The GLIO Site

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

     The Speaker having left the chair, the committee upon this bill was resumed.
     The CHAIRMAN, having read the amendment proposed by Mr. Watkin at the end of clause 3, to add the words, ‟Provided that no tenement shall be considered a dwelling-house for the purposes of this act which contains less than two rooms,” and the addition proposed by Mr. Pease to such amendment, by adding the words ‟And that the said two rooms shall not together contain less than 1600 cubic feet,” put the question ‟that those words be there added.”

     Mr. WATKIN said his object in proposing the amendment was to prevent household suffrage degenerating into hovel suffrage. A section of that house, led by the hon. member for Birmingham, stated that it was their wish to keep out the residuum, and the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire had recently expressed sentiments somewhat similar. The bill as it stood would first enfranchise all the occupants of the existing hovels in boroughs and counties if there was land attached to them, and it would increase and facilitate in all the smaller boroughs, and even in many of the average size, the creation of votes by the creation of tenements, which were not properly fit for human habitation. He would first call attention to existing hovels in different boroughs, from the report of Dr. Hunter, presented to the Privy Council the year before last. In Tavistock there were huts, in which four persons dwelt in one, three in another; and in another, two, with four children, making one room serve for ‟parlour, kitchen, and hall.” In Petersfield there were many houses with but one bed-room, and in one bed-room slept a married pair, with two adult girls, six younger girls, and one boy baby; in another lived a widow woman with five children. In Wenlock, in Staffordshire, in a house with two bed-rooms, there slept three married couples, with four children; in another, five adults; and in a third, three adults, with four children. In Stafford, a town which had many wretched houses, in its environs many common houses, the roads no better than gutters, and stenches prevailed both in and out of doors, as every one knew—there were in Stafford a larger proportion of houses than there ought to be which were unfit for human habitation. In Calne. a town distinguished for its representative, seven adults and five children lived in one hut, with but one bed-room, but some slept in the kitchen, and next door lived a married pair with four children. In Knaresborough, where from the cheapness of materials capitalists were induced to erect small and ill-arranged houses, in many cases it was difficult to let them for 10d., 9d., and even 6d. per week. Surely these were not persons to whom it would be advantageous to give a vote. The bill in its present form would also give great facilities for the creation of votes, by the erection of small tenements unfit for human habitation. The commission for Totnes, in their recent report, state that even under the Reform Bill of 1832 great facilities existed in that borough for the creation of votes by the erection of a mere building or hovel upon meadow land within that borough, in order that one party or the other might obtain a preponderance of votes. The percentage of hovel suffrage, if no restriction be placed upon the bill, would in boroughs under 1500 electors be equivalent to 10 per cent, and the occupiers of such tenements would be a bad class of voters (hear, hear). The object of the bill was to select the sober, industrious and respectable portion of the working classes, those who brought up their families industriously and with respectability, and to omit only (which was the desire of all parties) the residuum which had so often been alluded to. The question was, how it was to be secured. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to accomplish it by the personal payment of rates, and the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire endeavoured to secure it by a 5l. rating. The evil of the latter was, that any scale of rating had been and always must be grossly unjust and unequal, owing to the difference of rent, the cost of erection of houses, and the social difference with regard to the occupier. It was worthy of the consideration of the house to endeavour, if possible, to define what a tenement should be, in order to secure that necessary separation between the good and bad elements of the constituency, and he considered that the plan he proposed of effecting that object was better than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right honourable gentleman the member for South Lancashire. He had taken the test of two rooms as being the principle laid down for the second-class model lodging-houses in the City, erected under the superintendence of Mr. Alderman Waterlow, which were to have two rooms, with the necessary appurtenances, each room to be 75 feet square and to contain 2745 cubic feet. He thought that a tenement which was considered by that association as only sufficient for the residence of a respectable workman was not a bad test to adopt with reference to the proposed definition of a house for the Reform Bill. He would not further refer to the painful details contained in Dr. Hunter's report other than to remind the house that out of 5375 of these small houses or hovels in the boroughs and counties he found there were no less than 2195 of them with single bed-rooms, and that there lived in them 8824 human beings, averaging four persons to each bed-room, and in many cases the four persons slept in a less amount of space than was given to a single convict in her Majesty’s prisons (hear, hear) ; and deducting those cases where the house was occupied by single men and widows, a very large proportion of the 2195 houses gave no less than eight persons to each house; clearly showing that this bill would enfranchise a class of dwelling that ought not to give the franchise, and would stimulate and encourage the erection of houses not fit for human dwellings for political purposes, without devising some such remedy as that which he suggested. He was perfectly ready and willing to adopt any amendment that would effect the object he had in view.

     Mr. MELLER said he was not opposed to the enfranchising of the working classes by the proposed house-hold suffrage accompanied with the payment of rates, and also by the lodger franchise, but he was inclined to believe that the effect of the proposed amendment in the metropolis and large towns, if carried, would be to disfranchise a large body of intelligent men—viz., bankers’, railway and other clerks, in the receipt of salaries varying from 80l. to 100l., because it would be impossible for them to pay so large a sum in rent as the clause would necessarily impose upon them. He hoped, therefore, the committee would pause before they assented to the amendment,

     Mr. PEASE moved to add to the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for Stockport the following:— ‟And the said two rooms shall not together contain less than 1600 cubic feet of space, and that no room or rooms shall be considered a lodging for the purposes of this act that do not together contain 1600 cubic feet of space, or separately contain 1000 cubic feet of space. It would be well for the committee to take stock, and consider for a moment where they had drifted in the course of the present session, viz., into a ‟bastard kind of household suffrage” (laughter, and cries of ‟Question”). He had no wish to use any offensive term, but they had drifted into a singular kind of household suffrage, because it was grafted on a permissive local assessment bill (hear, hear, and laughter). It was the interest of all to endeavour to make the bill as effective as possible; and so far as he was concerned, as an independent member, he had brought forward his proposal with that view. It was difficult now to define the meaning of a house rating; rental had run away from them, and the only test they could now adopt was the air they breathed. They ought only to exclude those who had been delicately described by.the Hon. member for Birmingham as the residuum—that class where poverty began and honesty flinched. He knew of a case in a borough where a man had been objected to year after year by the various election agents. He appeared again before the revising barrister, who said, ‟Now what’s your qualification?” ‟My qualification,” said the voter, ‟is as good as ever.” ‟Good as ever,” was the retort of the opposite agent, ‟why he has no house at all.” The voter added, ‟I had a house this morning, but these cursed Blues have pulled it down” (laughter). This sort of hovel-voting he objected to. There were other hovels situated in cellars, and he objected also to their occupants having votes. His reason for fixing upon 1600 cubic feet was a consideration of the returns of the space for hospital and barrack accommodation at Brighton, Portsmouth, and various other places. The proposition would not interfere with the sacred, holy principle which the government had laid down of the personal payment of rates.

     Sir R. COLLIER said the amendment was open to very serious objections. It proposed a definition of the term ‟dwelling house” hitherto unknown to the law, and which would operate as a disfranchisement. It would also be highly inconvenient in practice, while it would not answer the purpose in contemplation. It was proposed as a test of respectability. He denied that it would act as such a test One room, large and well-furnished, and ventilated, might be much more respectable than two small ones, and might command a higher rent than two rooms. And how would this work in practice? How easy would it be at any time, by putting up a partition or even a screen to convert one room into two? It would be an excellent provision for the lawyers, as it would raise all sorts of legal questions, not only as to whether such apartments were two rooms or one, but also as to what was the exact measurement.

     Mr. P. SCROPE wished to remark that a clause of which he had given notice, for exempting small tenements from rating to the occupants, would, if carried, render unnecessary any definition of ‟dwelling-house.”

     Mr. LIDDELL thought the committee would get into great trouble and difficulty if, under the guise of a Reform Bill, they attempted to enforce sanitary provisions, or promote the laudable object of improving the dwellings of the poor. Both these important matters ought to be dealt with by direct enactments. He wished to repeat the question he formerly put to the government—what was the meaning of the term ‟dwelling-house?” This question excited more interest in the north than any clause in the bill. He held in his hand a letter from the secretary of the Newcastle Working Man’s Club expressing approbation of the system of personal payment of rates, but asking what was meant by ‟dwelling-house?” upon which he said depended whether the bill would be an enfranchising or a disfranchising one. He hoped the government would put a liberal construction on the word ‟dwelling-house,” or that they would consent to add the words, ‟or part of a house.” Otherwise they would turn what was intended as a measure of enfranchisement into a measure of exclusion.

     Mr. COWAN said he was anxious that working men should have a proper and comfortable dwelling. Much had been said about a hard and fast line of 5l. But what would be the effect of fixing the franchise at two rooms, or 1600 feet of air? It would be confining the franchise to houses of the value of 7l. 10s. and upwards. He understood the government to propose to give the franchise to every man occupying a house and personally rated to the poor rate. A good deal had been said about two rooms. But in many places a man and his wife lived comfortably and respectably in one room till they had the second child (laughter). In the borough he represented a single room of any size let for 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week, and in many boroughs the working man could not afford to pay a higher rent. If the bill would draw a hard and fast line between 7l. 10s. and 10l., why not at once insert a rental? The amendment would be giving a hard and fast line not at so many pounds, but at a given cubic measurement of air. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the enfranchisement of 14,000 men in Newcastle.

     Mr. M‘LAREN said he believed that the object of the amendment was misunderstood. With regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Newcastle he thought that if it were true that there were 14,000 persons in that town who only had one room to live in, the statement certainly disclosed a sad state of things. He wished to call attention to one fact, that, according to returns moved for in 1862 by the Lord Advocate, there were in Scotland 431,000 houses under the annual value of 4l., of which 189,000 were exempted from poor rates on the score of poverty. Of these an immense number must be wretched places with only one apartment and yet if such habitations were rated to the poor rate under this bill as it stood they would enable the occupants to possess the vote.

     Sir G. GREY would be sorry to believe that there were 14,000 families in Newcastle each occupying only one room. With regard to a definition of the word ‟dwelling-house,” he understood the Attorney General to promise to bring up a definition in the interpretation clause, and this would be very desirable. The discussion which had taken place showed that it would be difficult to adopt either of the amendments. It would lead to endless litigation, and would have a great disfranchising effect.

     The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that several subjects had been introduced into the discussion having no relation to the question before the committee, which was the definition of a house. It might be necessary to bring up a clause specially defining a house; but this would be attended with difficulty. It must however, be done in the case of flats or storeys separately rated, and he thought that it ought to be enacted that a flat, self contained, separately rated, and fitted to be a separate tenement, should be a house within the meaning of the act the occupier of which, on being rated and paying his rates, should be entitled to the vote. He believed that under the law as it now stood such houses were clearly entitled to a vote; all recent decisions tended in that direction, and he held it to be perfectly clear that the flats in Victoria-street would confer a vote upon the occupiers. In the case of the houses referred to in Newcastle it might be somewhat doubtful if they came within the category, but no definition could cover all cases. With reference to the other amendment, he might say that it was not intended that the occupiers of mere hovels should be entitled to a vote, but he believed there were very few houses indeed that consisted of only one room.

     Mr. HEADLAM thought that the clause as it at present stood would exclude a great number of persons who were entitled to the vote. If they began to descend to minute distinctions the result could only be to embarrass and perplex the question; and the plain and conspicuous distinction that should be kept in view he believed to be this—that every tenement separately rated, and the rates of which were paid, should confer a vote (hear, hear). He gave notice that he should propose the adoption of this definition, unless the Attorney General would undertake to introduce it.

     The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that he was quite prepared to add the definition of the right hon. gentleman to the interpretation clause, if upon examination it should be found to be sufficiently clear and comprehensive.

     Mr. HENLEY supposed that the law as it now applied to houses above the value of 10l. would be equally applicable to tenements under that value after the passing of the act; if there were any difficulty to be apprehended, no doubt an interpretation clause would have to be introduced; but he thought that the decisions of the revising barrister had sufficiently cleared up the point (hear, hear).

     Mr. PEASE then withdrew his amendment, and

     Mr. WATKIN also said that he would withdraw his, as the Attorney General had undertaken to do what was necessary.

     Sir F. GOLDSMID moved the addition to the clause of these words, ‟Provided that no man shall, under this clause, be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling-house.” The object of the amendment was to make clear what he knew to be the intention of the government, that one tenement would only qualify one occupier.

     Mr. CANDLISH thought that the amendment might stand over till the interpretation clause was introduced.

     Mr. E. K. KARSLAKE observed that there were already ample definitions of the word ‟house.” The exact meaning of a dwelling house was no doubt open to some difficulty, but the point he thought, could best be settled by a carefully drawn interpretation clause.

     Sir F. GOLDSMID considered that the exact meaning of the word ‟dwelling-house” was apart from the object of his amendment, which he should not abandon.

     The committee divided. The numbers were —

     Mr. HODGKINSON then moved to add at the end of the clause the following words:— ‟Provided always that except as hereinafter provided, no person other than the occupier shall, after the passing of this act, be rated to parochial rates in respect of premises occupied by him within the limits of a parliamentary borough, all acts to the contrary now in force notwithstanding.” The amendment was conceived in no hostile spirit to the bill. Indeed, so far from being antagonistic to the principle of the bill, it was essential to the satisfactory working out of the principle of the personal payment of rates. Sturges Bourne’s Act was confined in its operation to tenements of a less value than 20l., but of a greater value than 6l., and to tenements let for short periods or in separate parts to different tenants. At that time there were many scot and lot franchises dependent on the payment of rates, and in order to prevent that act depriving the electors of the franchise, a clause was introduced similar to that which he now proposed. The next public act on the subject was the Small Tenements Act. That act certainly contained no exactly analogous proviso, but the reason was obvious, for between the passing of the two acts the Reform Bill of 1832 had passed, and that act restricted the occupation franchise to tenements of the value of not less than 10l. whilst the Small Tenements Act applied only to rateable tenements of a value not exceeding 6l. The Small Tenements Act had no operation on the parliamentary franchise, and a special clause was introduced providing that it should not tend to restrict the municipal franchise. It was doubtful whether these acts had not been rather the reverse of beneficial. The Small Tenements Act had been in operation for 17 years, and every inducement had been offered to parishes to place themselves under its operation. When parishes’ did adopt it they generally did so during periods of distress among the labouring classes, in order to arrange their local burdens in a different manner. Another inducement to adopt it was that the parochial authorities generally were favourable to the change, because it saved them a great deal of trouble. It might have been supposed that these acts would have been generally adopted throughout the country; but at the present time less than one-third of the parishes throughout the kingdom had adopted it; as regarded the parliamentary boroughs, less than one-half the parishes within their limits had adopted it; and out of 221 parliamentary boroughs in England only 67 had adopted it throughout. It was admitted that the occupiers of small tenements paid the full amount of rates in the shape of additional rent to the landlords. The compounding acts not only inflicted on injustice on the small occupiers, who under the old system would have been excused from the payment of rates, but they were compelled to pay the landlord a higher amount than they ought to do. The size and value of a man’s house did not always depend exactly upon his means of paying rent. The extent of a man’s family, and other circumstances, might very often require that a man of very small means should occupy a larger house, perhaps, than a man with larger means but without any family at all. The man who was fortunate enough to live in a house above the compounding value had to make good the deficiency caused by the discount allowed to the landlord of the houses below that value, for every parish had to make up a certain amount of money, and if they allowed a very large discount to a certain class of the inhabitants, the deficiency thereby caused had to be made up by the other class of ratepayers. It might be urged that it would be impossible to carry on the rating business of a large town without compounding; but if towns like Sheffield, or Liverpool, or Oldham could do without compounding, why could not Birmingham, Manchester, and Rochdale? It had been said in the course of this debate that the system would not work, because the better class of occupiers would claim to be rated, and the lower class would be left to the landlord, who would lose the benefit of the composition of the higher class of his tenants, and be left with the lower class on his hands. That was not his opinion, for the owner of the lowest class of tenements from which it would be almost impossible to collect the rates would, if the government propositions remained in their present shape, insist on the tenant signing a paper claiming to be rated, and the very worst class of tenants, instead of being left on the hands of the landlord, would be thrown over to the parish. The only difference between his proposition and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be, that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the committee, by the amendments they had adopted, said that every occupier throughout a parish might be rated his amendment said that every occupier must be rated (hear. hear). That did not interfere with the principle of the bill; and anxious as he was that the bill should become law, he thought that unless some such amendment as this was adopted, instead of being a permanent settlement of the question, it would be absolutely necessary, next session or the session after, to supplement it by further legislation.

     Mr. AYRTON wished to know what the hon. gentleman meant in his amendment by the words ‟except as hereinafter provided.”

     Mr. HODGKINSON said the words had been inserted to leave room for supplementing the clause by any amendment which might be found necessary.

     Mr. GLADSTONE.— After the explanation we have just heard, I take it that we have before us a proposal which means either the repeal simpliciter of the compounding acts and the Small Tenements Act, with a view to a liberal and equal extension of the franchise below 10l., or else that we have before us that repeal qualified by the proposal of my hon. friend the member for Pontefract, who would allow those acts to remain in existence in all cases where, by a deliberate agreement between occupier and owner, the desire is expressed to retain them. I do not wish myself to draw any vital distinction between those two proposals, or, rather, those two forms of the same proposal. I think that, so far as I am able to judge, the rider of my hon. friend the member for Pontefract is a decided improvement upon the original and naked proposal of my hon. friend the member for Newark; but I cannot disguise from the committee that this is a proposal of very great importance (hear, hear), and I am anxious to express in as few words as I can, and with as much clearness as I can, the precise view that I am led to take of it, and which I may also say is the view taken of it by many with whom I have been able to communicate. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place. It is not necessary, I know, to request his attention to anything that falls from any member in this house, but I am very desirous of presenting this view with clearness to his mind. My hon. friend the member for Newark has stated that he thinks the weight of this bill, which he admits to be very great, will not be much increased by adding to it the enactment which he proposes. I am even so sanguine as to believe that under possible circumstances the weight of this bill—that is to say, the difficulty of passing it into law—might not only not be much increased, but might be practically and materially diminished by the adoption of a proposal of this kind (hear, hear). I will if I can, without repeating unnecessarily epithets of an invidious kind, endeavour to describe the position in which I and in which some other members of this house find ourselves placed. The House of Commons has upon two occasions, by a majority in the first instance not inconsiderable, and in the second instance very large, established as a fundamental principle of the borough franchise for this bill, against which I and others have most earnestly and strenuously contended, that no compounding householder shall be a voter, and that every non-compounding householder shall be a voter. The proposal made by her Majesty’s government was—choose between the franchise and the composition. That proposal has been deliberately adopted by the house, and upon the latter of the two occasions adopted by a very large majority. So far as I am concerned, it is totally impossible for me to acquiesce on any terms in that principle in the form in which it now stands in the bill of her Majesty’s government, for I should say that the vote of the House of Commons amounts to what I must describe—and I am claiming no assent from any other person—as the adoption indeed in principle of a household suffrage, but of a household suffrage attended in my opinion with restrictions of a nature the most unjust, the most vexatious, and the most certain to lead to that which we all desire to avoid—namely, a prolonged agitation until they are swept away (hear, hear). Against all these inequalities in the grant of the franchise, we, who were in the minority in the last division, have protested, and must continue upon every fair and reasonable occasion to protest (hear, hear). With regard to those provisions of the bill of her Majesty’s government which appear to establish the principle of household suffrage, it is not our intention to propose any limitation upon their action (hear). This is the exact position in which we stand. The only course open to us on the bill as it stands is to offer, certainly not a factious or vexatious, but, at the same time, a decided resistance. When I say we will not off a factious or vexatious resistance, I mean to abjure all thought, under any circumstances, of resorting to those methods of extreme opposition which are sometimes adopted in this house by reviving again and again the same question upon which the house has deliberately pronounced, not with the expectation of producing a difference in the judgment of the house, but with the intention of using what I may call the physical obstacle of the limitation of time as an impediment to the final triumph of the view opposed to our own. But with that position I must consider what has taken place, and what I think is likely to take place out of doors. With the view I take of the opinion of the country with regard to this bill, I cannot contemplate without the utmost pain, the probable recommencement and continuance of a most determined and resolute opposition out of doors (hear, hear), an opposition of a character which I, for one, cannot pronounce to be illegitimate, because although a resistance in this house to the judgment of this house deliberately pronounced and pushed beyond a certain measure might be called factious, yet these agencies out of doors, which are intended to form, to develope, and to mature, public opinion, are the legitimate expressions of the people, by which bad legislation is to be corrected (cheers). But I will not disguise from myself for one moment the serious mischief that might attend that kind of movement; and although, if we were to conduct this controversy in a spirit purely polemical, I should say that they and they alone are responsible for the mischiefs which have been wrought out of bad legislation, yet that, as I think, is not the spirit in which these questions should be regarded. There is a paramount obligation incumbent upon every member of this house, in every new crisis and juncture of legislative discussion, to be ever ready if he can to make the best of the circumstances in which he stands, and, if possible, to arrive at such a collocation of great questions as may, if they do not avoid minor and secondary evils, at any rate attain the essential object in view. I wish to ask myself the question fairly, and to answer it impartially, whether the incorporation of the proposal of my hon. friend the member for Newark in this bill would or would not so mitigate the evil, and so increase the advantage of the bill as to warrant that number—still, I believe, a large number—of members of this house who, like me, take the view and entertain the conviction that the provisions of the borough franchise as they stand in the bill, are wholly unworthy of acceptance by the country (hear, hear)—in accepting it. If I attempt to analyse that option which the government propose to offer, and which the house has agreed to offer, I find it is this:— The principle is, choose between the franchise and the composition. My first proposition is that my hon. friend the member for Newark adopts the fundamental basis laid down by her Majesty’s government, because, totidem verbis, were he to incorporate the spirit of the amendment, he could not do otherwise than express it in the same terms as those used by her Majesty’s government, that is to say, he accepts and founds it upon the option between the franchise and the composition, and he says, ‟The franchise shall exclude the composition; the composition shall exclude the franchise.” The first condition attaching to this question, and which I cannot but perceive, is that her Majesty’s government can have no objection whatever on the ground of principle or consistency to the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member. Her Majesty’s government, so far as I know, are free to accept or to reject this amendment upon its merits; but they cannot possibly be precluded from accepting it by its inconsistency with the principle of the bill. I am not about to make any effort to undermine their position (laughter). I heartily wish we were enabled to secure for the country the economical conveniences and social advantages of composition along with the political benefit of the franchise (cheers). But I have been—but do not let me appear to speak egotistically—those who have taken this view have been definitively overruled. It is not, therefore, in extenuation of the success achieved by the government that I speak; it is with no view to the diminution of that success; it is upon an honest, un-equivocal recognition of it that I proceed, and say that the principle of the amendment of my hon. friend is the very principle upon which the bill of her Majesty’s government was founded. The right hon. gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board on one occasion most emphatically defined the principle of the bill, and he has not been contradicted by any member of the government who has spoken. He said it was the principle of personal rating (hear, hear), and the principle of personal rating is that on which my hon. friend the member for Newark has founded himself. My hon. friend offers us this advantage. He offers us, at the expense of an economical and social inconvenience—at the expense, at any rate, of foregoing an economical and social advantage—he offers us, instead of an extension of the franchise, which we conceive to be limited, unequal, equivocal, dangerous, as tending in many parts to corruption, an extension of the franchise which is liberal, which is perfectly equal (hear, hear), and which we could not denounce as tending to corruption, because it would have the effect of placing the franchise in the possession of those, now excluded, whom we regard as best entitled to enjoy it (cheers). My hon. friend offers us this advantage at the expense of an economical inconvenience; and, on the other hand, it is proposed to mitigate that economical inconvenience by allowing those persons who prefer the economical advantage of composition to the franchise to pass into that condition if they please so to place themselves (hear, hear). I am one of those who think that the composition acts are of great advantage to the country, and my chief objection to them is to the disabilities they entail. If I had it in my power to amend these acts, I would amend them by removing those disabilities; but still the question is this: which of the two great elements contained in this subject, one of them political and constitutional, and the other of them social and economical, which is primary and which is secondary. My duty is to endeavour to secure the primary advantage at the expense, if necessary, of the secondary inconvenience (hear, hear). My honourable friend makes a proposal by which he certainly gets rid of some of the very gravest objections to this bill. One objection which I confess appears to me, even if there were no other, to be fatal to the bill as it stands, is that the measure leaves to the vestries the power of determining in the first instance on the extent of the parliamentary suffrage (hear, hear). My honourable friend proposes a plan which would entirely remove that, as I must call it, enormous objection, and from the moment that amendment is adopted the agency of the local authorities must cease to operate in regulating the possession of the franchise. The measure, as it stands, theoretically invests men with the suffrage; but, at the same time, it would place them, I am afraid in most cases, in irreconcilable antagonism with their landlord in their endeavours to obtain that privilege; and that evil, if it should not be wholly removed, would be immensely mitigated by the amendment of my hon. friend, because by that amendment a man would be put in possession of the franchise, and instead of having to perform a most difficult process for the purpose of acquiring the right, he must go through a process in order to divest himself of it. I believe that to be a benefit of enormous worth. I am desirous of obtaining if possible in this case a way to peace, and with that desire I look on the proposal of my hon. friend in the spirit of peace. I am sorry that it should be necessary, in deference to what seems to me the unwise judgment of the House of Commons, to interfere with our system of composition, but if practical considerations are to prevail my duty is to take the lesser of two evils (hear, hear), and I think the abolition of composition, combined with the removal of the necessity of a renewed and painful political strife throughout the country (hear, hear), and with the great boon of a system of immediate and liberal enfranchisement, is an advantage which entirely eclipses the mischief that is to be the price at which we are to obtain that boon (hear). I believe this is the best plan of which the circumstances admit, and that, all things considered, it is worthy of acceptance—worthy of the acceptance of the government, of the committee, and of the country (hear). I know it may be urged that the proposal of my hon. friend is one of a very large character, and that its adoption might create a new element of opposition to this measure. But my conviction is that the mind of the country is so much a wakened upon the subject of parliamentary reform, that what we may call the intelligent public of England of all classes and parties are ready to do that which I am ready to do—to submit to this sacrifice and inconvenience for the sake of obtaining a settlement of this great political question—a problem which, if not settled, may become a source of public danger (hear, hear)—and of public danger possibly involving much that has not yet been drawn into the vortex of controversy (hear, bear). But if her Majesty’s government should be prepared to approve of this proposal, I hope that approval will be given in such a manner as to make it available for the attainment of the object in view. I admit that in the abstract objection may be taken to the amendment of my hon. friend, and it may be said that a proposition relating to rating arrangements ought not to be mixed up with the question of franchise. But the answer to that is, that these rating arrangements are already inextricably mixed up with the provisions of this franchise bill, and that an instruction has already been actually given to the committee, expressing the belief of the house that the two subjects of rating and of the franchise are associated in the measure, and that it is desirable to leave the hands of the committee free in regard to the question of rating. Whether the adoption of the proposal of my hon. friend in a separate bill, to be promoted by the government, might be equivalent to its insertion in the present measure I will not now attempt to determine, but I say that nothing short of that would ensure the attainment of the object which I consider desirable or could have the smallest effect upon our position with reference to the provisions of the bill (hear, hear). It is for the sake of an immediate settlement of the question, it is for the sake of removing the occasion for those popular proceedings which I anticipate out of doors, it is for the sake of all these great objects that I am ready to accept the proposal of my hon. friend, and to pay the price that he demands. But if I cannot gain these objects, if the bill should go forth in its present state, unaccompanied by the provision of my hon. friend, then we should gain none of those great purposes which we have in view, and the measure would in our opinion be barren of results. I make these observations simply with a conviction that here is a hope, and possibly a last hope, of peace, of concord, of general assent on the part of all classes and parties in this house and out of this house to the adjustment proposed by the government of a contested question. This is not asking a sacrifice on the part of the government—after all that has passed such a demand, if it had to be made, ought perhaps to proceed from others rather than from me—for the proposal is in accordance with the principle of the bill while, it is brought forward in a form which we can, consistently with our sense of public duty, embrace. I cannot say with what earnestness I hope that the door thus opened maybe found to afford a passage by which we can proceed. I am afraid there is no other opening likely to occur. I am not a lover of circumstances in which the business of governing this country is taken from within the walls of this house to places beyond them (hear). I foresee—I think I might say I see—that that is a state of things at which we are likely to arrive unless some measure be adopted (hear, hear, and a cry of ‟No, no,” from Sir G. Bowyer). My hon. friend the member for Dundalk must not put an exaggerated meaning upon my words. I do not mean to say that the whole functions of government are likely to be transferred out of the hands of this house to others; but what I do say is this—that when upon any question, and more especially upon a great and vital question of this kind, popular agitation commences, and the people meet in thousands in every part of the country, for the purpose of protesting against the proceedings of parliament, and declaring that in their view those proceedings cannot be acquiesced in, that may be a state of things which my hon. friend may contemplate with satisfaction, but I can only say that it is one that would cause me the deepest pain (hear, hear). I therefore earnestly hope that it may be consistent with the views of the government, as it certainly is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with the principle of the measure which they have proposed, to adopt the amendment of my hon. friend. It is upon our part that it involves a complete waiving of the ground upon which we have stood. It is the only mode in which we can depart from that ground with honour and propriety. As far as I am concerned I am ready to take the responsibility of doing that for the sake of peace. But if that proposal be not accepted I shall feel that I have done all that the love of peace requires or can dictate to those who are most influenced by that desire (cheers).

     Mr. BASS supported the amendment. He believed that it would not involve a single social or economical disadvantage. Under its operation they would get rid of all inequalities, of all unjust and invidious distinctions, while it would, as the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire had pointed out, afford a peaceful solution of that most difficult question (hear, hear).

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said— The hon. gentleman the member for Newark very correctly described the position of this question when he said that the proposition which he brought forward was not at all opposed to the principle upon which the bill of the government is founded (hear, hear). There can be no question, I think, about that. On the contrary, it must be evident that if the policy recommended by the amendment could be brought into action it would enforce the principles (hear, hear) which we have been impressing upon the house as the best foundations for the franchise, and would give completeness to the measure which we have introduced (hear, hear). Our opinion was, when we had to consider this question, that the principle on which we proposed the franchise should be established in boroughs in this country was one which had in it such virtue that it would in the end overcome all the obstacles that might at first be opposed to its symmetrical action, and would alone prove satisfactory as a solution of the difficulties long connected with this question. And I would observe that those who are in favour of what they call household suffrage, but at the same time deprecate the exercise of the franchise by what is, in modern phrase, known as the residuum of the people, are inconsistent, in their complaints that we have accompanied the franchise with what they call restrictions. There are many who profess to be in favour of household suffrage, but who admit that it ought not to be exercised without some principle of selection; and they must acknowledge that if that is not introduced as an element of the suffrage the principle of rating is the only one that can be adopted (hear, hear). Therefore, nothing can be more inconsistent or absurd than for them to speak against such a restriction. Those who are in favour of universal suffrage, manhood suffrage, and so on, might with consistency complain of the regulations and conditions which we propose as restrictions; but for those who night after night in this house have advocated household suffrage, and at the same time have told us that there is a plebs Romuli against the influence of which we must guard—for them to contend that the proposition we have introduced with regard to the payment of rates, and the manner in which rates should be paid, is a restriction, is an absurdly inconsistent position (cheers). These who think that it is wise and desirable that the franchise should be established on the principle of value are quite consistent in speaking of the arrangement we propose as a restriction. They have the right, and they can with the utmost consistency and propriety describe every regulation for the exercise of the franchise as a restriction, because they maintain that the principle of value is a sufficient test. But those who are for household suffrage, and who at the same time admit that there is a portion of the population under those circumstances and conditions to whom the privilege of the franchise should not be entrusted, and who attack our scheme as one involving restrictions, are entirely inconsistent and our answer to those who would found the franchise upon the principle of value is that there is no strength in that position. It has been tried and it has failed. It is worn out and during fifteen years of miserable rottenness it has been frequently brought forward in this house. The house has obtained a reputation for insincerity in dealing with the question of parliamentary reform, which is untrue. Their position was that they had no confidence whatever in the principle of the propositions which were brought before them, and that there was nothing in these propositions round which the sense and conviction or the country could rally. That was the real cause of the position which the reform question has occupied up to the present time (hear, hear). Her Majesty’s government when they undertook this great duty determined to found a policy which they could recommend upon a principle, and they had the greatest confidence in that principle. They believed that, discarding this fluctuating and uncertain principle of value, and taking the general condition of the population of the boroughs, a better and surer principle might be established. We said to ourselves that an individual who lives in a house and fulfils public duties, who is placed in a position in which some of the ordinary obligations must be discharged—that is, who is rated to the financial arrangements of the community of which he is a member—will necessarily be called upon to fulfil some more formal, but important duties; will have to elect his local representatives, to watch their conduct and call them to account, and thus take an interest in the public life of his district—we said that such a man may prima facie be entrusted with the still higher privilege and duty of electing a representative to parliament (hear, hear). I say that is a true principle, and that the strength of it has been proved by two circumstances. The first is that this principle was introduced into parliament by a government who were in a minority, and although their propositions were received with great severity by their habitual opponents, that principle has so asserted its sway that it has been accepted, not only by considerable, but, as the right hon. gentleman himself admits, decisive and overwhelming majorities (cheers). That is the first proof that the principle upon which our franchise is based is true. What is the second? It is, that after all this controversy—after all this prolonged agitation—after every effort of ingenuity to oppose, and every exercise of intellect to criticise our proposal, we have—and by a gentleman sitting opposite to us—a formal motion which would effect, no doubt, without using any language of exaggeration, a great social change in the condition of the country; and that, too, recommended by the right hon. gentleman who hitherto has been the most uncompromising opponent of our policy (loud Ministerial cheers). Well, sir, I say, therefore, there must be something in this principle which has been so long derided. I think there must be something in the payment of rates, in the sense of duty which it develops, in the public duties connected with it, and in the exercise and discipline under it; and I say that the common sense of the country and the conviction of parliament have come to the conclusion that it is a sound and true principle upon which the borough franchise is to be established. That is shown not only by triumphant majorities, but by the proceedings or this evening, still more characteristic than the triumph of parties or the struggles of parliamentary contests (cheers). No doubt, sir, in the application of this principle in England there must be great difficulties. It is unnecessary for me in any detail to advert to them. The hon. member for Newark has this evening with great clearness and ability, after many discussions, re-capitulated those difficulties. But sir, it is not the first time that there have been difficulties experienced in the application of a great principle, and if this franchise which we have proposed succeeds it will not be the first time that such difficulties were surmounted (Ministerial cheers). We always anticipated that when those perplexities, which certainly have had full justice, done to them in parliament, were encountered they would disappear (hear, hear). I do not dwell upon the efforts we have made to facilitate the admission of the compound householder to the franchise; nor will I dilate upon the general result of the clauses which I have placed upon the paper for that purpose. It will be acknowledged that, however great were the difficulties which stood in his way, they have been greatly mitigated, if not entirely removed, by those clauses. But the fallacy of the view of the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire, which has influenced him to-night, and which has pervaded his conduct throughout the whole of the opposition to our measure, is this, that he has from the first accepted it as a conclusion upon which all his strategy should be founded and the whole course of his conduct regulated, and all the advice given to his friends adjusted, that we have fixed upon this foundation for our franchise in order to reap the advantages which the rating acts would give us in restricting the suffrage. That, sir, has been an entire mistake, because a proposal similar to that which is offered us to-night was contained in our original scheme (hear, hear). But when we considered the immense difficulties of the question, and of engaging the attention of parliament and the country in a real, earnest and sincere scheme of reform, we hesitated before we encumbered the ship already freighted with a cargo of great price with a burden which might add to the peril of the voyage (cheers). What did the right hon. gentleman tell us on the very first night he addressed us upon this subject? Did he not describe those acts as the result of the advanced civilisation of the country? (Ministerial cheers.) And, no doubt, sir, had we come down to parliament, and proposed that the suffrage in boroughs should be founded on real rating and residence, and also that we should simplify the matter by repealing all the rating acts, why, sir, the champions of civilisation would have been startled (cheers). It would have required a considerable time, a great deal of dispassionate discussion, and many vicissitudes of public and parliamentary life, before we arrived at the calm and philosophical result which, I hope, will distinguish this evening (loud cheers). Now, sir, let me speak of the motion of the hon. member. I need not say that so far as the spirit of the proviso of the honourable gentleman is concerned her Majesty’s government can have no opposition whatever to offer to it (cheers), because it is their own policy—the policy of their own measure, and if they had been masters of the situation they would long ago have recommended it to the adoption of the house (cheers). But the house will feel that in the application of this policy we must proceed with the utmost prudence and consideration. I do not myself think, so far as I can form an opinion—and I have given it long and anxious thought—I do not think that it would be desirable or possible to deal with this question by a proviso. At the first glance I see a very grave omission in the absence of a saving clause, and that of a very large character, to protect existing arrangements. When you remember the number of acts you have to deal with I think it will be admitted that there would be infinite difficulties and perplexities in the wav of dealing with the question in the manner proposed. I confess it is exactly a question which I think the opinion of the house should decide. We have said from the beginning that subject to the maintenance of the great principle which we thought should be the foundation of the suffrage, to which we must adhere, and without which, if it were not sanctioned by the house, we could not proceed with the measure—we have always said that the advice and assistance of the house was courted by us; and this is exactly a case in which the independent opinion of the house may be given with great effect and advantage (cheers). Months ago it is possible I might in vain have proposed a policy which is now generally accepted as being of the wisest character (cheers). But it is now proposed to the House of Commons by an hon. gentleman opposite, and her Majesty’s government, under those circumstances, do not hesitate to accept it (cheers). Being a policy which is their own, which really carries out their views, and which will firmly establish and render triumphant the system of rating, it required no solemn tones of admonition from the right hon. gentleman to induce me to express my cordial adhesion to the proposition (cheers). I must, however, again impress upon the hon. member for Newark not to press the house to a hasty decision upon a clause of this kind, as he may find himself involved in great difficulties. I confess myself, subject to the better judgement of the house, that separate legislation will be much the better course (cheers). You will otherwise involve the Reform Bill in great difficulties, and cause great delay, and I doubt whether you will be able efficiently to deal with the question. If it is to be dealt with by separate legislation, I shall be perfectly prepared on the part of her Majesty’s government to undertake the task (cheers). But I should still recommend the committee to proceed without loss of time with the Reform Bill. Let us provide even for the compound householder (a laugh); and the bill can be so drawn as to fit in with this measure. I have frankly told the house what are the feelings of the government upon the subject, and what were our original plans. I can take no credit for any sacrifices in the course we are now pursuing. Arrived in the month of May, the house has by reflection, observation, and experience, come to a conclusion which I should have been very glad if they had arrived at in March, and I have no doubt it is one which conducted with prudence and propriety will contribute to the more satisfactory settlement of the question (hear, hear). I wish, however, so far as the government is concerned, that their feelings in taking this course should not be misunderstood. We have had dark allusions made to a very agitated and dangerous state of the country (oh), in consequence of the treatment of the reform question by the House of Commons. Sir, I do not believe anything of the kind (Ministerial cheers). I believe a more monstrous exaggeration was never made (renewed cheers). I have no doubt there are individuals who have long tried what I may call their blundering hands on this question (oh, and hear, hear), who may be exceedingly annoyed that those who were their rivals in their labours have been more successful in their efforts (Ministerial cheers); but that the great bulk of the people are moved with sullen and dangerous discontent by the conduct and labours of the House of Commons, which every candid and dispassionate mind must feel is sincerely endeavouring to bring this question to a solution of its difficulties— I believe that that is a statement which cannot be established, and whatever may be the influences that regulate the conduct of others, I can assure the house that her Majesty’s government in the course they are taking are not at all influenced by the terrors predicted or by any of the arts of agitation which have been resorted to (loud cheers).

     Mr. CHILDERS said that with the exception of one or two remarks, referring to the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire, and which he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would upon reflection himself regret, the more particularly as those to whom they were applied were not in the house (cries of ‟No, no”)—with the exception of these remarks, he might say that the house had listened with sincere satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. gentleman. They had just heard that from the first it was in the contemplation of the government to introduce such a measure as had now been proposed by the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Disraeli: ‟Not to introduce, but to consider.”) That was a refinement which he need not trouble the house with discussing. The government had it seemed, contemplated such a scheme, but the difficulties that were feared in its introduction were so great that though approving of the principle, they did not introduce it either into their first or second bill. The house was now treated to a third change in the government policy in connection with this Reform Bill (no, no). He hoped that there would be no mistake with respect to this proposition. The government having distinctly approved of its principle, and stated that they would take it into consideration with the view of introducing a bill to give it effect, he would suggest that the clauses of the Reform Bill relating to the compound householder should be postponed till the promised bill was introduced (hear, near). If that were done they would then consider whether the two bills could be proceeded with pari passu, or whether it would not be more convenient to incorporate them in one, so that they might be passed with the Reform Bill during the present session. The compounding clauses ought not to be passed until this was done (hear, hear). He trusted the house would cordially approve of the course which the government had now proposed. So far as he himself was personally concerned, if the right hon. gentlemen would introduce the promised bill, and proceed with it pari passu with the Reform Bill, he for one would give him his hearty support (hear, hear).

     Mr. AYRTON thought it would be well that the committee should understand the position in which it stood with regard to the question before it. If a bill should be introduced, as suggested by the right hon. gentleman, it would be impossible for the house to pass it until after it had been referred to a select committee, for there were a great number of boroughs and towns that would desire an opportunity of being heard on the subject of composition of rates. The question was one full of difficulty and detail affecting not only the owner and occupier but all other ratepayers. It was not necessary, considering the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the right honourable gentleman the member for South Lancashire, to adopt the extreme course which was now proposed. He would venture to suggest that it would, be desirable to adopt a middle course, which was embodied in his amendment, and that the compound householder should be placed upon the rate-book; but that all questions as to liability of payment of rates, without prejudice to existing contracts, should be postponed until after inquiry. He believed that in every borough there was a system of composition by agreement between landlords and occupiers; and although there was no general or special act in force, all these things would have to be considered before they could properly deal with the subject. There would be also the question of remission of rates. If they abolished composition they would have to remit rate to a certain amount. Formerly, the rates were not levied upon houses under 6l. value. If the amendment were agreed to, magistrates and overseers must have the power of remitting rates as they might think fit. In the present state of the question it would be acting precipitately to legislate upon it either one way or the other (hear, hear).

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— I merely rise to state that the hon. member for Pomfret has not accurately put the question before the committee. I am anxious that there shall be no misconception about it (hear, hear). I desire it to be distinctly understood that the government does not wish to mix the question of this bill with any bill dealing with the compound householder; and, therefore, anything like proceeding pari passu is a proposal we would not listen to for a moment (hear, hear). All I can say is, the government are sincerely anxious to deal with the question, and to proceed with the bill exactly as if we were not under any engagement to deal with the question of compound householder. As regards the suggestion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, it seems to me that it is merely a repetition of the questions which have been decided respecting the compound householder, and we must adhere to the scheme of our measure. If we mix up the two questions, the country will not have the full benefit of the measure which the government propose. We shall proceed with our bill with the same perseverance as before, but on the understanding that we will take such steps as may be thought by the house, upon the whole, the most efficient for dealing with the subject of the compound householder. We cannot connect the two questions in any way, but we must proceed with the Reform Bill just as if this conversation had not taken place (hear, hear).

     Mr. POWELL thought that hon. members who were present in the house at an early hour that morning would admit that the dramatic unities had been complied with, and that the scene was now complete. At that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded hon. members that they had been complying with the duties of the hour and had been dreaming. It seemed to him (Mr. Powell), from what they had heard that evening, that those dreams had been renewed. After what had been stated by tbe Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would appear that those who regarded the compound householder as a great barrier were dreamers of fear; and, on the other hand, that those who thought that the existence of the compound house-holder and the introduction of him into the Reform Bill was a delusive object, were equally dreamers. The government, in the concession they had made to-night, had only obeyed a logical necessity of their condition. The moment it was admitted by the government that the payment of rates was a condition of the suffrage, it was obvious the compound householder would soon disappear. The difficulties surrounding the existence of the compound householder were not so light that they could be removed by one or two clauses in this bill. The subject was so complex and so large that it must be dealt with in an act of parliament well studied and carefully considered. Local acts had had much to do with compound householders, and in his opinion the time had come when the operation of. these local acts ought to be carefully considered. Many of these acts had been passed before the Public Health and the various Enabling Acts, and contained clauses very inconvenient Some act ought to be soon passed by which communities might be enabled by a simple process to abolish these acts and to bring themselves under the operation of public acts. He had been very much confirmed in that opinion by the clause which had been placed on the table by the hon. member for Pontefract, who appeared to him to maintain every inequality of the existing law, because he said the compounding or non-compounding was to be in conformity with any statute in operation for the time being. Another in-convenience of the proposal of the hon. member was, that the arrangement which he desired to establish should only exist for one year, and that it should only be perpetuated by fresh notices and fresh agreements. It was obvious that the question would have to be dealt with by a separate bill, and it had been suggested that the proposed bill should proceed pari passu with the Reform Bill. They all knew that nothing was more difficult than to pass two bills through the house by equal steps. It would be very nearly as difficult as it would be for two generations to pass through the world pari passu (hear, hear). The allusion by the hon. member opposite to a composition of 50 per cent, was one of those details which would have to be considered when the subject was grappled with (hear, hear).

     Mr. WHITE thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having acquiesced in the principle of the amendment of the hon. member for Newark. The borough which he represented (Brighton) was largely interested in this question, and he could not but regret the decision to which the committee had come on the amendment of the hon. member for Oldham, but his constituents and himself bowed to that decision. He had received a letter—since that decision—from the overseer of the borough of Brighton requesting him to urge the government to take the earliest and best means of abolishing the system of compositions.

     Mr. HODGKINSON understood that during his temporary absence from the house the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to the principle of his amendment, that it could not be introduced at the present, but that he was willing to introduce another bill carrying out that principle in its integrity. On the understanding that the government would forthwith bring in such a bill, and that it be read a second time before the passing of the Reform Bill, he had no objection to withdraw his amendment.

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the hon. member had not correctly understood what he had said. He had never undertaken to bring in a bill on the subject immediately, which was one of the most difficult of questions. If they passed the third clause it was due to the compound householder that they should go on, otherwise they would be passing a reform in which no right was reserved to him. In regard to the other important subject, the government would deal with it as effectually and as speedily as possible, but they could give no engagement that they would introduce a bill relating to it immediately (hear, hear).

     Mr. W. E. FORSTER was sorry to hear the remarks which the right hon. gentleman had made, and trusted he would reconsider them. He hoped they would settle the borough franchise in a way that would be satisfactory to the government, the house, and to the country. He would appeal to the right hon. gentleman and ask him to adhere to his original plan with regard to this bill. It was first intended to proceed with the borough franchise, then the county franchise, then the question of redistribution of seats and voting papers, and then the 34th clause, which arranged how the position of compound householders was to be settled. The very reason that had induced the right hon. gentleman to change his plan ought to induce him to recur to it. It was almost stultifying that arrangement if, immediately after discussing the third clause, they proceeded to the 34th clause. All he asked was that they should proceed with the bill as originally intended, and that the government should take advantage of the time that must elapse before they could get to the 34th clause to lay on the table the bill the right hon. gentleman had promised to bring forward. When that bill was before them they would be able to judge whether it could be passed along with the Reform Bill. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to think that the object of the hon. member for Pontefract was to stop the bill (‟No, no,” from Mr. Ayrton). For himself, he could say that he never felt more free from any party motive than he did in this discussion. He thought that the right hon. gentleman had spoken in rather strong terms as to the feeling outside the house in regard to this bill. He should regret if, after the turn the discussion had taken that evening, he should recur to any irritating point; but there was no denying the fact that a great difference of opinion existed with regard to this bill among a large body of the people. If they would arrange such a settlement as was now proposed he thought it would do much to allay the feeling ca?? out of doors. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would revert to his original plan, and if he would lay the bill upon the table it would go far to settle the present differences, for he knew that several boroughs where six or seven months ago the proposition of the hon. member for Newark would have been received with great disfavour, were now willing to submit to its social and economical disadvantages for the sake of the political arrangement.

     The ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed in the spirit of much that had been said by the hon. gentleman, but it appeared to him that any attempt to tie together such a bill as had been proposed and the clauses in this bill relating to the compound householder—to make the one in any degree dependent upon the other—would be fatal to the bill now before the committee (hear, hear). The real question, therefore, was whether the Reform Bill was to pass this session or not (cheers). The hon. member for Bradford did not appreciate the difficulties that lay in the way of passing such a bill as he referred to, though they had been ably shadowed forth by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. It was not only Sturges Bourne’s Act—the Small Tenements Act—but there was a number of local acts scattered over the whole country which such a bill would sweep away. They would have to look at the bearing of all these acts, to consider their provisions as they affected different parts of the country, to see what new provisions were required, and how the rating of the different parishes was in future to be regulated. It was not as if they had to deal with a tabula rosa; they would have to remove much that had already existed, and to provide for the case of parishes in every variety of circumstances scattered all over the kingdom. All the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated was that he was favourably disposed towards a measure of the kind, and that he was willing to do whatever could be done to remove existing difficulties. Any hon. member who ventured to go beyond that and to pledge himself that in a given time he would remove the difficulty, must have great confidence in his own powers, for it must be remembered that they had got the interests not only of the ratepayers but of the owners to consult, and he repeated that to attempt to tie such a bill to the clauses now before the house would be sure to defeat the bill (hear, hear). Hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, who were perhaps more facile in drawing bills than he could pretent to be, might present such a bill in the course of the present session, but he could not conceive how it was to be done, and even if it were brought before the house it could not be passed with- out going before a select committee. He hoped, therefore, the committee would proceed at once to the 34th clause, which was intimately connected with the third clause, while all the clauses between them related to other matters.

     Sir R. COLLIER said that, so far from there being any inconvenience in the proposition of the government being tied up with the amendment of the hon. member for Newark, he thought they were inseparably connected and that there was no dividing them (hear, hear). See in what a position they would be placed. They were about to make a new code affecting all the relations of the compound householder to his landlord and his parish. They were to go into a series of provisions by which the compound householder was to be discompounded. They were to go through all the trouble and difficulty of these complicated provisions; and then they were told that the government would next session introduce a measure which would place the whole question upon a different footing (hear, hear). As to the difficulties in the way, he believed that the law officers of the Crown would not find much difficulty in doing all that was necessary by inserting two or three clauses in the present bill. As far as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. gentleman said that he was favourable to the principle of the amendment, and that if the house thought the principle could be better carried out by a separate bill, he would defer to the opinion of the house. He would only venture to remind the hon. member for Newark that many members of the house— among others the right hon. member for South Lancashire—who supported his amendment as the least of two evils, did so on the understanding that it would be carried out this session. If it were to go over to another session, it would be competent for them to adopt some other course that would be better adapted to carry out their views. He hoped, therefore, the hon. member, unless he received some more distinct assurance from the government than he had yet done, would press his amendment to a division.

     Mr. J. B. SMITH asked whether it was the intention of the government to abolish compound householders in all the parishes in the kingdom, or whether they would confine their measure to boroughs. There was a great difference between abolishing the act in 5000 parishes, and abolishing it only in 170 boroughs. The one might be accomplished this session but not the other.

     Mr. BRETT said if every concession or conciliatory statement on the part of the government was to be carried by political tactics or by misrepresentation, beyond its real meaning, they would never make satisfactory progress (‟Oh, oh”). He did not wish to impute political tactics to hon. gentlemen opposite; but he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been misapprehended on the other side, to show that he would call attention to the effect of the present bill, and of the amendment. If the present bill were passed none of the acts authorising compound householding would be infringed upon; they would all remain in full power, though any individual lieutenant might withdraw himself from the operation of these acts, and if great numbers should so withdraw themselves, the parishes might get rid of the acts as applied to themselves. In that sense it was obvious that the amendment of the hon. member for Newark was not inconsistent with the principle of the bill. But the amendment of the hon. member would abrogate not only Sturges Bourne’s Act and the Small Tenements Act, but all the numerous local acts that were now in existence. Therefore though the principle was correct, the mode of carrying it out would be very difficult. To carry it out without any reference to the parishes, to the convenience, or their rights, was a mode of dealing with a question which had never hitherto been sanctioned by parliament. If such a bill were brought in, the house must be prepared to listen to objections from all the different parishes, and that could only be done by sending the bill to a select committee. It was impossible in his opinion that such a bill could be passed pari passu with the Reform Bill. By such a bill it was proposed they must abrogate many local acts, and also the Small Tenements Act; but, on the other hand, in many great towns, it might be thought wise not to repeal those acts; and they would have not only to do justice to the compound householder, but to consider what was due to the rate-payers generally. Under these circumstances he recommended them to accept the proposal of the government that they would consider the whole question and submit a measure upon it.

     Mr. MILL confessed that it appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out to them a great and splendid concession which it had been the whole occupation of those of his supporters who had since spoken to do their utmost to explain away (cheers). It appeared that in the opinion of some of them they could not have the complete embodiment of the principle of the hon. member for Newark; but it appeared to be the opinion of the Attorney General that they could not have a bill this year at all. That was to say, they were to be called upon to pass a Reform Bill this year and to wait until next year for a measure that was necessary to render that bill valuable (cheers). In what position would the house be placed if they gave way to that? They might pass the Reform Bill and might have a general election under it; and in that general election there might be all those evils which had induced them thus far to oppose that part of the bill that related to the borough franchise. They ought to have some security against that; they could have some security, but it must consist in something more than the mere general words, which, however sincere they might be were not to be acted upon until after a definite time, and in an indefinite way. No one could possibly be more eager or anxious than he was that the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered should be fairly and honestly carried into effect, and he was pretending that they were all reddy to close with it; but at the same time it was also highly necessary that they should not proceed with the clauses relating to compound householders as preparatory to doing away with compound householders altogether (cheers). The country felt a great deal more upon this subject than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think, and he did not think that the country would believe that they intended to do away with compound householders if they passed the bill, and postponed the measure to abolish compound householding altogether as to the difficulties anticipated by the hon. member for Tower Hamlets and by the last speaker; he would not undertake to say what those difficulties might be, but the more truth there was in the remarks of those hon. gentlemen the more difficulties would there be in bringing in a satisfactory bill to carry into effect the principle of the hon. member for Newark; and the more important, necessary, and absolutely essential it was that the house should see the bill by which these things were to be done before they committed themselves to the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (cheers). There need be no difficulty about it. There was a very great portion of the bill which did not relate to the borough franchise, and with that they might go on. If they only were assured that they should see the promised bill before they parted with the present one it would in his opinion be the best course to suspend further action upon the borough franchise clauses, and proceed with the other clauses, and only resume the borough franchise clauses when they had seen the promised bill. At all events, he thought they ought not to read the present bill a third time until they had read the promised bill a second time (hear, hear).

     Mr. SANDFORD thought that they ought to know distinctly what the government proposed. If the local acts were repealed they would have household suffrage pure and simple (hear, hear); and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer had virtually done away with the principle upon which he said his bill must stand (no, no). The Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago said that there were two distinct propositions before the house; one was his own, by which there was to be an elastic line through which the voter might pass, and the other was the hard and fast line of the right hon. member for South Lancashire. But where now was the elastic line through which the voter was to pass? (A Voice. — ‟The payment of rates.”) But under the system now proposed every householder would pay rates (hear, hear), and the ‟line” would be done away with (no, no). Perhaps he himself was not so much opposed to household pure and simple as might be supposed, but he thought the government had not dealt frankly with the question, for they had led them to suppose that the Small Tenements Act would be maintained (no, no). He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the announcement which he had made was that of the cabinet? (oh, oh.)

     Mr. DENMAN believed that the difficulties of which they had heard so much were mere chimeras; and that clauses might be added to the bill which would effect the whole object sought. Let them consider what the law was.

     An Hon. MEMBER.—Do not let us have any more law.

     Mr. DENMAN was surprised to hear such an exclamation from the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets.

     Mr. AYRTON denied that he had made any exclamation whatever.

     Mr. DENMAN thought that a statement of the law would show that there was no difficulty in adopting the amendment, as it stood. By the course proposed the particular circumstances relating to many boroughs would have to be gone into before the select committee, and there would be great delay. At present any vestry meeting together and agreeing by a majority of two-thirds could, on giving forty days notice, repeal the Small Tenements Act so far as their parish was concerned; and this being so what difficulty could there be in adopting the words proposed by the hon. member for Newark?

     Mr. HENLEY said that those of them who were in the house late last night heard something about dreams (laughter), and he thought that he had heard in the course of this discussion as much misrepresentation as it had ever fell to his good luck to hear (a laugh). The hon. member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) had made a speech, and said that the government had changed their principles, and that now the house had got something which they had not got before. He talked a great deal about household suffrage pure and simple. What a word it was! (laughter.) What had been the principle of the government throughout, but that people who had dwelling-houses, and paid rates upon them were to have votes? And what had the government professed throughout? Why, that they would do everything to give every facility to every man who had a dwelling-house in any place where these acts were in force to come upon the register. Therefore, what new principle was there he should like to hear. The government had avowed throughout those discussions that they wanted to enable every occupant of a house to obtain the franchise if he chose to take a little trouble for the purpose. What happened? The hon. gentleman opposite said that the simplest way to effect this object was to do away with those acts altogether. He (Mr. Henley) was very glad to hear it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that he was very glad to hear it. In what respect did that change the principle of the bill, which was that every man should have the franchise who occupied a dwelling-house who was rated and had paid his rates in full. The government had adhered to every means by which this principle could be maintained, and that would make it just and equal to all (hear, hear). What misrepresentations had been used and agitation created to endeavour to persuade the people that nobody could get on the register, and that the government were holding out with one hand and taking away with the other (hear, hear, from Mr. Gladstone and other members). In what respect had the government deviated from this principle? He denied that they had deviated from it at all. He was very much inclined to doubt whether the wiser course would not have been to accept the resolution of the hon. gentleman opposite. It might be true that it would lead to some inconveniences, but he told the house that in bringing in the projected bill it would be found that the spirit of mammon was pretty strong outside the house, and that it would not want representatives in that house to impede the government in carrying any such measure (cheers). They knew that there were many poor and distressed occupants of small houses who could not afford to pay their rates, and of course they would not claim the franchise. Was it supposed that if those compounding acts were done away with there would be no more poor people? He believed that the simpler way would be to pass the proposition of the hon. gentleman opposite, because in that case the government would simplify the passing of any such bill as that suggested. If it were passed the Attorney General would find that most of the difficulties had vanished, and that what remained to be done would be as easy as picking plums out of a pudding (laughter). If the proposition were not carried the hon. and learned gentleman would find some difficulty with regard to those who had hitherto been robbing the poor by paying the rates through their landlords, for he could hardly suppose that they would give up that screw very readily (laughter). If the resolution were passed those persons would be obliged to give it up, and everything would then be easily adjusted (cheers).

     Mr. CLAY thought the difficulty of carrying a bill would be as nothing if both sides of the house were interested in its success. The discussion of to-night was really the turning point of the measure, and if they could agree upon the point now before the house the rest of the bill, so far as regarded the borough franchise, would be easily carried.

     Mr. T. CHAMBERS said he thought of all the proposals made that session the one most fatal to this Reform Bill was that suggestion made by the hon. member for Pontefract (question, question). He understood the question to be whether the compounding acts were to be dealt with by a bill. That suggestion was made by the hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers).

     Mr. CHILDERS said he made no such suggestion whatever. He had said, with respect to his own amendment, that this was not the time to discuss it.

     Mr. T. CHAMBERS begged to apologise if he had mis-represented the hon. gentleman. If this were a question for the adoption of a resolution he might be disposed to agree with the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire and the hon. member for Hull. But it was not a resolution—it was a proviso in the Reform Bill of the government (hear, hear). No member of that house, he thought, could suppose for a moment that if this proviso were put into a bill it would put an end to all the local acts in the country. All they wanted to do was to assist the compounders in boroughs as much as possible, but it was more important to pass this bill. For one reason he preferred the government bill in its present form. Many proposals had been made for the extension of the franchise, but no proposal, in his opinion, had proposed the moral test but this, that the conditions for the franchise depended upon the fact of a man being willing to take some trouble and to exercise some prudence and providence to obtain the franchise. Such were the men that they all desired to give the franchise to (hear, hear). He did not think a franchise bill could pass this session if the solution of the general question of rating were undertaken (hear, hear). He believed the more the bill was considered, notwithstanding industrious misrepresentations, the more it would be found—what from the first he believed it to be—incomparably the most liberal measure of reform ever submitted to that house (cheers), and the country he thought, was gradually arriving at that conclusion (hear, hear). He was of opinion that in the end they would get a bill which they all desired to see, namely, one that would give an immense infusion of the honest and industrious artisan classes (cheers). He thanked the government for their persistance in maintaining their principles, and he should support them on every division, in the belief that he was consulting the interests of his country in doing so. There was no party in the state that was so much interested in the passing of a reform bill. It was they who were responsible for the 15 years’ agitation upon this subject (hear, hear). They had started the agitation and kept it alive, and were keeping it alive by a factious agitation out of doors (cries of ‟Question”). As question was called, he would ask under what circumstances they were discussing the question—whether as a free parliament or under the terror of out-of-door agitation (hear, hear). Observations had been made by leading members of the house that night which rather seemed to imply that what they were doing they were doing under the influence of an agitation out of doors. There was one leading member of the Liberal party who, at all events, ought to maintain our representative institutions (hear, hear). He would quote the words of one of the most illustrious Reformers on this point, Lord Brougham (hear, hear and oh, oh). After referring to the duty of a member of parliament his lordship, in his Political Philosophy, says that any proceedings on the part of the people tending to overawe or unduly to influence their representatives on any given question, though no outrage be committed, that any exhibitions of numerical force displayed for that purpose were contrary to the whole nature of representative government (cheers), and were in themselves revolutionary (cheers), being criminal in the people, and doubly criminal in any of their representatives, who thereby commit a flagrant breach of duty (loud cheers). Lord Brougham was an authority on the subject. He was not afraid of out-of-door agitation, and it was their duty to uphold the honour of the house, and to take care that were not influenced too much by it (cheers).

     Mr. B. OSBORNE.— It appears to me that in the dramatic reading of Lord Brougham’s Political Philosophy, with which we have been favoured, that it was just as applicable, if not more so, to the late meeting in Hyde Park as to the question which is now before the committee (oh, oh, and laughter), but what my hon. and learned friend the Common Serjeant meant by getting up in defence of some vote on a previous division I cannot understand (oh, oh). The hon. and learned gentleman has pledged himself to vote for the government no matter what they bring on, or what they do (no, no). All I can say is that he must be a very confiding man (laughter).

     Mr. T. CHAMBERS.—I did not say that I would vote for the government on all occasions, but that I would on every division on this bill vote for the government, for the purpose of keeping this bill alive (cheers).

     Mr. OSBORNE— And yet the hon. and learned gentleman has made a speech that if anything could crush the bill that would (loud cheers, laughter, and cries of ‟No, no”), because the speech which the hon and learned gentleman has just delivered had nothing whatever to do with the proposition which was then before the house (oh, oh). I have to apologise to my hon. and learned friend the member for Tiverton— for I was the culprit (laughter)—for having said, ‟Let us have no more law” (laughter), and I did so because when the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up, and in the most gracious spirit, and in the absence of all his supporters (cheers and laughter), who I do not think are yet aware of what has happened, said he accepted the proposition of the hon. gentleman the member for Newark, because it had always been his idea, how could we, on this side of the house, do any other than accept it in the same generous manner as it was made. But how were the sincere reforming notions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer met by his own side of the house? Why the two black Graces near him immediately got the question into Chancery (laughter), and thought to change the general current of his reforming notions and the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney General, with all the solemnity of a lawyer, said in as many words, ‟not so fast, my leader (roars of laughter), it is all very well, but we cannot bring in a bill this session,” and he endeavoured to keep back the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to make him retract his promise. I hope the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read a lecture to his law officers for endeavouring to make him recant what he so generously said at the beginning of the evening (laughter). The hon. and learned member for Helston, who is also a member of the Chancery bar, followed (No, common law). Oh, common law is he? (laughter.) Well, at any rate, he took the same view as the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney General and he said ‟this is a all very well. You have misapprehended the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,” and he endeavoured to prove that the right hon. gentleman had not said what he had said, or, if he did, he had no intention of saying it (loud laughter). And he was followed by the Common Serjeant, who says he represents the borough of Marylebone (cheers, and laughter); but when I heard his speech, I did not believe it (laughter), but I rather thought of him as the representative of the Small Tenements Act and the extensive compounding landlords of this house (laughter). That is the only way in which I can account for his speech. And therefore it was, if we want to make progress, that I said, ‟Let us have no law,” but let us rely on the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (cheers, and laughter). I do not say that with any inuendo of pretending sincerity, because I always thought him the greatest of Radicals in this house (cheers, and laughter), and he has achieved what no other member could have done; he has —as I said before—he has dragged up the omnibus full of stupid, heavy, country gentlemen (oh, oh, and laughter) I say stupid in a parliamentary sense — it is a perfectly parliamentary word (laughter), and he has converted these Conservatives into Radical reformers (cheers, and laughter). The hon. and learned gentleman below me talks about the doctrine of selection; he has evidently been reading it (‟No,” from Mr. T. Chambers). Well, we have got the doctrine of development. If the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had all at once thrown this flood of light in the eyes of his supporters he would have blinded them, but instead of that he did it gradually and by degrees (hear). He first held out dual voting. Well that is gone (laughter). Then a two years’ residence, and that is gone (laughter); and now he throws the whole flood of light on them that they should have household suffrage, not pure and simple, but accompanied with the personal payment of rates (cheers). The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted the proposition of my hon. friend the member for Newark, but I hope he will not allow himself to be fettered by the lawyers, but that he will beware of the support of the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney General, and the hon. and learned member for Helston, and the great constituency of Marylebone (loud laughter). The hon. and learned member for Helston said, ‟Let us consider it.” I say the question has been considered, because when I hear the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is, they may say what they will, the Ministry by himself (laughter), for it could not exist a day without him (loud laughter)—all the members are very respectable men, but their opinions are not worth that (snapping his finger) (loud laughter)—when I heard the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say it is so, I know that it shall be so and that it will be so, and if hon. gentlemen behind him are discontented, if they are not ‟obsolete” Conservatives let them come over here and we will walk over to the other side and sit behind the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (loud laughter). A free exchange is no robbery (renewed laughter). I have no doubt that those hon. gentlemen who have just returned from dinner are rather taken by surprise. I can assure them I was when I came in and heard what had happened, but it is a joyful surprise (cheers and loud laughter); there is more joy over one repentant Chancellor of the Exchequer than over ninety and nine unrepentant Chancellors (loud laughter). I say to him, go on and prosper (loud laughter). He is in the right groove to settle the reform question, provided he does not listen to his legal advisers. Beware of them (laughter). Not only will the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer settle this question of reform, but I expect we shall sit behind him, and that one of these days he will not only settle the Irish Church question, but all the other vexed questions (cheers and laughter).

     Mr. SANDFORD explained that if the hon. member and the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire had misrepresented the views of the government it was on the authority of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement in that house. He had some regret to say that he had been taken by surprise that night (hear).

     Mr. NEATE having addressed a few observations to the committee,

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said— It generally happens that when important business is unexpectedly transacted in the early part of the evening the rest of the evening is passed in a very agreeable manner, and sometimes in a diverting manner, and often progress is made because important business has been transacted when few hon. members are present (laughter). Gradually however, hon. members return, and what has happened is communicated to them, and some who were not present make speeches on that information, which are necessarily founded in some degree on misrepresentation (hear, hear), and then rejoinders are made from those present who are jealous of their authentic knowledge (laughter). The house then becomes pretty full, and others arrive remarkable for their agreeable qualities, fresh from the festive scene, where they have been enjoying ‟the feast of reason and the flow of soul” (loud laughter). Nothing can be more agreeable than their arrival and its consequences, but they do not advance or precipitate a conclusion before come to (cheers, and laughter). Now, very early in the evening we were making some progress with the bill. The hon. gentleman the member for Newark has had for some time a very important notice on the paper, and when it became my duty to express an opinion on it, which I did not do until the last moment, in a very thin house, I expressed the views of her Majesty’s government on the subject, which were more matured than the hon. gentleman the member for Maldon supposes (laughter), and who for knowledge of Cabinet secrets I will back against any member of this house (loud laughter). When I say I rose at the last moment, just as you, sir, were about to put the question, I expressed our opinion that it would be advisable to carry the policy indicated by the hon. gentleman the member for Newark into effect, but that it was a very difficult subject, and that it would be necessary to proceed with caution, and that I could not bring myself to believe that a proviso of four lines could effectually deal with the question, and which might involve the house in some difficulty, and perhaps would accomplish the reverse which all desire, and that consequently it was necessary to use all due caution. I thought that statement received a pretty general assent. Not presuming to speak with any authority, I said that, from the appearance of the proviso on the paper, it appeared to me to be important that there should be a saving clause with respect to all the existing contracts. That I think, was an observation not altogether to be disregarded. Then some hon. gentleman proposed that it would be advisable to proceed by bill. I said that might probably be the best course, but that in whatever way we should proceed it would be necessary to proceed with caution, and I added, on the part of the government, that I would undertake to deal with the question efficiently and completely, but that it was to be understood that it was not to interfere with the progress of the Reform Bill. I repeated my earnest and sincere desire on the part of the government to deal with the question, but said that it was not to be mixed up with the progress of the measure. Attacks have been made on my hon. and learned friend the Attorney General for the view he took, which seems to me to be very sensible and prudent. But that does not affect the statements I made to the house, nor at all change its spirit. In a question of this very great importance, involving questions or law, it would be presumption in me to give a decisive opinion. At the proper time we will give our minds to the consideration of the whole subject. I now repeat the statement which I made at an earlier period of the evening, and I hope that the hon. gentleman will not press this motion (hear, hear). I merely say that, because I have no objection to what is expressed in the proviso of the hon. gentleman, because the committee might be hurried into passing a proviso which it might be difficult to deal with. I think it would be better not to press the proviso, but to withdraw it, and then probably we shall be able to consider the question fairly. There are one or two other points which we might consider to-night, and then the Chairman might report progress, and we might proceed with the matter again on Monday. I wish to make one or two observations upon the comments, I will not call them attacks, make upon the government with respect to their conduct on this question. There has been no inconsistency or change of opinion on their part, but their proposition is consistent with the course they have always taken. The hon. member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) is rising into notice from the attacks he makes on the government. A little invective adds animation to our debates, but I do not think it has been very well directed on the present occasion. My hon. friend accused me of having pledged myself not to propose household suffrage pure and simple to the consideration of the committee, but it appears to me that the member for Maldon has never realised a clear conception of what household suffrage is. According to my idea, household suffrage means a vote being given to every man who lives in a house, but that is not what we propose in our bill. It is a very different thing to give a vote to such a man who has paid his rates, and has lived a certain time with a residential qualification, and my hon. friend tbe member for Maldon, when an election takes place, will find that there is a very great difference, as has been shown in the conclusive speech of my right hon. friend. The provisions of rating and residence will always make a material difference, and thus you will preserve a select constituency, still excluding that residuum which even the hon. member for Birmingham would not entrust with the franchise: by these provisions you will preserve the character and best-feelings of the community.

     Mr. W. E. FORSTER was anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state distinctly whether he intended to proceed by bill or by clauses. He understood the right hon. gentleman first of all to say that he accepted the principle of the hon. member for Newark. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was delighted at that, because he thought he saw in it the prospect of a settlement of the question in the present year, but afterwards he thought the right hon. gentleman said it would be difficult to bring in a measure to proceed pari passu with the present bill.

     Mr. HODGKINSON understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assented to the principle of his motion, but that he was not prepared at present to say whether it should be carried out by clauses or by a bill. The right hon. gentleman proposed therefore that the committee should report progress and ask leave to sit again on Monday, which he (Mr. Hodgkinson) thought was a very reasonable proposition.

     Mr. GLADSTONE thought there was some apprehension as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to report progress forthwith. It was desirable to avoid a division on the subject, which might not represent the position of members with perfect fairness. Was the committee to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to pass one or two other amendments and then to report progress? He thought some distinct understanding ought to be come to as to the time when the amendment of his honourable friend the member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) was to be embodied in the bill. What is the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The householders of the country below the limit of 10l. are divided into ratepaying tenants and compound tenants (cries of ‟Divide” and ‟Hear”). Of these one-fourth, speaking roughly, are ratepaying householders; three-fourths are compound householders. The right hon, gentleman’s proposal, if I understand him aright, would practically amount to this, that we are to adjourn indefinitely the question, upon what footing we shall place on the franchise the three-fourths of the householders below 10l.; and having thus adjourned the question, to proceed to pass the Reform Bill? Last year it was thought objectionable to separate the franchise from the question of the re-distribution of seats. How is it possible to suppose that the house is to pass a measure which, as to three-fourths of the householders, is to be purely provisional, and having passed that provisional measure, to proceed with all the other questions of reform? I do not complain of the right hon. gentleman; he is not prepared to-night on a question of this great magnitude to announce a definite course as to his procedure in this matter, and the time in which he is to give effect to the motion of the hon. member for Newark; but I think it is not possible for us to acquiesce in the indefinite adjournment of the decision of the principle to which we should consent if we passed beyond the present point in the consideration of the bill. There is one course to which we may both return without embarrassment or sacrifice—that we should, if the right hon. gentleman is not prepared to announce precisely his course—that we should report progress at the point at which we have now arrived, and on Monday, when the government will have had time to consider this measure, to hear the course which will be eventually taken, and then my hon. friend will have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the house or acquiescing in the course proposed by the government.

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—It appears to me that the right hon. gentleman has made a very un-necessary speech (hear, hear). The hon. member for Newark clearly understands my meaning; and I am satisfied with his interpretation. There were yet two amendments to this clause, and I thought we might pass the third clause. With regard to the 34th clause—that relating to compound householders—this being Friday night I thought I should be able on Monday to state the course we intended to pursue. This was satisfactory to the hon. member for Newark, and I believe it was perfectly understood by every member of the house (hear, hear). I do not know what other statement I could have made to be satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman (hear, hear). I shall propose on Monday that the house go again into committee on this bill, and I shall then propose the course which the government are prepared to take. There are two amendments not requiring a long time to consider――(cries of ‟Progress.”) They would not take a long time to discuss (more cries of ‟Progress.”)

     Lord CRANBORNE.—I confess I cannot feel satisfied with the course which the right hon. gentleman is prepared to take. He has announced a change of startling magnitude, a change which involves the certain admission, instead of the contingent and doubtful admission, of some 500,000 people to the franchise. Of this policy I express no opinion; but I say it is entirely an abnegation of all the principles of his party. It seems to me that it is not right that changes so enormous should be introduced in a bill, transforming it entirely from the character which it wore when first introduced, without giving to the house and the country more than three hours at least to think over the alterations proposed. It therefore seems to me that we have no other course, after the great change which has been proposed, than to stop the progress of the bill at the point we have now reached (hear, hear). I beg to move that you, Mr. Dodson, do now report progress.

     The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— It is of no use to oppose a motion of this kind at this late hour (a quarter past eleven). I consent to the Chairman reporting progress.

     The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again, and the house resumed.