well to talk about the loyalty of the toiling millions, their sincere regret that the House of Lords should not be more active, their wish to take part in electing the members of the House of Commons, and the rest of it; but can any one who looks at facts doubt this broad truth, that the result of the new Reform Bill will be that in fifty different ways England will become, as far as legislation can effect that object, more of a poor man's and less of a rich man's country? Rich people, highly educated people, refined people, will not have so good a bargain of it as they have had hitherto. Gentlemen, in a word, will fall in the market, and will stand, if not at a discount, at all events at a less enormously high premium than they have stood at so far. Who cares really for the institutions of the country in themselves? What people do care for are their effects, and their great effect has been to make England the paradise of rich men and of those who are educated with the views and feelings of rich men. This will now be considerably changed. We do not say that the change is a bad one. Some of its effects we hope will be good. It is one which must be regarded with mixed feelings. At all events it is inevitable, and we have invariably taken the course of admitting this, and of urging those who were principally concerned to accept what they could not help, and make the best of it. They undoubtedly have still excellent cards in their hands. As Mr Disraeli says, England is not America; and riches, education, and refinement must be less valuable things than they are usually supposed to be, if with so many advantages on their side they cannot hold their own. This is one thing, but to deny the nature of the change itself is quite another. We can not understand how any sincere observer can take that course. The short result of the whole is, that the Tory Reform Bill leads straight to as much democracy as the social state of the country will permit of, and if the leaders of the Conservative party had honestly said so from the first, the whole party would have revolted against them. As it is, having cheated them into passing the Bill, Mr Disraeli tries to hoodwink them as to its effects. He certainly is, as the Marquis of Carabas said of Mr Vivian Grey, a clever man, a monstrous clever

man.

Mr Disraeli can well afford to treat lightly such criticism as this.

He believes himself to be justified in all that he gave utterance to, and we entirely agree with him. Certainly no House of Commons likely to be chosen by the constituency which he calls into existence is likely to go farther than the Houses elected under the measure of 1832 have done in reducing the Church to the condition of a sect, and in forcing the House of Lords, nolentes volentes, to accept and register its own proceedings. And if there were any doubt on our minds in regard to this matter, the reasoning of the 'Times,' most unaccountably inconsistent in writing down one day what it had written up the day before, would remove it. The 'Times' is frightened out of its propriety by a vision of rampant Toryism henceforth prevailing. It sees in the extension of the suffrage to ratepaying householders in boroughs an enormous increase to the Tory constituency throughout England; and is therefore urgent in the demand that in redistributing the seats placed at their disposal by the success of Mr Laing's motion, the Government should throw as much power as possible into the hands of the Whigs. And because the Government has prepared a plan of redistribution which shall as nearly as can be compensate to the counties for the additional loss which they sustain from the suppression of all boroughs not showing a population of 10,000 at the least, the Times' is exceedingly indignant.

"It was shown over and over again," says the writer, "that where in consequence of the existence of large numbers of freemen the franchise was within the reach of all householders, the majority of the Members returned were not mereThis was

ly Conservative but Tory. especially, we may almost say invariably, the result where the boroughs were of moderate size. The enfranchising clauses of the Bill now before Parlia ment will render what was the exception the rule, and the consequences which obtained in a few boroughs may

be anticipated in many. We are not objecting to these enfranchising clauses as parts of a proper scheme. On the contrary, when coupled with a fair plan of redistribution, they will place our electoral system on a broad and stable footing. But," and so on.

What effect upon the state of parties the redistribution clause in the Reform Bill is to produce, we shall all know by-and-by. Meanwhile, it is in the highest degree satisfactory to find that a handsome majority has supported the Government in their proposition, and that Mr Laing's mad scheme of three-cornered constituencies and cumulative voting found no favour with the House of Commons. But we must not, on that account, withhold the expression of our acknowledgments from the writer who carps at the Ministerial plan, and admits, not without some show of reluctance, that the great bulk of the people were always with the Tories in the boroughs; and that, in bringing the franchise within the reach of ratepaying householders generally, Mr Disraeli is at once acting up to the wishes of the country, and adding to the strength of his own party. After this he and we may equally afford to sit at ease under the obloquy which the angry exponents of Whig sentiment heap upon us. Meanwhile, however, it is not a little diverting to notice how grievously Mr Gladstone and the Opposition have embarrassed themselves by the success which attended one of the latest of the many manoeuvres through which they hoped and expected to embarrass the Government. The clause in the Reform Bill which abolished altogether the compound householder, and left him without home or name in the commonwealth, was not ours. Mr Hodgkinson proposed, and Mr Gladstone eagerly supported it; the Government going only so far as to follow in their wake, and to make the best of a difficulty for the creation of which they were not responsible.

Our readers must not forget how this point was laid down in the Bill as first brought forward. Compound householders were not to come upon the roll of voters as such, but every facility was to be afforded them of getting rid of this bar to the exercise of the franchise; and each, in claiming to have his name on the rate-book, was, after a certain date, to become at once a personal ratepayer and a voter. "What an outrage!" exclaimed Mr Gladstone, "what an insult to an honest man! between whom and the ratepayer direct there is only this distinction-that whereas the latter satisfies the demands of the parish-officer as often as called upon, the former saves the officer the trouble of calling by making his landlord his agent, and paying through him." The House of Commons, however, could not quite see the matter through Mr Gladstone's spectacles; and the scheme, as Mr Disraeli laid it down, was on the eve of being accepted, when Mr Hodgkinson suddenly came forward with a proposal to do away with the whole race of compound householders, and to make every man inhabiting a house at once liable in his own person to rates, and eligible as a voter. body who heard the proposal could be blind to the enormous extent of inconvenience which must attend its acceptance. There is scarcely a parish in Great Britain in which householders are not to be found from whom it is impossible to collect the rates; and in the London parishes especially their name is legion. Repeal the laws which now permit landlords to compound with parishes for such rates, and the inconvenience to which parishes will be put can scarcely be overestimated. But what cares Mr Gladstone for that? He saw in Mr Hodgkinson's proposal a good opportunity of embarrassing the Government, possibly of defeating their Bill, and he supported it with all the weight of his eloquence

No

THE COMPOUND RATING DIFFICULTY.

"A deputation of vestry clerks, representatives of the committee appointed by the various metropolitan parishes to consider and report what means can be adopted to avert the impending loss of parochial rates through the passing of Mr Hodgkinson's amendment to the Reform Bill, had a conference, by previous appointment, with Mr Gladstone, at his private residence in Carlton House Terrace, on Monday afternoon. members of deputation were- Mr Greenwell (Marylebone), Mr Mitchell (Whitechapel), Mr Layton (Islington), Mr Hopwood (Holborn), and Mr Southwell (Mile End Old Town).

The

"Mr GREENWELL, in addressing Mr Gladstone, stated that the passing of Mr Hodgkinson's amendment would cause the loss of an enormous amount of rates to the parish. That amendment was supported both by Mr Gladstone and the Government, and as the injury which would be inflicted upon the parishes came principally from that side of the House of which he was the leader, they had come to consult him as to what was to be done under the circumstances. As the measure was a Government one, they had consulted the Poor-Law Board, that Board being the guardians of the rates of the metropolis, and unconnected with the political aspect of the matter. The subject had been inquired into at various times by committees of the House and the Poor-Law Commissioners, and they, by their reports, condemned the system of rating the occupier, as leading to great loss of rates, without any counterbalancing advantage being obtained. The Small Tenements Act did not apply to places where there were local Acts, and, therefore, had nothing to do with the metropolis, where local Acts were in force. The object of these Acts was stated in the preambles. Their desire was by some means to continue to rate the owners instead of the occupiers, and they had agreed upon a proposition which would meet their views, but per

haps it would not meet political exigencies,

"Mr GLADSTONE said, for his own part, he thought it was perfect folly to make this Bill interfere in any way with the rates. If Parliament had taken care any arrangements of the parishes about that the rates were paid he could have understood it, but he could not understand the interference with the convenience of the public. He wished to say that one party in the House had no views on the subject, and was not responsible in any degree for this interference. He had deprecated it all along, and had assented to it, as he would assent to cut off his leg rather than lose his life. The majority of the House had, however, agreed to it, and the question was, Could a proposal be made to meet the views of the majority, and at the same time meet the difficulty?

"Mr GREENWELL said what would suit them was, that the rating of the owner should be extended to cases where houses were let furnished or for a less term than one year, or where the annual rent did not exceed £20. They did not wish to suggest anything which would retard the passing of a Bill, or continue an agitation which inflicted a serious loss upon the trade and commerce of the metropolis.

"Mr GLADSTONE said he had proposed his mode, and it had been rejected. He proposed that a man should have a vote whether his landlord or himself were rated. The House rejected that by a majority of 21. His object was to avoid interfering in any way with the collection of the rates. There was no doubt that a great deal of the composition arose out of the weekly tenancies, and it was perfectly absurd to propose to ask a man who had a seven days' holding under his landlord to pay a six months' rate, so as to place him in relation to the parish for six months, while he only had a holding for a week. He did not think he could postpone the subject, for that would interfere with the political object of the House. There had been a great deal of idle talk and jeering about the compound householder, as if he were a chimpanzee or an ourangoutang; whereas three-fourths of the population were holding houses under £10. Therefore, the legislation upon this point was the Reform Bill. The real Reform Bill was not settled by any measure or motion until the passing of Mr Hodgkinson's amendment. The House meant that the name of the occupier should be on the rate-book, and that he should be under full legal lia

bility for the payment of the rates. Was it or was it not compatible with these two purposes of the House of Commons that they should make arrangements with the owners, either voluntarily or by enactment, which will enable you practically to collect the rates from the owner? There is no doubt that it is almost a social necessity that they should do so.

"Mr GREENWELL said they might put both the owner and the occupier on the rate-book, making both liable; but the objection to that on the part of the landlord was, that he would have to pay the rate for his tenant when that tenant perhaps ran away without paying his rent.

"Mr GLADSTONE said that what he meant was, that they might make such an arrangement by making an allowance to the landlord as still to collect the rates from him. Without any allowance being made the landlord pays the rates in a large number of parishes, especially in Liverpool. These places are not under the Compounding Act or the Small Tenements Act, and yet the rates are obtained from the owner. Why should they not remunerate the owner and employ him as the collector?

"Mr GREENWELL objected to this suggestion, that if the occupier were legally responsible, the landlord would leave him to the mercy of the bailiff, and not pay the rate.

"Mr SOUTHWELL also objected that if a tenant had paid his rent up, they could only distrain for an amount equal to one week's rent-say 5s.

"Mr GLADSTONE said that under the Small Tenements Act they could distrain for the whole amount. The common sense of the case is in the first place to consider whether you can make some arrangement by law or not, without coming across the arrangement of the House of Commons-the entering of the name on the rate-book. There seems to be a notion in the House that there is some sort of security for a man's virtue in his liability for a rate. The benefit offered to the landlord was what has been very neatly termed a profitable contract.' In a large number of instances already the landlord voluntarily undertakes the payment of the rates, as in Liverpool, without any allowance. A man wishing to become a weekly tenant would look out for a place where he had only to pay his week's rent. They wanted to avoid three things-the trouble of obtaining information, the danger of dealing with uncertain tenants, and the trouble of collection. If they gained their object, why should they not pay the landlord for it?

He could collect the rates easily, because he must collect his rent. He was convinced that before five years had passed they would return to the present system. We are not such idiots as to incur inconvenience for nothing at all; at present it would be much better to ask Parliament for power to make a voluntary rather than a compulsory arrangement.

"The conference continued for a considerable period longer, the deputation urging in objection to Mr Gladstone's proposal that great difficulty would arise in settling the rate of remuneration to the landlords, as some would require more than others, and that the question of security where the arrangement was not compulsory would create a difficulty.

"Mr GLADSTONE replied that when once a voluntary arrangement had been made the security would be as good as at present, and in conclusion he said, 'Any proposal for relieving the parishes of this difficulty shall, for my part, have every prejudice in its favour. I cannot speak more strongly than that.'

"The deputation, having promised to seriously entertain Mr Gladstone's proposal, and having thanked him for his kindness, withdrew."

The gist of this long conference is, that Mr Gladstone, feeling acutely the false position in which he has placed himself, is at once unwilling to admit that he has done wrong, and unable to apply a remedy to the wrong which he has committed. He cannot deny that the arrangement which he promoted is both inconvenient and unjust, yet he puts from him the responsibility by urging that nothing of the kind could have taken place had the House of Commons only allowed him to have his own way a year ago. "He wished to say that, in regard to this matter, he had deprecated it all along, and had assented to it only as he would assent his life." This is hardly fair, even to cut off his leg rather than lose in conference with a deputation of vestry clerks. Mr Gladstone never deprecated the repeal of the Rate Composition Acts. On the contrary, he voted and spoke for it as soon as a majority of twenty-one threw out his amendment on Mr Disraeli's first proposal, that the Acts in question should remain in