The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-12 00:00:00

the Governmhnt, 50 per cent. of these might be expected
to get on the register, or about 123,000. I believe that de-
duction of 50 per cent. is not an unwise deduction. With

regard to compound householders, the figures would show
that the 476,000 in the bill would yield about 238,000
voters. But these figures are not correct, by no fault of
the Government or those engaged in preparing them, but

because there is a considerable number of persons in large

towns who are not compound householders, but who make
arrangements with the parish officers for the payment of
their rates. In Liverpool I stated` last year the number
was 7,000 or 8,000, and it is no doubt more. In Ashton

and many other towns the same thing prevails. Conse-
quently the numbers stated would be considerably reduced,
and as regards those householders below £lO there would
be little more than 100,000 placed on the register. I con-
fess I cannot accept a plan that would enfranchise that
number of persons as being a plan that would be accepted
by those who have pledged themselves to reform, or with
the slightest satisfaction to the country. (Hear.) Looking
at that enfranchisement, I would almost turn to my right
hon. friend the member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), as almost
the stoutest opponent of reform, and ask him, if we are to
deal with this question at all, are we to deal with so small
a portion of enfranchisement as is proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government? I presume he would say, if it is to
be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with in a manner

that will last. It will not last. It would merely be an incen-
tive for what is to come, and would not last. As to persona]
payment of rates, it is neither more nor less than a ques-

tion whether the rating is to be laid upon the man him•
self, and we are told that personal rating is the principle
of this bill so far as it relates to the borough franchise.
We are told this is the leading constitutional principle of
English representation. If it were, I might go back to
find a number of other usages which prevailed in former
times, and which have been completely superseded in con-
sequence of improved machinery of government. In the
forty-eight scot-and-lot boroughs that system prevailed,
but the freeman was not a ratepayer. In some eases he
was non-residont; and as to half the boroughs in the
country, it is not the fact that ratepaying was originally,
or at any period, known as a basis of die franchise. I ad-
mit that in many boroughs it was, but modern usages have
shown it was necessary to introduce change in the law.
Within the last 50 years there has been a great change in
the law. So difficult was it found to collect the rates in small
sums from small occupiers, that a change took place by the
best of all methods, spontaneously and locally, by which
Nthoewlandlordwill
lnthodelrer a
rent.
it
be pays therates,
denied
that and charges
thecompound them
ho
eeh
truly pays the rates as that man who pays ditectly ?
(Hear, hear.) Do not let us flinch from treating this ques-
tion. It is disputed by economists whether the ultimate
incidence of the rate is upon the tenant or the owner. I
hold it to be a principle of political economy that the ulti-
mate incidence is precisely the same, whether the owner or
the tenant pays it. The new method was devised fur the
convenience of owners and parish officers. It comes out in
the bill of the right hon. gentleman as something approach-
ing to a show of moral inferiority. (Hear, hear.) Was there
ever such a paradox invented in Parliament ? Will any
man tell me that when you take a town under the Small
Tenements Act, and a town not under the Small Tenements
Act, you can draw line between them? That in one virtue
prevails, and every one is a good character; and that in
the other there is vice, men cheat their creditors, and men
get drunk. The compound householder goes, as we all do,
where his occupation calls him, and he has no choice in the
matter. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Do you think a father
of a family would perform his duty to his wife and his
children if, instead of going to the town where the
market for labour was best, and where he could best minis-
ter to their necessities, he were to inquire if it were a
town where compound householders prevailed? The Small
Tenements Act is adopted by the vestry, and the com-
pound householder himself has nothing to do with it. It
is preposterous, therefore, to introduce a
lass T distinction be -
tween him and other persons of the same che Small
Tenements Act has been adopted in 5,000 parishes, and
will it be said that these are to bo refused the franchise on
the ground that their inhabitants are compound house-
holders? Ludicrous inequalities would be made between
town and town. In Brighton, where there are 100,000
persons,
would be qualified by the bill of the Chaticel-
for of the Exchequer. In another town a single unit
woull be admitted, but as the unit is the gross number
qualified, I leave to the house what the nett number may
be. (A laugh.) That is in different towns; but equal
confusion would occur in the same town. The bill of the
right hon. gentleman is this: it takes from those parishes
which have a majority of population who have the power
of determining elections where they are under the Small
Tenements Act, and it hands over that power to the mino-
rity of the population of the town. It is a dry matter of
arithmetic. Is that the way in which we are to seek a
solid and permanent settlement of reform ? Let me give
three or four instances. Here is the great city of Bristol, iu
which 76,000, or almost half the population, live in open
parishes, while 78,000 are under the Small Tenements Act.
The 78,000 yield only 5,943 persons qualified to become
voters; while the 76,000 living in open parishes yield
10,431 persons so qualified. So that half the population,
divided by parishes, is to be invested with electoral power
just double of that possessed by the other. Is that the way
to give content to the people. (Hear.) is there not some-
thing strange, even something almost ridiculous, in calling
this legislation, in sending an Act of Parliamentlike this into
towns, to establish inequalities which are entirely new and
perfectly capricious, and then expect these inequalities to be
accepted by the people of this country ? In Grantham the open
parishes, with a population of 3,986, qualify 773 persons to
vote; but the close parishes'uuder the Small Tenements
Act, with a population of 7,195, qualify only 688 persons to
vote; or one-third of the population qualities half the elec-
tors of tho town. In Leeds the population of the open
parishes numbers 35,561, and they qualify 7,358 persons to
vote. The population of the parishes under the Small
Tenements Act is 171,604, and they only qualify 9,200 to
vote ; or one-sixth of the population of Leeds has four-
niuths of the voting power iu that town. I don't know
how the hon. member for Pontefract likes the new distri-
bution of electorals ; but I fits! that in Pontefract 5,486
persons living in open parishes qualify 1,273 electors,
while 6,250 in the close parishes qualify only 417 electors.
In that borough the minority of the population has three-
quarters of the voting power. Something written on a piece
extent illuotpe theserati areis
of paper or parchment we may choose to call law; but it
arbitrarycannot
respectieto natodeuneeb an te
t o liw when.nt
to be the securities of the constitution, the guarantees
against democracy—the firm, solid, well-built walls which
are to dash back the tide of agitation—these strange concoc-
tions of some ingenious mind, fanciful as if they were in-
tended to be displayed upon a stage, but wholly alien to the
wherepa
spirit and legislation,oaunsde.hisltohreynotfheßreritiisshshorehau
l and
a p withouto un
any-
thingtio which approaches to a precedent in the records of
er ip the
c ur
e the
evil
bwill y
bringing say, let
these parishes cure the evil by throwing out the Small
of 13,346 in open parishes qualifies 2,211 to vote, while a
population of 19,276 sersons in close parishes qualifies only
1
Im4esn upersons.ts Perhaps
Act, and the sothers
it in ; but I object to making our political measures the
means of interfering with the social uud economic arrange-
ments of the country. (Hear, hear.) Whether there shall
nt
t hon.
of
gentleman
more
serious
ei e i atkn es
objections,
the who maylegislation
e
be the Small Tenements Act in a parish or not ought to
the
constituencies
be settled by the considerations of local convenience and
no
nfott
hb g
yernti to
he
eh ia sof p o tii raou
wl pi
lal r tmt
attradt more influence to the borough in which they reside.
Ideped
ivsil sal hti
all over the country depend upon the will of local authori-
ties assembled in their vestries and corporations, and not
upon the will of the Imperial Parliament. 1 wish it were
in my power to more adequately explain to the house the
real social working of these changes. In certain open
parishes I am not prepared to deny that readiness to pay
rates may not be a bad test of a man's character in other
respects ; but in the towns were these arrangements for
compound houses are adopted isicoMe down upon parishes
and visit them with exclusion from the franchise by the
erection of barriers, which it is in our power to remove, is,
in my opinion, a principle founded neither in policy nor in
justice. Many people think it degrades a workman to
become a compound householder; but there are many good
and solid reasons which tend powerfully to make the work-
man wish to become a compound householder in preference
to a rate-paying householder, and make the skilled work-
man of high character desire to become a lodger rather than
either. It simplifies his transaction to pay all the charges
connected with his house in one payment. Then there is
the necessity incumbent on the workman to follow his
work, which entails ou him the necessity of frequently
changing his abode. These requirements make a compound
house better suited to hispurpose than a rate-paying;honse.
In the metropolis, this great home and hive of lodgers, the
working man must as a rule become either a lodger or a
lodging-house keeper. Being reluctant as a rule to hamper
himself by becoming a lodging-house keeper, he becomes
a lodger. Having mentioned the case of the lodger, I will
make an appeal to the right hon gentleman. Every one
has stated without contradiction for the last three weeks
that the right hon. gentleman is prepared to concede a
a lodger franchise. If he is, what becomes of the personal
payment of rates? (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I never
said I had conceded it. I said I would consider any fair
proposition for a lodger franchise. (Rear, and laughter.)
Dlr. GLADSTONE—When the right hon. gentleman
proceeded in his speech to deal with the lodger franchise,
he became heroic in his style, and said, "Suspect me of in-
difference or hostility to the lodger franchise ! why, I am
the father of it." (Cheers and laughter.) Now, we shall see
what kind of paternal tenderness the right hon. gentleman
feels towards his offspring. (Laughter.) What I wish to
know is, is it conceded, or is it not ? (Hear, hear.) If it is
conceded, I rejoice ; but thou what becomes of the principle
of the personal payment of rates? If you give a lodger
franchise, will it be possible, in London, to separate the
rateable value of every house over each floor? I think not.
if so, the lodger cannot be personally sated, bat must come
in by some other tenure. If so, what becomes of personal
rating as the principle of the borough franchise ? The im-
portance of this cannot be overstated, because in the con-
struction of this bill the principle has been pitched very
high. As was stated by my right hon. friend (Sir R.
rainier) aid uiyself ill the fernier debate, the proposition