were argued-first, whether it gave promise in it itself of supplying the means of good Government; and next, whether it contained any principle of fixity and permanence? I admit frankly that I was one of those who thought that the measure of 1832 was objectionable upon both these points. I doubted whether a House of Commons elected under it would harmonize with the other parts of our Constitution; and I feared it would lead, at no distant day, to other and greater changes in the representation. I admit that I was wrong in thinking it unlikely to lead to present good Government; but it is another question whether the apprehension that it did not contain any principle of fixity has not been justified. country as the basis of borough representa- | in vain to go further back. At the time tion, will be prepared to go into Committee of the passing of that Act two questions on this Bill. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the borough franchise is the main feature of this Bill; and I agree with him in placing, in a comparatively subordinate position, the attention and consideration which should be given to the other franchises which it contains. The borough franchise in this Bill rests on a principle intelligible and free from doubt; there is no obscurity about it. He who runs may read. The humblest individual in the kingdom, and the lowest in point of education, can understand this-that the borough franchise here contained is conferred upon the rated and ratepaying occupier of a house. If there be a word that requires definition it is this the word "occupier?" You do not intend that it shall mean an individual who enters the house the day before the election and leaves it the day afterwards. Some description must be given of the word "occupier," and even in the democratic constitutions of America some conditions are laid down with which a man must comply to become an occupier within the meaning of the law. But it is introduced not for the purpose of excluding from the franchise those to whom it had previously been given, but simply as part of the description of those to whom it is extended, and the period fixed is a two years' occupancy. Admitting that the borough franchise will be placed on a wholesome basis by extending it to household suffrage, the arguments urged have been mainly directed against subordinate points-it has been argued that the manner, the form, and the condition on which we propose that the franchise shall be enjoyed is open to objection. I venture to ask, is there any justice in that mode of argument? Is it not our duty, first of all, to consider whether this basis be a sound one for the borough franchise? We ought to look at it first in the abstract, and to consider afterwards the manner, the form, and the condition (not the limitations) under which this ample qualification is to be enjoyed. We must bear in mind that the inquiry we have to make is whether this is not the most satisfactory mode left to us of settling the franchise consequent on the measure of 1832. For collateral purposes it is no doubt useful to refer to our ancient Constitution; but in determining what ought to be done to-day we must take our departure from 1832-we must accept it as a fact. It is After the Act of 1832 passed, the then great Leader of the Conservative party foretold that it would ultimately be the duty of Conservatives to stand by that measure; and I will say that the Conservative party beyond all doubt have been loyal to that measure. Though they by no means approved the principle which fixed the limit of enfranchisement at the £10 householders, they were not the persons to break down the line. Of course, it was not right to surrender a stand-point, however imperfect, without being sure that it was the wish of the country really to abandon it. It has been stoutly maintained; but it has been found impossible longer to maintain it. I do not think it has been obstinately maintained; but the time has come when it was plain that the principle of the Act of 1832 must be extended. Everybody who has spoken in this debate has distinctly admitted that change of some kind was necessary; and, that being so, the question is, in what direction should we proceed? You cannot recede, you must take the direction of the Act of 1832something must be done to extend the franchise; the existing line must be given up. Will you simply adopt another figure in place of the present one; or will you not rather look for some new and better definition of the franchise? The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) has distinctly admitted that household suffrage is a resting place, and a much more lasting one than any figure we can fix upon. It gives us, my hon. and learned Friend said, the very elements of a constituency. I agree with that-defined as household [Second Reading-Second Night. suffrage is in the Bill-namely, the rated you have the prospect of a permanency and ratepaying occupation of a house. which it is simply idle to say that a That is the principle which is advocated £6 or an £8 rental would afford. The by the Bill now before us. It requires old argument would for ever return-why from the voter the possession of that should those below £8, why should those which is of the first necessity, and the dis- below £6, be excepted from the francharge of that which is the first duty in chise? But when it is decided that not civilized society-the possession of a roof any amount of rent, but the simple fact over his head-the discharge of his obliga- of being rated and paying his rates in tions to the State. I say, then, that if we respect of the house he occupies, enhave got to this point we have obtained a titles a man to the franchise, I maintain clear and definite principle, and one on that you have here a prospect of permawhich all may rely. It may not be com- nence which does not exist in any other prehensive enough to suit some classes of experiment that has yet been tried. I hold, Reformers; but I venture to say that it is therefore, that this measure is one which comprehensive enough to satisfy any class it would be wise for this House to adopt, of Liberals at least, to satisfy that class comprehensive enough to satisfy all the which constitutes the majority of the party in reasonable demands of the Liberal party, this House. Another question may, indeed, and safe enough for the Conservative party arise, whether it ought to be accepted by to adopt. hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Then I come to the objections which But the experience we have had of former have been taken to the manner, the mode, Reform Bills, the knowledge we have of the conditions on which this franchise is to the feeling of the country, the description be enjoyed. This, I must say, has hitherto of the class who are to have a vote-that been the whole burden of the arguments is, any persons who have occupied their that have been urged against this measure. houses and paid their rates for two years I maintain that the real place for the disought to take away from us all practical cussion of all these objections is the Comapprehension of danger from the immediate mittee. You have got the principle settled operation of the measure itself. The im--the principle which my hon. and learned mediate and the important question for us Friend the Member for Richmond says he to consider is, whether these qualifications approves of-the principle of the rated and do not give us as good a security for the ratepaying occupation of a house. [Sir exercise of the franchise as the fixing of ROUNDELL PALMER: I said a rated house.] a certain amount of rent. The other Well, my hon. and learned Friend prefers and more difficult question is, how far to put it in that way. At any rate, we is this measure calculated to afford us have got the principle of a rated occupancy the prospect of permanency? Now, in fixed, and I say that everything else ought speaking of permanency in human affairs, to be left to the Committee. But let nobody means immutability-we speak us consider it. The first question with only of that degree of permanency which which we have to deal is whether the we expect to find in human affairs; and vote shall be given to the occupant of looking at the measure in that point of a rated house, or to the rated and rateview, I say it does afford us the prospect paying occupier of a house? Is it not a of such a permanency. Nor do I now speak distinct and clear advantage that the ocof permanency considered in reference to cupier should also be the ratepayer? Is the life of an individual, but in reference to not that a guarantee when you are desirous the life of a nation. What might be suffi- of finding an instrument for good Governcient in dealing with the interests of an ment? It is said that this qualification individual would be wholly insufficient in was put in as a check to democracy. Is dealing with the interests of a nation, where that necessarily an objection to it? We we ought to expect that more than a quarter need not go back to find what was the of a century will elapse before we are precise basis of representation in our early called upon to try some new experiment. history; but if we do so, it is clear that a And I say boldly that in this Bill a broad Conservative element has always preand distinct and yet flexible line is vailed in this country, and in this House; adopted which takes the first elements and that in your Reform Bills you of the constitution of society, as to want a constituency that will work in what voters must possess and the duties harmony with the Constitution, that will they must discharge. I say that in this continue to work, as the House of Com mons has hitherto worked, in harmony | into words so simple a proposition? If with the House of Lords and the Sovereign; any Acts of Parliament stand in the way, and I say that it would be no objection to can they not be modified? Just consider the qualification of the rating and rate- what it is you propose. Simply that the paying clause if it were found to work in occupier of a house shall have a right to that direction; on the contrary, it will be insist on being placed on the rate book, and an essential qualification if necessary for upon being put on the register on his that end, and I say that this qualification paying such rates as are in the rate book, is simply the description of a class. The or as by law are due. Is there any dif occupier of a rated house is not enough; ficulty in that? None. The right hon. Genthat description defines a class very dif- tleman the Member for South Lancashire ferent from that which is defined in the said that when the Act of 1850 was passed present Bill. I confidently put it to the it effected a great social and moral revoluHouse whether, for the purpose of the tion, by establishing a new mode of colfranchise, the rated and ratepaying oc- lecting rates; and, with an emphasis which cupier of a house is not a better description those who heard him will not easily forget, than the occupier of a rated house? I he read this passage to explain the great have little fear of the decision of the House social and moral revolution which took if that question were put to it; and I have placelittle doubt it would prefer a constituency of rated and ratepaying occupiers of houses rather than of the occupiers of rated houses, no matter who was rated or by whom the rates were paid. Then we come to the alleged inconsistency of permitting differences between the constituency under the old Reform Bill and the constituency under the new Bill. I ask you to consider on this point what is possible to be done, and what it is impossible to do. As I understand, it is admitted you must respect and cannot interfere with the old constituency established under the Act of 1832; and if that be the case, then I say that, in maintaining the existing constituency, you are not introducing safeguards or drawing distinctions between class and class. You are simply making a distinction between qualifications created in 1832, and qualifications it is thought right to create now. The different times at which the two measures were introduced will sufficiently reconcile the community to any distinctions that may exist. "Whereas the collection of highway rates assessed upon the occupiers of small annual value is expensive, difficult, and frequently impracticable, and it is expedient to make proper provision for the collection of such rates." A Bill, then, the object of which was to remove difficulties in the way of collection of rates, is said to be a revolution :- -a Bill to enable those persons who desire personally to be rated, and to pay their rates, and who say, "Put me upon the rate book; take my money; I am willing to pay," is said to stand in the way of a franchise which depends upon rating and the payment of rates. That is an extravagant proposition. It is said that you have numberless difficulties thrown in the way of the ratepayer. I have difficulty in enumerating the long beadroll. There are, it is said, the difficulties of knowing the law; of knowing that. he must obey the law; of finding where the rate collector lives; of claiming to be rated; of paying the rate; of claiming to be put upon the register; and finally, of seeing that he is put upon the reI come, then, to the other arguments gister. There are other difficulties raised which, as I have already said, are more of this nature; but they are mere words, properly fit for the Committee. A great the meaning of which is lost in the argument has been that the Bill is not sound. There is nothing in them. The adapted or applicable to the existing state whole of them comes to this all that of things. We are told that it is impos- the occupier who desires to vote has to sible to apply the principle of personal do is to claim to be rated, and to pay rating and payment of rates to those his rate. The proposition is so simple householders where the owner of a large that I cannot understand how these difnumber of houses compounds for them ficulties can have any real existence, and and is rated, and pays the rates. Why if they do exist, I am sure they can easily not? What is the difficulty? Surely be removed. A great deal has been said it is a very simple process. You have about the compound - householder being got the simplest enunciation of the "fined" if he tries to obtain a vote. franchise, the rated and ratepaying oc- What is the meaning of this objection? cupier. Is there any difficulty in putting Is it seriously intended that, in the long [Second Reading--Second Night. case. The petition run, a contract between landlord and te- should pay the full value. nant will not settle itself; and that as soon from the people of Wolverhampton, reas it is found that there are tenants willing to cently presented in "another place," says pay their rates, they will not find landlords that a claim to vote should be supwith whom they could make arrangements ported by giving up the relief of comfor their rents consequential on that? It position and paying the full rate." I is simply a question of supply and demand. believe that that is the sound view. That The whole difficulty, if there be one, would if a man chooses to claim the franchise he simply rest upon the first year or so after must pay the rate in the same manner as the Act came into operation. After the other ratepayers, and the most that could first year everything will be settled, and happen would be that he would pay the the occupier, if he claims to be rated and difference for the first year or so until the pays his rates, will get as much as he pays law of contract stepped in, and the form of in reduction of rent. The landlord will ulti- contract would be so altered as to set the mately lose nothing; he will not have any of matter right. I do not believe that there the risks of payment. The tenant will be would be any practical difficulty in the rated, and the whole argument of the compound-householder being "fined" falls to We now come to a further argument of the ground fully after the Act comes a very remarkable character. It is said into operation. I at first supposed that that this provision will give great facilities the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant for bribery-it is said that these voters to say that possibly the tenant might be will be handed over to political agents who called upon to pay a second time the will say to the tenant, "We will claim the rate which the landlord had already paid; vote for you, and we will pay the rates;" but, of course, that is not so. Then and it is said that there will be no difit is said that the tenant may pay the ficulty in doing this, and that there will rate, and may not be able to recover it be no way of preventing such a course from his landlord; but that is not the by this or any other Act of Parliament. true construction to be placed upon the But I say that, where you have a candiBill as it stands. It was certainly not so date who is above bribery, and electors intended. The whole question is covered who are also above bribery, there are no by the 34th section. The tenant, where facilities and no danger; but if you have a the owner is rated, may claim to be candidate and electors who are, the one rated for the purpose of acquiring the willing to give and the other willing to franchise; and then the clause goes on to receive bribes, it is idle to talk of facilities prescribe the manner and conditions on for bribery. All that is wanted is that which he shall do so, maintaining the there should be money or money's worth manner and conditions found in all exist- to change hands, and there are no greater ing Acts with respect to the payment of facilities for bribery given by this Bill than rates by persons who, as occupiers, are not existed before. As the law exists now liable to pay themselves, but who pay there are unlimited facilities for bribery by through their landlords. The construc- the payment of rates. I cannot, therefore, tion and legal effect of the provision, understand how we are said to be handing as I understand it, is that the tenant over the voters to the political agents. paying the rate would have a right to May not other classes of voters be handed deduct the amount of it from his rent. over to political agents also? Is this If that is not sufficiently clear, however, handing over peculiar to one class? May it could easily be remedied in Committee, it not be just as easy, if you take a and all dispute on the point avoided. The household voter under a household sufwhole of this question of the "fine" rests frage pure and simple, or if you take a upon the difference between commuted £5 voter? And if you take universal value and the full value for the first year suffrage, may not the result be that the or two after the Act has come into opera- voters may be equally liable to be handed tion. The tenant is to pay the full value over to political agents, until you have and the landlord the commuted value; and Government in one place by a caucus," in some cases that may produce a difficulty and in another place by an Emperor? It for a year or two, but it only comes to this is idle to say that you hand this particular after all that the question of paying the class, more than any other, over to the pofull value is open to consideration. How-litical agents. It is an idle argument, of ever, I believe it is right that the occupier no avail. The real question for considera 601 Representation of {MARCH 26, 1867} tion is-Is this Bill founded upon a wise and sound basis for a borough franchise? I venture to say that it is. The borough franchise, which is the real main feature of the Bill, stands upon grounds which cannot be controverted by any moderate Liberal. It may be open to question from those who have Conservative instincts and Conservative associations. Many of us have, doubtless, felt that there were grave considerations to be entertained before the Bill should be adopted; but we have felt that it was necessary that the franchise should be extended, and that we should come to some point that would afford a chance of permanence. It may be said, "If these are your views why do you not stop somewhere on the road? Why do you not try something farther in the shape of an £8 or a £6 rental?" My answer to that is that if you begin changing in that manner now you will be more rapid in your descent than if you make a broad change, and get to a more secure You would go on resting place at once. much more rapidly in your changes when had begun, and it would be most dangerous. When change becomes necessary and inevitable, it is better to make it at once-not with an idea of immutability-but selecting some line, some resting place, better than any amount of rental, such as household suffrage-and I am glad to have the authority of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) for saying that household suffrage does afford a great security-for something like permanence. And I say, that with the conditions we propose, though we have not household suffrage pure and simple, but qualified by residence and payment of rates, we have reasonable assurance of permanence. once you I shall not trouble the House by going into the other franchises. My hon. and learned Friend, however, thinks that a lodger franchise is a good franchise. If -you go into that, however, in the spirit with which this Bill has been examined on the other side, I venture to say that it is far more impracticable and impossible of execution than anything to be found in the Under the Bill as it stands present Bill. every lodger whom it would be desirable to admit will be able to acquire the right of voting as an investor in the funds or in a savings bank, or by virtue of the educational franchise. There you will find all the elements for realizing what you desire from a lodger franchise; and no lodger whom the People Bill. any 602 other it would be desirable to admit would be un- For these reasons I venture to think prove con For satis [Second Reading-Second Night. : |