The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAsr EVENING,

THE REFORM BILL.

Mr. J. 'WHITE moved, that in the opinion of the house
it was expedient that no such Reform Act of 1867 as made
occupiers liable for poor rates instead of owners, in re-
spect of premises to which the system of compounding
had been applied, ought to be repealed ; that the name
of every occupier ought to be put on the rate book, and
that payment of rates by the owner, under the compound-
ing system, ought to be deemed payment by the occupier
and entitle him to the franchise. The hon. member
took the opportunity of entering at some length into the
many hardships such an arrangement entailed upon those
who came within its harsh provisions. He denied that
the compound householder was such an objectionable per-
son as had been stated, and when it was said that the com-
pounder was extinct in England, he denied that such was
the fact. The compound householder was the creation of
Parliament, and it was only when he was turned out of
doors by his parents that ho made any outcry. It was
unjust to make the offspring responsible for the stupidity
of his parents —(laughter, and hear, hear) —and with all
due deference to that important personage, Mr. Dudley
Baxter, who felt himself quite competent to give a full
description of "the anomalous and portentous animal
called a compound householder," he (Mr. White) thought
he was quite as much entitled to his position being
fully recognised by Parliament, as any other class
of her Majesty's subjects. The right honourable
gentleman had stated on a very interesting
occasion that one half of his life, viz., for 31 years, he had
had the honour of a seat in that house, but he begged to
ask him with the greatest respect, whether during that
long period he had once raised his voice against the
compounders befcre he came to the conclusion that the
whole system of compounding was most objectionable?
He denied that the compounder was a being desirous of
voting without paying his rates ; but he bogged to say
that, in his opinion, the compounder not only paid his
rates, but he thought he paid more than his fair propor-
tion. From the obloquy that hid been thrown on the
compounder, it might be believed that compounding was a
matter altogether unknown to the law, but if any gentleman
would only take the trouble of referring to the statute
book he would find it crowded with such propositions. In
Ireland compounding was by no means unknown, and in
a debate that took place on the income-tax, compounding
there was fully and freely recognised, but the only com-
pounders who were not to be acknowledged - who were to
have the full pound of flesh exacted from them, were his un-
fortunate clients. The Reform Bill had been talked about
as a measure of public good ; but he thought that it was
a bill of pains and penalties for hundreds of thousands.
Was it nothing that 500,000 people were to be
hunted and harassed and deprived of their rights
because they refused to be mulcted according to
law. He would not refrain from expressing his disgust
at such an arrangement. In Brighton there were
6,000 compounders, about 2,000 of whom will now have
to pay between 30s. and 40s. per annum if they wished to
continue to vote, whilst another class would have to pay
at least 265. per annum in addition to the usual outgoings
if they wished to enjoy the luxury of a vote for a member
of Parliament.

Mr. C. FORSTER seconded the resolution, and dilated
on the ill-feeling which would be engendered between
landlord and tenant by the new system, the additional
burden to the tenant, and the increased labour thrown on
the parochial officers. _ _

Mr. AYRTON informed the house that the committee
recently appointed to inquire into the assessment of local
taxes had that day determined to make the operation of
the act of last session their first subject of inquiry. It
would therefore be premature to agree to a resolution
pledging the house to any particular opinion. Moreover,
he maintained the house could not make any alteration in
the system without having before it a bill which would
explain how the numerous difficulties and complications
surrounding the question were to bo dealt with.
Mr. DIXON was of opinion that there was sufficient in-
formation before the house to enable it to decide on the
principle involved in the abolition of compounding, and
narrated the numerous difficulties which had been expe-
rienced in Birmingham under the now system. A system
of composition, he argued, was necessary to put the assess-
ments of the poor and the rich on the same footing, and he
particularly dwelt on the injustice done to female occu-
piers and servants of the Crown, who had to pay larger
rates and got no vote for it.
Mr. HENLEY showed how, by a compounding system,
poor people had been compelled to pay rates who never
ought to pay, and the rich occupiers wore proportionately
relieved. The abolition of compounding, he reminded the
house, had not come from the Government, but from the
Opposition, and he pointed out that Mr. White's resolution
would in many cases give power to the landlords to dis-
franchise their tenants.

Mr. GOSCHEN replied that the landlord had just as
much power under the act as it stood, though he did not
believe it went so far as that, and urged that the exemp-
tion of the poorest classes ought to be regulated by an ac
of Parliament, and not left to the discretion of magistrates
and overseers.

Lord HENLEY maintained that with the small ex-
perience of the operation of last year's act this resolution
would be premature, and he showed that the present
system had worked better at Northampton than the old
one.

Mr. HARDY reminded the house that Mr. Hodgkinson's
amendment abolishing compounding had been received
last year with general assent, and that Mr. Gladstone had
declared its acceptance would remove his objections to the
new franchise. Considering that we had only the ex-
perience of one rate, I hat many towns had been for years
collecting their rates without compounding, and that a
committee had been appointed to inquire into the mode of
collecting local rates, ho trusted the house would not agree
to the resolution.

Mr. GLADSTONE, though of opinion that the present
Session should not pass without some proceeding on this
matter, recommended Mr. White to withdraw his motion,
as it was being investigated by a Committee, and depre-
cated the introduction of politics into it.
Mr. Goldney, Mr. Sandford, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Warner
made some observations ; and
Mr. WHITE withdrew his resolution.
Lord ELcuo and General DUNNE made 4ome inquiries as
to the progress of our fortifications, complaining that the
works in many cases had not been carried out according to
the original designs and specifications, and that recent ex-
periments on the Malta and Gibraltar shields had not been
fairly conducted.

Sir 3. PAICINGTON replied that all variations from
original designs Lad been made solely with a view to im-
proving the efficiency of the fortifications, and that the
completion of the iron shields had been delayed till the
experiments were concluded.

The house was about to go into committee ou the Army
Estimates, when Capt. VIVIAN appealed to Sir J. Paking-
ton to postpone his usual statement, alleging the thinness
of the house and the lateness of tho hour—a quarter to 10.
There wore at the time more than 100 members present,
which is by no means a thin house on such occasions, and
at an earlier period of the evening a promise had been
given that the estimates should not be brought on later
than 10 o'clock.

Sir J. PAKINGTON complied with ho request on con-
dition that he should be allowed to take a vote on account;
but Mr. Ayrton objected to this, and in the end the Army
Estimates were postponed altogether. Votes, horovir,
were taken in committee of supply for 67,120 men and boys
for the Royal Navy, and for £2,000,000 on account of the
Navy Estimates.

The Sea Fisheries and the Fairs (Ireland) Bills were
read a third time and passed, and the Consolidated Fund
Bill was read a second time.
THE IRISH REFORM BILL.

The Earl of MAYO brought in the Irish Reform Bill.
He announced at the outset that no change would be made
in the county franchise, which now stands at £l2 rating;
but the borough franchise would be reduced from £8 to £4,
and then by the peculiar rating arrangements of Ireland
(each tenant over £4 paying half the rates) every man who
paid rates would have a vote. This would add 9,313 electors
to the borough constituencies, bringing the whole number
up to 40,000. The provisions as to residence and regis-
tration would remain unaltered, but there would be a
lodger franchise and a Boundary Commission. Passing
to the re-distribution scheme, Lord Mayo analyzed mi-
nutely the population and property returns of the boroughs
and counties of Ireland, from which he drew the conclu-
sion that the counties were under-represented, in compa-
rison with the boroughs, and particularly the four largest
counties—Cork, Tyrone, Down, and Tipperary. To give
them adequate representation thebill proposed that Do wn-
patrick, Dungannon, Bandon, Kinsale, and Cashel should
yield their seats to new divisions of Down, Tyrone, Cork,
and Tipperary counties respectively. In none of those
cases would the locality of representation be removed, but
Portarlington would be called on for a greater sacrifice, as
she would be asked to give up her seat to furnish a third
member to Dublin City, who would be elected on the mi-
nority principle.

By some confusion or misunderstanding leave was
given to bring in the bill without any remark, but Col.
French moved the adjournment of the house to give an
opportunity for discussion.
Mr. BRADY complained that no reduction was made
in the county franchise, and demanded vote by ballot for
the Irish tenants ; Mr. Bagwell objected to the elimination
of the urban representation, and pointed out that the
change was in favour of the territorial influence; Mr.
Lav, son (Portirlington) denied that the largest counties
had been fairly chosen for increased representation, and
asked why the third member was not given to the coun-
ties, as well as to Dublin city, on the minority prin-
ciple. Mr. Reardon also made some remarks in con-
demnation of the bill, and Mr. O'Beirne (Cashel) com-
plained of the attack on his borough in violation of the
principle of the English and Scotch bills that no place
should be disfranchised.

Mr. GLADSTONE, admitting that there were one or
two good principles in the bill, reserved his opinion on
the details until the plan was in print. But he regretted
that the Government had not seen their way to a larger
increase of the Irish constituency, and pointed out that
the merging of boroughs into counties would make it
more difficult to retain the county franchise at its present
figure. . _

-Mr. M. TORRENS obtained a committee to inquire into
our Extradition Treaties.

Some other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
ourlaCd at a quarter to 12 o'clock.