
when it was given.
Mr. BRAND, whose voice was drowned for some
minutes in a storm of cries for " Osborne," explained that
he had been asked by the member for Nottingham to give
the member for Dublin notice that the matter would be
brought forward. He (Mr. Brand) had endeavoured to find
the hon. and gallant gentleman. (Laughter.) He was not
aware of the accident till the member for Nottingham sat
down.
Sir H. EDWARDS, amidst loud cries of "Order," asked
whether the member for Nottingham had ascertained if his
notice had been delivered.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—I am much obliged to the hon. gen-
tleman—I don't know whether ho is gallant or not—(l augh-
ter) - for the courtesy with which he has addressed this
question, and I will endeavour to give him a straightfor-
ward answer as he desires. On entering the house, about
five minutes after four, a statement was put into my hands.
[Sir H. EDWARDS : Who by ?] If the hon. gentleman is so
inquisitive, I will satisfy him privately. Not being able to
see the hon. and gallant member for Dublin, I went to the
hon. member for Lewes and begged him to communicate
the notice, expecting that they would meet in their com-
mon duties in the lobby. I did not know then that an
accident had happened, or I should not have brought for-
ward the matter. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DILLWYN attempted, amidst loud cries of "Order,"
to address the committee.
The CHAIRMAN interposed, and reminded the com-
mittee that the question was the amendment on clause 3 of
the Reform Bill.
The committee then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes 289
Noes 3lO
Majority against the amendment —2l
The division occupied about a quarter of an hour,
and as the benches gradually filled with the hon.
gentlemen returning from the lobbies, the most in-
tense anxiety was displayed respecting the result.
The Tellers for the Ayes were the first to arrive,
and amid breathless suspense they banded in their
return to the clerk at the table. The nature of the
return was immediately communicated from one
member to another with almost electric rapidity,
and it was whispered that the Government had
commanded a majority. Every face on the Minis-
terial side beamed with excitement and delight as the
tidings spread. So overpowering, indeed, was the
enthusiasm enkindled that hon. members evidently
experienced great difficulty in restraining their
emotions, and a slight clapping of hands was

audible. The Tellers for the Noes made their ap-
pearance in about a minute after those on the other
side, and amid a hush of expectation handed in
their return. The figures were quickly entered,
and the clerk handed the paper to the Government
Teller, Mr. Whitmore. A vociferous cheer at once
broke out from the Ministerial ranks, the swell of
acclamation rising to a full diapason of jubilation,
and then slowly falling with music-like cadence.
Meanwhile, the four Tellers had retired a few paces,
had again advanced to the table, and, as SO3ll as a
sufficient lull was reatored, Mr. Whitmore an-
nounced the numbers. Another, and even more
fervid, outburst of enthusiasm succeeded, the Minis-
terialists cheering with almost frantic energy, and
many of them waiving their hats, and giving other
unusual manifestations of delight. A number of
hon. members pressed forward to the Treasury
Bench, and shaking hands with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who was radiant with smiles, con-
gratulated him with great warmth on the victory
which the Government had achieved. The Oppo-
sition had all this while preserved an unbroken
silence, and only showed by their countenances the
disappointment which they experienced.

In a few minutes there was a rush to the doors,
and the Chairman having been ordered to report
progress, the house resumed.

MR OSBORNE AND MR. DILLWYN.

Mr. DILLWYN, in reference to a statement made by
the hon. member for Nottingham early in the evening,
about a memorandum of a conversation between some
members of the house, gave notice that, on the first op-
portunity after the holidays, he would call the attention
of the house to the subject, and ask the hon. member a
question as to the mode in which he obtained possession of
the paper.

The house adjourned at ton minutes past two o'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Government Reform Bill has escaped
a mortal blow. The adjourned debate on Mr.
Gladstone's Amendment was resumed last night, and
terminated at half-past 1 o'clock this morning with
a majority of 21 in favour of the Ministry. Never
in our time has there been such a " shaking of the
nations" as preceded the Division ; 599 voted, ex-
clusive of tellers. The supporters of the Govern-
ment were found upon the Opposition benches ;
their opponents sat beside and behind them. Mr.
Roebuck recommended the debate with a short but
effective speech against Mr. Gladstone's alternative
scheme, and in the course of the evening many
stout Liberals expressed their preference of the
Rating Franchise proposed by the Government
to the fixed barrier advocated by the leader of the
Opposition even in cases where they supported his
ambiguous amendment. On the other hand, Mr.
Hubbard was alarmed at the democratic results of
the Ministerial measure ; and Mr. Beresford Hope
gave his " rich and grotesque rhetoric" free play, in
following at a modest distance the line of argument
of Lord Cranborne. The committee was excited,
and at times almost tumultuous, as men will be
when their landmarks seems disappearing, and it is
perhaps true that the final result must be attributed
to " unerring instinct" rather to an exercise of judi-
cial reason. The temper of the house had, indeed,
been moved by an incident of little credit to any of
the parties concerned before the adjourned debate
was resumed. Mr. Osborne produced a document
purporting to record an assurance by Col. Taylor
that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were personally
in favour of accepting Mr. Hibbert's amendment,
relieving the compound householder of anything in
the shape of a fine in consequence of au application
to be rated, and pledging Col. Taylor to press upon
the Cabinet the necessity of allowing this modifica-
tion of the bill. The document had strayed into Mr.
Osborne's hands through Mr. Owen Stanley, who
had somehow obtained it from'Mr. Dillwyn, and,
though the latter gentleman naturally enough pro-
tested against Mr. Osborne's conduct in bringing it
before the house without informing him of his in-
tention, it is plain that the proper conduct of public
business required that it should be mentioned, and
that an inquiry should be addressed to the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer whether he had authorised Col.
Taylor to give the assurance he had apparently con-
veyed. If any doubt existed as to the propriety of
bringing the matter before the house it must have
been dispelled by the result. Col. Taylor was unfor-
tunately absent, having met with a severe accident,
but Mr. Disraeli said the alleged negotiation was
quite unknown to him, and the whole thing was a
mare's nest, and Lord Stanley, in abrief speech, justly
characterised by Mr. Gladstone as every way worthy
of him, and heard with unusual satisfaction on both
sides of the house, declared that the Ministry desired
to carry on the debate perfectly free and unpledged,
without any understanding of any kind, and chal-
lenged a vote on the merits of the question at issue
and upon its merits alone. We do not doubt that
the subsequentdivision was entirely uninfluenced by
the negotiations, real or imaginary, which Mr. Os-
borne dragged to light, and thatthe majority against
Mr. Gladstone's amendment was neither increased
nor diminished by it ; but it was not so easy to allay
the excitement it had occasioned. There was a re-
current ground swell after the storm, and the cheer-
ing which greeted the declaration of the result per-
haps exceeded in vehemence all former displays. We
cannot pretend to regret the rejection of Mr. Glad-
stone's amendment. It was framed so as to catch
votes from all corners of the house. If the Govern-
ment tactics were a specimen of " cross-fishing,"
Air. Gladstone's amendment was a ground-net with
which to drag the stream. It mattered not whether
a member was terrified at the prospect of household
suffrage, like Sir W. Heathcote, Mr. Hubbard, and
Mr. Gladstone himself, or whether he looked for-
ward to it with subdued eagerness like Mr. Cole-
ridge and Mr. W. E. Foster—he could in any case
take shelter behind Mr. Gladstone's elastic formula.
It had been altered and re-altered till at last it
simply amounted to a repudiation of the criterion
of personal rating, and was thus made acceptable to
those who objected to any criterion and to those who
thought the criterion in. question not sufficiently
stringent. It was a triumph in the manipulation
of amendments to have caught Lord Cranborne and
Mr. Bright by the same line. Such devices are,
however, rarely successful, and the one in ques-
tion was no exception to the general rule. It
has met a fate it richly deserved. It could not be
concealed that the real issue lay between the rival
plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
Mr. Gladstone, or if not between these two then
between Mr. Disraeli's proposal and some fresh
scheme to be drawn up after revived and prolonged
agitation, to be introduced no one knows when, to
be carried no one knows how. Mr. Dalglish showed
his appreciation of the real object of the Amend-
ment in the inquiry he addressed to Mr. Gladstone
as to its purpose. But, whatever version of the
point in debate be accepted, the decision could not
be doubtful. The comparative merits of Mr. Dis-
raeli's proposal to enfranchise all ratepayers and
Mr. Gladstone's condition of occupying a house of £5
rating value were succinctly but admirably stated by
Mr: Roebuck. The one qualification avoids class dis-
tinctions, and opens to each householder a way to
get his name inscribed on the Parliamentary Regis-
ter ; the other would draw a fixed line very much at
hazard, involving such injustices of exclusion and
of admission that a reversion of the line would in-
stantly become a matter of agitation. All Mr.
Bright's reasoning could not conceal the glaring
demerits of a definite money qualification. The ob-
jection that the enfranchisement on personal condi-
tions would tend to increase bribery was, in truth,
an argument against all Reform ; and Mr. Hardy
was justified in his retort that Mr. Gladstone's
scheme would open a door to bribery at least as wide
as any that could be opened by the Government
Bill. The truth is that bribery depends on the
voters rather than on the machinery, and if the ad-
mission to the Franchise of those who are now out-
side it must intensify this evil we had better all con-
fess the error of our ways, and decide against any
change in our electoral system. The objection, how-
ever, betrayed the real character of the opposition
to the Government Bill. We are driven to the con-
clusion that the majority of Mr. Gladstone's sup-
porters were bent either on throwing overboard Re-
form altogether to another season, or sought with
Mr. Gladstone himself a refuge from imaginary ter-
rors in a £5 rating Franchise. A few, like Mr.
Forster, who declared his dissent from his leader's
arguments, and Mr. Locke, who protested that he
still held the principles which made him prominent
in the tea-room, were simple enough to suppose that
by striking away the condition affixed to the Fran-
chise by the Government proposal they wottutleeduseiiciuterde
influenceunqnali fi eodf
thhoeu
Ministry
t r
y suffrageand t h
the
bulkga n st
of
Oppo-
sition ; but we must congratulate them on the failure
of their design. Their success, had they achieved it,
would have been fatal to their hopes and ours, and
by grasping at what is impossible they would have.
let slip the considerable measure open for their ac-
ceptance, The success of Mr. Gladstone's amend-
ment must have been followed by the withdrawal of
the bill, and we rejoice that the good sense of the
House of Commons has saved the country from such
a disaster. It is, indeed, time to recognise the truth
that no bill can, under any circumstances, be passed
which will not have some one or more of its fea-
tures distasteful to separate sections of the house,
and if all the discontented groups persist in uniting
upon an amendment so drawn as to ex press nothing
but the fact of this partial dissatisfaction, legislationmust be impossible. This is the course mrGlad-
stone offered to the committee. His amendment en-