New-York tribune., 1867-04-09

explicit answer TO these questions Would they consent
10 Introduce lOdger suffrage Would they shape Tue
bin In such form that Parliament, and not the yestle
should decide what class OF voters and how many sh1n
admitted And would they consent to remove ron
the bill all the artificial inequalities 1t established DC
tween different classes OF voters ,,o
which would commit the Government to any particular
course No bin could be passed without mutual eonees
sion and forbearance but IT, Mr. Gladstone SAID every
leading provision this bill required revision then he
asserted With strong empnS tSs and dHon fs OUGHT to be
at s st & nnG II sSTh Snps Of the he
denied that it was Household, Suffrage bill, or
that II had been represented as suen u was
"a Rating Franchise bill, and so far from ekeiudhg any
bodyas Mr. Gladstone had argued, INCONSISTENCY y VIII IN
as making indscTmnate admissonsit opened the fran
chse to every one who chose TO claim IT, Combating
pound househodcr would be fined" for going the
Tsss'e Tses lie paid C% the S0 S pointed nc
extreme practical difficulty of working = iodger g
supplied by the assessed taxes vote; and admitted
that the payment Of rates and tine two years residence
were meant as limitations, contending that they were
the argument derived from the figures that me Dill
the argument used against the bill OF last year
that II was dsglstngly monotonous; and Will, while
justfying the Dual Vote by reminding me HOUSE use
Of the numerous corrective proposals, such ms the
cumulative vote, which had been made at various
times. he invited discussion upon II, and lntimated
that the Government woud be open to convection AItel
devotng few words to the defense OF voting papers ana
urging that any defects OF the machinery Tor tne
admission Of compound househoderso 10 the registergh
rPmeuird
tain thns must be gwen up They wished for discussion
met in reasonable spirit they would not show them
selves unreasonable. though they would saDd by the
main principle OF accompanying Tree eundhcpisehoAV
by judiCous limitations.
Lord Amberley, while cOngratuatiDg the House on
tho improved tone in which Reform was discussed
this year, urged that moderation might he carried too
far and the Liberals had long had definite policy,
the concessions ought To come from the other side
He ueee,Ia n meth he
founded principle, protesting himself unable 10 see
the difference between a ratepayer and n compound
householder, both paid rates though one Of them
paid them TO his landlord and he rejected uurescrvedly
the an rgumont that compound householder who would
pay hls rates was not worthy Of vote lie de-
preaied the connection 81 extension Of the franchise
with Jealous checks and preca,lnons ana pedeu" th"'
Legislation In such spirit would be- inthe -,
Mr. Roebnch announced MS intention 10 support ine
not improve the character of the liouse-whcn
he did not think necessarynoy 10 carry ont any theory
OF tho rights Of man. winch he did not believe in but
admit 10 the franchise the sober. the INDUSTRIOUS, anu
saeaous portion OF the working classes and TO keep out
the rest u whose hands confessed himself afraid TO
! trust H. A. test ~ Tins Industry ana s0mlety ne
could conceive nothing more satisfactory than
rcsdeuce aud personal payment Of rates. In
the fancy franchises he SAW no particular harm OF
good The country franchise ought To nave Decn Iea AT
last yearr fgurttli; and on the question OF fedisbu
Iir. Kocbuok ntmacd that, believing our present.
haphaigrd tCm wac the best mode OF securing Narieo
crrossn ta0n he did not wish for any greater redls
hui on than was necessary to enffanchlse large bo~hh
which were present unrcprcsentGd Reply
ing 10 Nj. Gladstones objection 10 the " ine on M the
|
ard unworthy of mn, MI RoebucE maintained that
10 only iusf to call upon man To bear hs snare IN
the burdens ~ the state when he received snare IN is
privilege anu ho concluded anI ni'n ~ " ~
calling MT DlsIacl 10 pluck MP M couiagIp yiela
where concession was reasonable nut ho' 10 We ghec"
re eocitor General assured Mr. ROcbuck that the
Co,eTRment was not initmdRted by anything That had
happ,nod yet ana. Ia elaborate legal argumentl De
fcnded the bill based the ancient principles Of the
In many cases the cnpoders were fined Just as he com
pained the compOunders world be- The Government oe,
] null Df
of THE suirage proposed that every man vlnS IN =,
nav bis rates and he dored 40 reflection the intel
g,nee the House OF Commons Mr. Gladstohc Nehe-
ment assertion that impossible 70 devise PROVISIONS
for carrying out that principle II once IL we're accepted
he pointed out was what the ten-pounder ,d nad
| 70 &, How, and the personal rate-payer womb
not thai there Iy nSns S2rfe p's1eog, @ or
unreasonable IN the proposal The fancy franchises the
solicitor General defended serafin. quoting tho
tnrs hank franchise from Mr. GladSones speech Of last
Wear and the dual vote he urged ON the principle
that half loaf Is better than no bread thai ~ Is no
rnore unfair 10 give to VINO pays rates
and assessed taxes 10 certain amount than II ls to
draw an arbitrary line and TO Say that all OeioWh sai
ON the 2cth of March the debate the Reform bill was
continued.
Sir r Palmer agreed with Mr Hardy that this was not
a Household Suffrage b though he had formerly de
cared he was not averse household suffrage beiev
ing II TO beboth liberal snd.conseryative measure, and
10 contain the elements OF nay and he was not AFRAID
of ia effects II Il were established pure and simple But
II was accompanied with checks ana RESTRICTIONS
they not such would Introduce new dlIief
encos new causes of disconent and new obstacles 20
this bill would Taking az criterion OF inc
hill the position IN hch IL would place the me- voters In
relation the old ten FOUNDERS, he examined critically
the enanehisns clauses argu1s hat ney eo %Sa uW tS
they would impose on the new voters IIes' suon As
dwelling house, and the personal payment Of rates,
and the payment, too on the full rateane value, 10
nOne OF which conditions the ten-pounder was SUB
eed on this last point and referring to an argument
OF Mr. Hardy that the tenant who paid his rates could re-
cover them from bis landlord, he maintained that the
A
10 pay the amount " the landlords composition ana TO
be to the whole Of previous legislation
The bill entirely misconeeVed the nature OF ,nese Com
must involve tins demma-that IL would put tho
compomnderr or the landlords OF the old eompounders
would he mulcted OF the difference between be iul rate
and the cOmposon. The dual vote he pronounced ny
inc iignt OF the Solicitor Generals prover HAN oe1
h better than no bread-to be an ettem At we:e BE-.
wound fceSeT stamp tam The Of the
bll and IN the same way after pointing ont that the
tSs tSs byrous6 sncSise that il drew an nydons line
etween the old and voters he condemned the ihnc
representation and local franchises. Though heartily
tesirous that something should be made OF the bl IN
Committee pass IL substantially as u Stood would DC
useless attempt 10 settle the question: -.
Tho Attorney General maintained mat the Act OF 1857
,hise and argued thai rate.paying household suffrage
would bring In the best and formed the best basis OF
with the suggestion the other side that the rate pay
ng occupier Of house better man than The oecn
.ulties started by Mr. Gladstone and sir L. Palmer,
pleading that there would lie very little difficulty
when the House had assened TO the rate epaylng
principle in devsing clauses to carry 10 ont and 10 the
hfne objection he replied that II amounted simply TO
the payment OF the difference between tho f vane and
the compositions but this would work itself right in year
though the question Of requiring the full payment
of rates might be open To consideration IN Committee
The Attorney General concluded by arguing against the
0dger franchise as impraeticable and unnecessary
as The same classes would be included by the special
franchises
MIR iAlng summarized the result oi the debate up to
this stage husthat the majority OF the House thought
the bill 10 be bad bill that II began 10 s to