The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

when I shall stand before the Parliament of this country.
(Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches, and cries of
"Oh, oh.) Let me remind the house that if I speak of the
people of Birmingham in regard to this matter, it is because
I am necessarily more familiar with the facts of that town ;
but the same arguments may be used as to the 170 towns to
which this bill applies. Now, what was done at Birming-
ham ? An act was passed in 1828 by the rich people of the
parish, for the objects and purposes of the parish ; it was
not an indulgence to the people. But what are you about to
du ? You are about to inflict a penalty—(no, no)—you are
about practically to exclude 36,000 male occupiers in Bir-
mingham, from the accident that they happen to live in a
town whore 40 years ago their forefathers thought it desir-
able to establish a plan for the payment of rates, which has
been sanctioned almost universally by Parliament, and
which is now in practice in 5,000 parishes in England and
Wales. Does any man deny that you are practically ex-
cluding them ? (A cryief "Yes.") You deny it. 1 think
I heard that cry from the brother of a Cabinet Minister
(Mr. J. Hardy), whom I see before me. If you do not prac-
tically exclude them, why not freely admit them ? (Cheers.)
Why object to the amendment of the hon. member for
Oldham, if you do not know that it would to a large
extent admit them, and that by rejecting the amendment,
you would to a large extent exclude them. The hon. gentle-
man (Mr. J. Hardy) evidently does not know where he is
going. (Laughter.) The other day he went down to a banquet
at Wakefield. (No, Derby.) Well, Derby, a place equally
appropriate. (Laughter.) The hon. member was asked to
answer to the toast of " The House of Commons ;" and
what did he say ? (Laughter.) He wished the managers
of the feast had given him something that he could under-
stand, " The Army and the Navy," or " The Bishops and
the Clergy of the Diocese." (Loud laughter.) He said if
ho had one of those old toasts that he would have known
where he was, but having been given the toast of " The
House of Commons," he really did not know what he was
doing, or where he was going, for the house was upon a
track which he did not understand. ((treat laughter.)
Now, the hon. gentleman must be a little tolerant to me,
bedkuse lam trying to make him understand it. (Cheers
and laughter.) I would only ask one question, and it
should be in one sentence. I ask hon. gentlemen, in
inflicting this general disfranchisement on the occupiers
of the town of Birmingham and 107 other boroughs,
why they; because rating acts and compounding acts
exist in these boroughs, inflict upon men the very
penalty they would inflict upon crime and bribery ?
Was it nothing, in a free country, to deny aman his rightful
vote for a member of Parliament ? (An hon. member—" It
is not a rightful vote.") What are they doing, sitting
there, and what are the pretences of the bill ? I will say
that in the town of Sheffield—the hon. member for that
borough is sitting near me, and will contradict me if I am
wrong--he is always ready to contradict anybody—
(laughter)—l ought to add when he thinks they are
wrong—(laughter)—I say that in that intelligent town
which the hon. and learned gentleman represents there
aro 28,000 householders, not a bit wiser or better, nor more
political, nor more disposed to law and order—(ironical cries
of " Hear, hear") —than those of Birmingham, and yet
in that borough 28,000 are to be received in open arms by
the bill, while iu Birmingham, which is as good as Shef-
field—(laughter, and hear, hear)—it is so arranged that
it will not include 86,000 who live in that town.
In the town of Birmingham the 24,000 persons put on the
register under Sir W. Clay's Act, and who have been on
the register for five years, have during the last month been
omitted from the register, and have been disfranchised
solely by the act of the overseers. Sir, that is a matter of
some conseque►.ce, and any scheme which places in the
hands of the parochial authorities, or of any others, the
Power to disfranchise persons, must be a scheme fraught
with every kind of evil. (Hear, hear.) I hope hereafter
you will be able to say you were the means of passing a
great and just bill—(hear)--and that if there was tempo-
rarily any kind of humiliation attaching to it, at least you
have this noble compensation of having done a great ser-
vice to the country. (Hear, and cheers.) Everybody is
now anxious to assist in settling that difficult question.
There aro millions of voices out of doors that ask you also
to settle the question. Now is the time. Last year you
might have had a settlement of a more moderate character
—(no, no, and counter cheers)—and of a duration which I
believe would last any one of you for your Parliamentary
life. You refused it. (Ministerial cheers.) I told you
what would come if you refused it, and it has come. But
now I ask you to do what you are professing to do,
but which you refuse to do—that is, to make your bill
equal and just to all the boroughs of the country.
I have authority, I believe, for speaking for a very large
number of those out of doors who ask for Reform. If I
am not, no man has—(laughter from the Ministerial side)
—and I say I lament with a grief I cannot well express—
(continued laughter)—not that you are not making a more
democratic measure—l ant not, perhaps, as democratic as
your leader is in action (laughter from the Opposition)—
I am not complaining of your not acting in a manner suf-
ficiently democratic, but that you are not acting in a spirit
of equality and of fairness; and though anything I may
say to you may be utterly useless—(loud Ministerial
cheers)—on this occasion, as it has been oftentimes in the
past- (Ministerial cheers)—yet I venture at this last hour
t) appeal to the honourable and just feelings of the, house
that dealing with millions of people on a subject which
deeply touches your hearts, you should at least deal with
them in a manner which this great people will feel to ba
equal and just to them. (Cheers.)

After some observations from Mr. J. HARDY, chiefly of
a personal character, in reply to a reference made by Mr.
Bright to a recent speech of the hon. member at Derby,
Mr. HEADLAM said he would bo a craven and a coward
if ho did not give his support to the Government, inasmuch
as they had brought in a bill precisely similar to that
which he had himself advocated in the presence of his
constituents.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and
was greeted with loud cheers from the Conservative side.
The right hon. gentleman said : I will only detain the
committee for a few moments, but perhaps they will
hardly think it unreasonable on my part—and they will
perhaps allow me—to state the reason why we inserted
those words on which we aro going to divide, and to make
some observations on the remarks of those who preceded
me. It was said by the hon. member for Bradford that
there was some ambiguity in the language of the bill,
especially in the clause which referred to the compound
householder, and which would have rendered the clause
different from what it was intended by the Government
to be. At any rate, it appeared to me to be extremely ne-
cessary, when so much controversy tookplace on the com-
pound householder, and when so many amendments were
proposed on that subject, that the question should be put
before the House when it came to a decision in language
that could not be mistaken, so that the House should not
discuss the question, and should afterwards arrive at re-
sults which were not contemplated. It was for this reason
that, at the time I brought forward the amended clause
upon which the amendment we aro called to divide upon
has been moved, the expression "ordinary occupier" was
used. Our feeling in using that phrase was this :—We
wished the House clearly to understand that in considering
this question the proposition we really made was, that the
borough franchise should be conferred upon an individual
rated to the poor's rates and personally paying those rates.
Therefore the phrase "ordinary occupier" was used, in
order that there might be no mistake upon the subject,
and it was accompanied by the placing on the table of the
large clause affecting the compound householder with
which the committee is familiar. After having heard the
prolongued discussion on the subject with which we
have been favoured, we retain the principle as strongly
as ever, that the borough franchise shall be founded on
the personal payment of rates), accompanied, of course,
with actual residence. I must say that the right hon.
member for Caine, who this evening made one of his
usual attacks on the Government, appears to me to
have completely misunderstood the whole principle of
the measure. (Hear, hear.) He says we came forward
in the most distinct manner and said the borough fran-
chise should be conferred upon those who contributed to
the public burdens. I utterly deny that proposition and
statement of the right hon. gentleman. No -doubt con-
tribution to public burdens is an item, and an import-
ant item, in the construction of the Parliamentary fran-
chise, but I deny that it is the chief item ; and it is
quite possible to conceive that payment of the public
burdens might be quite consistent with a position in
society not suited for the suffrage. What I said was
that the principle of the bill from the first was that this
right should be conferred on those who fulfilled a public
duty, being placed in that position of life which was con-
sistent with the performance of civic obligations. There-
fore the right hon. member for Caine has mistaken the
foundation on which we place the franchise. That is our
answer to those who are pressing the claims of the com-
pound householder to the franchise. But it is said that,
although we have proposed to establish the borough fran-
chise on this broad and popular principle, we at the same
time have connected with it conditions and regulations, the
object of which is to prevent many persons from enjoying
it. Well, what do you do ? Are you prepared to admit
all the inhabitants of houses in these boroughs? (Hear,
hear.) The argument of the right hon. member for South
Lancashire was founded on the assumption that persons
not admitted under this bill were corrupt; while the whole
argument of the hon. member for Westminster was a view,
illustrated in a manifold way, to prove that the general
body of the people, iu the boroughs of Eagland especially
—the portion to whom we do not propose directly to ex-
tend the franchise -were so corrupt that liberty and good
government were imperilled by them. (Laughter and
cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham himself—
what does he mean by that residuum upon which he des-
canted in so picturesque a manner to the House. He
means that a great many persons, in his mind, ought not
to be entrusted with the franchise—a very sensible view,
no doubt. Then this arises :—We have a plan by which
we think we can attain the best of those who do not pos-
sess the franchise. We propose it should be given to those
who, by direct performance of public duty, prove they may
be trusted with the possession of a public right. We even
offer to those who do not come under our conditions means,
and very facile means, by which they may obtain it.
(Hear, hear.) What plan do the hon. members for Lan-
cashire, Birmingham, and Westminster suggest in order to
effect that object? I have heard a great deal about the
corruption of the people of England, and if I were to listen