The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-13 00:00:00

......__
these discussions was this. First of all, bear in
i d
imbed. (Hear, hear.) What appeared in the course of
mind that the metropolis constitutes in itself, as measure
h an hearts and minds within it—one-third part o f the
by population—that is, as measured by the number of
whole town population of the country ; and, undoubtedly,
I think it was shown against us that the operation of that
bill would have been highly unequal as between the me-
tropolis and the towns of the provinces. Very large num-
bers would have been enfranchised in many considerable
towns, but at the same time what would have been the
result in the metropolis ? It was shown to us that in
London, under the present law, there were numbers of
persons who are excluded from the franchise, though the
law entitles them to hold it—l mean particularly the class
of compound householders, a body comprising in London
alone nearly 40,000 persons. All these the bill of 1860
virtually passed by. The enfranchisement here was quite
insignificant. ' The descent from £lO to £6 was a matter
of _ comparative unimportance, such is the value of the
ground and the scale of rents in London. For London,
therefore, the bill of 1860 was almost no bill at all. And
yet my noble friend had proposed his measure upon a
double basis. It is quite true it was a bill for establishing
a £6 rating franchise, and also a bill for enfranchising be-
tween 160,000 to 170,000 persons. Against that calcula-
tion of ours there were raised other estimates. - The mem-
ber for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James), in exhibiting the
real state of the London constituencies, estimated that the
£6 rating franchise would enfranchise in the various
London boroughs 400,000 ; but I think a committee of
the House of Lords by a large majority adopted the state-
ment that the £6 franchise would have enfranchised
300,000. We, however, did not admit that. We held
to our own estimate, and still placed the number of the
working classes to be admitted to the franchise at from
160,000 to 170,000. If the bill had proceeded to com-
mittee it would have been shown that these two propo-
sitions could not have stood together. Either the one
basis or the other would have. been required to
have been given up. It would have been impossible
to enfranchise down to £6, and at the same time
to leave the householders above £lO unenfranchised.
It is plain we must have admitted large numbers who
were then, according to law, entitled to the franchise. Not
wishing to change the relation of class to class, had we got
into committee we should have had to make a change as
regarded the £6 franchise. Indeed the best proof of that
may be found in the statement of Lord Russell towards the
close of the discussion on June 4, 1860. He said that if
they would propose any measure for raising the franchise
by making it a rating instead of a rental franchise, by in-
creasing the amount of the rental, or by admitting voters
qualified to exercise the franchise by their knowledge or by
their property, any such proposal should be fairly consi-
dered in committee. Government, he said, were not so com-
pletely wedded to the franchise they had brought forward
that they would not treat on that subject, but if the house
should prefer such a proposition, it would be for the Go-
vernment to consider whether a bill with such an altera-
tion would be rendered more valuable—whether it was a
measure calculated to strengthen the institutions of the
country, and if it were considered a change for the better
whether they might not be justified in adoptingit. It was
in our view essential, as was declared in a motion carried in
this house in 1859, that any measure of enfranchisement in
towns must be an enfranchisement downwards. But now
facts are brought before us to prove that by some provi-
sions in the present law large numbers of persons—house-
hollers paying rent that has been declared by law to be a
sufficient presumptive qualification—are not in possession
of the franchise. We found it impossible to overlook their
case. We found it to be our first duty to enfranchise those
as being in the spirit of the law entitled to such, and then
to consider what we could do towards enfranchising down-
wards. The first question, then, was to ask, What were
the defects in the law? There are two. One of these I have
already glanced at, and the other I will mention. By the
present law a man fulfilling various other conditions with
respect to time of occupation and residence, and being rated,
cannot be brought upon the register unless he has paid
the Queen's taxes and the local rates made since a
certain date. The clause is commonly called the rating
clause. They do not call it the tax-paying clause, and
certainly, as far as the Queen's taxes are concerned, I think
the local authorities have been extremely considerate, and
have not given any great annoyance to voters. But, so
far as the ratepaying clauses are concerned, there has been
a very great obstacle, and great trouble has been occa-
sioned. In some cases it has been supposed that the local
officers, under the influence of a particular bias, did not
apply for the payment of the rate until the date passed
when it was available with a view to the franchise. In
other cases we need not conceal from ourselves the fact
that the rates of certain parties were paid by the political
agents in the interest of the respective candidates. Nay,
one local gentleman who sent up this information from
his own place, judiciously added, " I hope this communi-
cation will be considered confidential." (Laughter and
cheers.) There are certain boroughs where the law is
overlooked on both sides. The operation of the clause
has been very unjust and unequal, and we propose to do
away with it altogether. In Liverpool, Ido not overstate
the case when I say that there are not less than 6,000 or
7,000 persons, probably more, whose rates are regularly
collected from the landlords by an arrangement with the
parish officers, and who therefore are disfranchised. They
are not compound householders, but rate-paying house-
holders. We propose to abolish these clauses, and we ex-
pect, as the victims of the clause almost all belong to the
general designation of working men, to admit not less than
25,000 to the constituency of those I call above the line by
the abolition of that clause. Then we come to the question
of the compound householder. What we think just and
right is that the compound householder should be treated
exactly like the rate-paying householder. If the rent of
their house is on such a scale that in the judgment of the
Legislature they are suitable persons to be enfranchised, it
is perfectly certain, as an economical truth, that the rates
of that house, though paid in the first instance by the
landlord, are ultimately and truly paid by them ; and it
cannot make any difference to us, and does not justify
drawing any line of distinction, that instead of being paid
directly by the householder they are paid by the landlord,
and charged by him in the rental. At present the law is
defective in this respect that the name of the compound
householder does not commonly appear on the rate-book,
though for the purpose of rating it ought so to appear; and
in the amendment which we shall have to propose in the \
law of rating, we shall provide that the name of the holder
of the house, as well as of any rate-paying tenant who is
not the landlord, shall appear on the rate-book, from whence,
just like the:name of any rate-paying householder, it will
be placed on the list of voters, without imposing trouble of
any kind on the householder himself. Being on the list
of voters it will be subject to the scrutiny of the revising
barrister, just as it would if it were the name of a rate-
paying householder, and unless objected to it will remain
on the rate-book. Therefore, an effective enfranchisement
will be given to the compound householder, whereas up to
the present time their enfranchisement has been almost
purely speculative., Take the metropolis, for instance, you
may say without fear of contradiction that it is not in one
case in fifty that the compound householder is enfranchised,
and when it is done, it is done for some particular purpose
—that an election agent thinks it worth his while to find
out the name of the compound householders, and prefer a
claim for their names on the list. This is not the way in
which we wish to have the franchise extended, and there-
fore let it be understood that if our proposal be adopted,
the holder of a compound house will be put upon the list
without claim, and come upon it by the same spontaneous
process by which the man who pays rates now finds a place
there. Then comes the third of the classes to which I
formerly alluded—also a very numerous class in the me-
tropolis—who inhabit flats or portions of houses, which,
though they have separate access, are not made subject to
a separate rating. With regard to them we can do nothing
but leave them as they are. At present, if they can show
that the value of the rooms which they hold is of the
clear annual value of £lO, and they can got them rated,
which I believe they sire entitled to ask— but legal diffi-
culties of that kind form insuperable obstacles to rating
—they might by a circuitous process get themselves on the
list of voters. Of course, under our bill it is obvious there
will be no necessity that they should be rated, and conse-
quently they will get rid of that difficulty. But a public
officer does not and cannot know who these people are.
He knows the value of the holding of the compound house-
holder, because for rating purposes it is necessary for public
authorities to know the value of the house ; but they do
not and cannot know the rent which is paid, including 1
rates paid in the rent, by men occupying parts of houses.
Consequently, on him we must leave—as he has now—the
full burden of claiming. If he can show that his rooms
aro of the clear annual value of £lo,[the only benefit he will
will get will be, that he will be relieved from all necessity
of being rated, and will then come upon the register with-
out the necessity of renewing a claim from year to year.
The compound householders will bo in addition, as near
as wo can estimate it, of 35,000 persons, nearly the
whole of that number being in the metropolis, because we
have ascertained the number of compound houses where
rates are paid by the landlord. I have given the house a
computation of what I call the above-line addition, amount-
ing to 60,000 persons-25,000 by the abolition of the rate-
paying clause, 35,000 by a now provision of the law with
regard to compound householders. I now come to the in-
teresting_ question commonly called the lodger franchise.
We propose that lodgers—properly so called, persons who
hold rooms as inmates of
hold tenements another man's house
although on exactly the same footing as those who
to plate thorn —we propose
treat together, asse
with or apartments having no separate rating,
and compound parato access. These classes we' shall
we treat together rate-payiug house-
holders
live by the agency
the list of voters atuonndeehouseholders, bringing them upon
who in tenementsof
so-call
So we take menpublic authority:
properly
and in lodgings
that the rooms they inhabit are eodr,tabtl if they can prove
of £lO--of course without taking intoeveileear annual value
taxes, or furniture--then they shall bow entitled,
rates, or
claiming from year to year, tc be placed upon the giupton
I shall now refer to the proposal of what was called the
lodger franchise in 1839. It was then proposed by the last
Government that any person paying £2O a year or Bs. a
week for any rooms, whether furnished or unfurnished,
should be entitled upon chiming, and subject to certain