, in rising to move, as an Amendment, at the end of the clause to add the words—

"And if the qualifying premises be situated in a borough or county returning more than two Members to serve in Parliament, every man registered as a voter in respect thereof shall be entitled to record one vote for each of a number of candidates equal to the number of Members to be elected,"

said: If I were a younger Member of the House, I should propose this Amendment with the full confidence of success.

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether this Amendment is in Order, seeing that the Bill is one which deals with the qualification of electors; and the proposal of the hon. Member deals with a subject-matter altogether different. It proposes to deal with what are known as three-cornered boroughs or counties; and we may be led into an entirely useless discussion, because, when the Bill comes into effect, there may be no such thing in existence. The Amendment itself is altogether inconsistent with any proposal included within the four corners of the Bill, and any discussion, which may take place upon it may be entirely wasted. I beg to ask if the Amendment, under these circumstances, is in Order?

In answer to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), I have to say that I do not think this is the most appropriate opportunity on which to introduce the Amendment; but, having regard to the fact that this is an enfranchising Bill, and that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) proposes to give to the electors, in certain constituencies, three votes, where they only now have two, I am not prepared to say that the Amendment is out of Order.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire had considered the full effects of the Bill as an enfranchising Bill, and had had any experience of the disadvantages of the system of three-cornered constituencies, he would probably have appreciated the importance of this Amendment. It certainly appears to me to be quite as important as the giving of a vote to the agricultural labourer, or to any other portion of the community. I was about to say, before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend, that if I had been a younger Member of the House I should propose this Amendment in full confidence of its success, and with the anticipation that I should only have to explain its object in order to earn for myself the everlasting gratitude of the constituencies which have now been labouring for so long a period—no less than three Parliaments—under a sense of injustice. The question is not now brought under the consideration of Parliament for the first time. In 1867 it was discussed and received the support of all but a very small minority of the Liberal Party—even including the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forstor) and the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who, in those days, were found speaking in support of it. It was supported by the Leaders of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, and also in this House, on considerations of prudence. If I were able to predicate what course may be taken by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)— and I, at least, have the consciousness of knowing that any feeling of uncertainty in that respect is shared by the natural Leaders of the Conservative Party, and that my present position is no worse than that of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote), the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and still more recently by the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary for War (Colonel Stanley)—I should then have the consolation of knowing that the principle I advocate is approved by the Leaders of that Party. What can be more disproportionate than the representation of the large constituencies of the Kingdom at the present moment? Previous to 1867 there were eight constituencies in Great Britain which returned three Members, in addition to the City of London, which returned four; and as in places returning one Member each elector had one vote, and as in places returning two Members each elector had two votes, so in places returning three or four Representatives each elector was entitled to three or four votes. But when the Reform Bill of 1867 was before this House, Mr. Lowe brought forward an Amendment, by which he proposed, in constituencies returning more than two Representatives, to allow the electors to distribute their votes. In other words, what he proposed was to give an opportunity for the adoption of the cumulative principle of voting. This principle was supported by two classes in this House—by the more ancient class of Tories, who regarded the Monarchy as dead, the aristocracy doomed, and the democracy triumphant; and by some doctrinaire Radicals, who said it was not altogether what they wanted, but a step in the right direction. But when Mr. Disraeli, who was then the Leader of this House, came to deal with the proposition, he gave it its death-blow. He said—

"The result of adopting the principle must be that you would effectually neutralize the great bulk of the representative system. By far the greater number of places in this country are represented by two Members; and if you adopt this principle, the consequence is that opinion is neutralized in all those places. But what would be the further consequence if all the constituencies thus represented by two Members are thus neutralized? It appears to me that the Government of the country would be thrown into the hands of those constituencies which are represented by only one Member each."—(3 Hansard, [188] 1111.)

He further pointed out that there were a larger number of such constituencies in Scotland and Wales than in any other part of the Kingdom, and that the effect of the proposal, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would be to place the Government of the country in the hands of a minority of the people. But even Mr. Disraeli did not regard the proposal from such a strong standpoint as the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, who very firmly put down his foot upon it. He denounced the proposal, and all kindred ones, as the schemes of coteries, and not the politics of nations; and he pointed out that, if adopted, it would lead to discomfiture and confusion. Well, Mr. Lowe's proposal was negatived by a majority of 141 in the House of Commons. When the Bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord Cairns cast about for a proposal which should equally neutralize the democracy, and he hit upon the device which had been brought forward for the first time by Lord John Russell in his Reform Bill of 1854, under which the voter in a tripartite constituency was to be entitled to two votes only. Lord Aberdeen, who was at the time at the head of the Ministry of which Lord John Russell was a Member, said it was a conundrum, a phrase which the present Prime Minister adopted and endorsed in 1867 when he spoke of a similar proposal as "a conundrum" in many points of view. But if this system of voting was a conundrum to the right hon. Gentleman, what must it have been to the multitude in the large cities? Lord Cairns, in supporting his Amendment, mentioned that in three out of seven constituencies—for the eighth had been divided into two—that in three out of seven the representation was divided between the two political Parties; and in three only was it monopolized by one Party. He did not mention that, in the cases where it was monopolized by one Party, it was monopolized by the Conservative Party, nor did he mention that, in the cases where it was divided, the Conservatives had two Members against one Liberal Member; but in order to secure this check against the tide of democracy in the large towns, he simply gave up the advantage of three seats which had been possessed by the Conservatives in the existing tripartite constituencies without giving any advantage elsewhere. As a matter of fact, Manchester and Liverpool had neutralized each other. Birmingham and Glasgow, as the Committee is aware, had managed to evade the working of the Minority Clause, and a similar organization had to be established in Leeds, in order to enable the same result to be achieved. In the House of Lords, the Government of the late Lord Derby offered the strongest opposition to the proposal. The Duke of Marlborough, speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed a—

"Strong belief that the acceptance of the proposition would be attended with very serious dangers to our Constitutional system."

He pointed to the likelihood of electioneering tickets and other undesirable practices being introduced. The proposal, however, was carried, despite the opposition of Lord Derby. The mischief of the clause is only to be bounded by the extent or the narrowness of its operation. A number of other objections were raised in the House of Lords; but I will only allude to one of them—the very obvious objection that if a minority Member died, or accepted Office, or succeeded to the Peerage, his successor would be elected by the majority. To that objection Lord Cairns replied that if that result happened in one constituency the opposite would happen in another—in other words, that the accidents in one constituency would be neutralized under the law of averages, and that the result would work out all right —perfectly oblivious that, if the law of averages were imported into the question, the entire case for the representation of a local minority fell to the ground. Among all the objections brought forward to the proposal, there was not a single one raised as to its relevancy to the Bill. I say this, because my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire has objected to my Amendment on the ground that it does not come within the scope of the Bill; but I say that, if precedent means anything, it is perfectly within the scope of the Bill. The Reform Bills of 1867 and 1868, all three of them referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, were divided into two parts. In one part the question of the franchise was dealt with; while the other dealt with the question of redistribution in England and Scotland. There was no occasion for dealing with the matter in the Irish Bill, because there was no tripartite constituency in that country; and both in the English and in the Scotch Bill the proper place for dealing with it was considered to be in the Franchise Bill. It is quite evident that it must be dealt with there, and nowhere else, because it deals with a number of existing constituencies; and if, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, the proposal to enfranchise the large towns, by granting an extra number of Members, be thrown out, that would simply be a question of disfranchisement, and would have no title whatever to be considered in a Redistribution Bill. It appears to me that, if it was within the scope of the Franchise Clauses of the Bills of 1867 and 1868 to introduce the Minority Clause, it is equally within the scope of the present Bill to introduce an Amendment proposing practically to repeal that Minority Clause, by restoring to the constituencies affected by it the system of representation which they enjoyed between the years 1832 and 1868. When the Bill came back from the Lords to the House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli said—

"This proposal was opposed on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Lords with all the authority that a Government can fairly exercise over a deliberative Assembly; but it was carried by an overwhelming majority.…. Although Her Majesty's Government on principle opposed that proposal, although I do not say that I approve it, still in deference to the spirit of compromise and conciliation in which this Bill has been carried through the other House,….. it seems to me prudent and becoming to support the clause which their Lordships have introduced."—(3 Hansard, [189] 1110–11.)

Well, in fact, the Government had determined to throw out all the important Amendments the Lords had introduced into the Bill, and it was considered necessary to leave them something by way of conciliating their amour propre. The great constituencies of the Kingdom— the tripartite constituencies and the City of London—were accordingly thrown in as a sort of sop to Cerberus. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) moved the rejection of the clause; the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Gosehen) spoke strongly against it; and the right hon. Member for Bradford was one of those who voted against it. But it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to demolish and utterly pulverize every argument brought forward in support of it. He said there could be no doubt that the view of the House was adverse to the clause introduced by Lord Cairns, and that the question to consider was whether there was any sufficient reason for waiving that adverse opinion. He said the conclusion at which he arrived was that not even those reasons of prudence suggested by Mr. Disraeli were sufficient to justify the House of Commons in waiving its objections to a proposal so mischievous. He stated that to be his opinion, and the result of his deliberate consideration; and he added, that he could regard the matter from a more impartial standpoint than most Members of the House, because he had been officially responsible, as a Member of Lord Aberdeen's Government, to the principle of tripartite representation. He could not help seeing, however, the mischief which lurked beneath the surface of the Minority Clause; and if the proposal were adopted the tripartite system of representation would be doomed. He complained that the House had only been allowed nine days for the consideration of a proposal which virtually amounted to a change of the whole method of our representation. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"The House of Commons has, from its first beginning to this day, been founded, and founded exclusively, upon the principle of the representation of communities, and communities alone. If this change is adopted, you ought, for consistency's sake, to alter the language of the writs addressed to the citizens of London, and to South Lancashire, Manchester, Liverpool, and so forth. Those writs ought hereafter to say that the majority in those respective communities is directed to return so many Members, and the minority so many."

He went on to say—

"There is no denying that, to the extent of one-fourth in London, and of one-third in the tripartite constituencies, you are about to inflict disfranchisement upon the electors."—(3 Hensard, [189] 1168–9–70.)

He further denounced the injustice that would be inflicted upon the great towns and counties with tripartite representation as so gross as almost to be penal. He said—

"The charge of injustice which, apart from the novelty of the proposal, I make is this— that you are going to treat most unjustly the majorities in those constituencies which you have 'selected,' forsooth, to try your experiment upon. And why are the most powerful constituent bodies in the Kingdom selected— those bodies which, more than any other, lead the opinion of the country. On the Slave Trade, on Emancipation, on the Corn Laws and other questions of Free Trade, on Parliamentary Reform, in what centres was it that thought was matured and elevated so as to bring the public mind to that state of maturity which enabled these great changes to be effected? It was in these great constituencies. The charge I make is this—that you are going to place these constituencies…. in a position of privation and penalty."—(Ibid. 1170–71.)

With prophetic eyes the right hon. Gentleman saw that the electors under the clause would be treated as mere equivalents of each other, and would be made to vote for A and B, A and C, or B and C, as was thought proper by some exterior influence. That is what I say literally results at elections for Glasgow and Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman regarded the proposition as a most dangerous one. He said—

"I therefore entreat the House not to give to these great and powerful communities, armed as they will be with such considerations of reason and justice as have been pointed out, opportunity and provocation to enlist their great energies and powers, and their facilities of acting on the public mind of the country— energies and powers which will be sharpened by a sense of wrong and disparagement inflicted upon them, and of having been selected from others for that wrong and disparagement; do not let us give to them opportunity and provocation to lead on a new agitation, excited and heated, as they cannot fail to be, by a sense of wrong and disappointment.—(Ibid. 1174.)

The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the clause, if adopted, would certainly drive the constituencies in the large towns and counties affected by it into demands which, he said, would be bold. It would probably induce them, he said, to demand electoral districts then only advocated by the Chartists. I am sorry to say that in the City of Glasgow, at public meetings, I have heard references to electoral districts greeted with nothing but cheers. Such a state of things cannot but react upon the Representatives of the country; and it is owing to that reaction that I now stand before the Committee the abandoned Radical I am. A good many things have happened since 1867; but I do not know if anything has happened to in- duce the right hon. Gentleman to change his opinion on this subject. If he has not changed his opinion regarding the evil of this system of three-cornered voting, it seems to me that he is bound to take the opportunity before the next General Election of putting an end to it. Now, I do not care, providing an end is put to the system, how it is done. The Amendment I propose to move would have precisely the same effect as the opposition to the clause of Lord Cairns, if it had been successful, and which was specially supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and it certainly appears to me to be as much within the scope of this Bill as was the proposition of Lord Cairns within the scope of the Franchise Bill of 1867. What I want to get rid of is the grievance. I do not care how it is done. I do not quarrel with those who contend that the Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thinks it would be more within the scope of the Redistribution Bill, and will undertake to deal with the question in any other equitable manner, either by the repeal of the Minority Clause, or by the division of tripartite constituencies, I shall be perfectly content to leave the mode of dealing with it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, provided only that he will deal with it quickly, with a reasonable hope of bringing about a change before another General Election. But if he cannot see his way to such an undertaking, I think it is a duty I owe to my constituents, deprived as they are of all opportunity of expressing their individual views, to press this Amendment, in order to prevent their influence in this House from being degraded to that of the smallest pocket borough. By being required, as they now are, to vote for A and B, A and C, or B and C, just as they are directed, they are obliged to place their political consciences at the disposal of the Party managers to an extent undreamt of in other constituencies, and to stake their chance of obtaining even a preponderance of one in the representation of this House on the correctness of an arithmetical calculation. I must, under all the circumstances, however hopelessly, ask the Committee to divide in support of an Amendment which is intended to put an end to a rankling injustice de- nounced by every successive Prime Minister who has held Office in this country for the past 20 years. I beg, Sir Arthur Otway, to move the Amendment, which now stands in my name.

In some of the propositions which have been urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) I certainly can express my concurrence. In the first place, there can be no doubt as to the right of my hon. Friend to ask the Committee to insert this Amendment in the Bill as he proposes. That, however, is a matter of form; but, likewise as to the matter of substance, I may express my sympathy with my hon. Friend in regard to his position in the great constituency he represents. In fact, I think, upon that matter, there is a disposition, both on behalf of the friends, and also of the opponents, of the minority vote, to admit that the thing cannot stand as it does now. When I say it cannot stand, I do not mean to say it cannot stand independently of the passing of this Bill, but that the question of the representation of the people cannot undergo any re-settlement without a large consideration of this subject. Everyone must see that, upon principle, if minority voting is to be considered an advantage and a blessing to those who possess it, it ought to be extended to other constituencies; but if, on the other hand, minority voting is in the nature of a penalty and a disparagement to the constituents who have it, then it ought not to exist at all. In any way, it ought not to exist in the shape of a selection by a small body of constituents. Of that there can be no doubt. As far as I am concerned, I do not think I require to do more than refer to the former speeches I have made on this subject, and to add that what I have said on my own part I now venture to say on behalf of the Government— namely, that unquestionably, in the view of my Colleagues, as well as of myself, a most thorough consideration and examination of all the questions of minority voting must be au essential part of any new settlement of the representation of the people. With regard to the hope and desire that my hon. Friend has expressed that that may take place in the present Parliament, we reciprocate that hope and desire, and the pledge he has asked for that the question may be thoroughly inquired into and examined, I think, may be given; but if I am now asked to say what may be the result of that examination—if we were to give our opinions upon a matter of this kind, which, I think, would find its proper place in a Redistribution Bill, we shall open a field of debate which we would wish to avoid. Therefore, I think, there can be no doubt, and I think my hon. Friend will admit it, that the argument is extremely strong for an adjournment of this question, and I believe he will not object to an adjournment after what I now say. It is perfectly true that, in the Act of 1867, a Minority Clause was inserted. This clause was inserted by the House of Lords as a new clause; but its position in that Bill cannot be taken to represent a decision upon any great political or Constitutional principle, because its insertion in that particular place merely represented the opinion of the Clerk as to what was the most convenient place in which it could be inserted. Of course, the place in which it appears in the Bill is immaterial, especially when that Bill embraced redistribution along with enfranchising clauses. It is quite plain that the extension of the minority principle, or its exclusion, must depend upon the way in which it is associated with political and representative areas; and, that being so, it cannot be considered without taking us right into the very heart of the subject of redistribution. I venture, therefore, to hope that it will be thought sufficient if I express my desire to profit by the prospect my hon. Friend has held out; and I, therefore, trust that the matter may be held over for the present, always hoping to deal with it at the first convenient stage.

The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are another illustration of the very great inconvenience of the course we are now pursuing. There can be no doubt whatever that this question of the minority representation, in any form, is one of very great importance, and which must have a large place in the consideration of the question of Parliamentary Reform, when it is brought forward in a Bill which is to make so great a revolution in the franchise of the country as this Bill is intended to make; and it becomes a very serious question what the effect of the extension is to be if, instead of proceeding to the consideration of that question, we are stopped by being told that it belongs to a different branch of the subject, which ought not, and cannot, be considered now, but which is to be considered, if at all, in some future year, when we have passed this Bill. I do not, of course, dispute the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is largely connected with the question of redistribution, and I do not intend to raise any discussion now that does not properly arise; but I think it right to point out that this is a strong illustration of the inconvenience of the course we are now pursuing.

I venture to hope that, after the remark of the Prime Minister, my hon. Colleague will be content; and will not press on the question of minority representation now. I am fully conscious of the importance of the question, and no one who has had any experience of the effects of a three-cornered constituency could do otherwise than look upon the matter as I do; but, in face of what has been said, I could not press it, although our friends in Glasgow are obliged, under the existing system, to sink their individuality altogether—they have to be told that they are not to have any individual preferences nor any opinions of their own as regards certain candidates, and that they vote according to what may be the initial letter of their names. Anything more unintelligent than that I can hardly conceive. But we are driven into it by the miserable system of three-cornered constituencies, and I am not suprised that my hon. Colleague has taken the first opportunity afforded him of bringing the subject before the House and proposing an Amendment. But after what the Prime Minister has said I hope my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter with a view of making his proposition upon the Redistribution Bill, with, regard to which, it is certainly more pertinent, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed now.

What my right ton. Friend the Prime Minister has said is quite satisfactory to me. I think I have made it perfectly understood that I do not care one straw how the matter is dealt with, provided that the grievance of which I complain is got rid of. It is perfectly immaterial to me whether it is got rid of by giving three votes to the electors in the three-cornered constituencies, or by applying the same principle generally throughout the country.

The hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Cameron) says he does not care in what way the matter is decided. Now, I confess that I approach the subject with very different feelings. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has taken on himself to say that the framers of the last Reform Act placed this clause in a wrong portion of the Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in dissent; but the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to charge the accident of this provision appearing in the Franchise Clauses of the Bill to the act of the Clerks in the House of Lords. I do not know upon what evidence the right hon. Gentleman has based that somewhat strong statement. I know very well that lengthy discussions took place upon the subject; whereas, from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it might be imagined that this question was sprung upon Parliament in the eleventh hour by the unexpected action of those who legislate for the country in "another place." Now, what are the real facts of the case? Those of us who were present then will remember that the matter was first of all introduced to our notice by a very eminent man on the other side of the House—the late Mr. John Stuart Mill. I had the pleasure of listening to the able statements which Mr. Mill put forward, and he was a great authority upon such matters. So far as I am aware, the subject was not treated as a pure Party question. Mr. Disraeli, as a matter of fact, expressed, on more than one occasion, his belief that the proper duty of a minority, if it found itself in that unfortunate position, was to con- vert itself into a majority. Now, I never myself could look upon the matter from that point of view. I think that, if Parliament and the House of Commons is to be truly representative of the nation at large, it ought to be constituted of not merely the Representatives of what happens to be at the moment the majority, but that it should be the reflection as far as possible of all classes, sections, and interests in the community. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has, this afternoon, studiously avoided giving us even an indication of his own opinion on the subject. Indeed, I am afraid that, in common with many Members of the House, I have reason to doubt whether the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, when the time comes for giving full expression to that opinion, will be in accord with that of Mr. Stuart Mill, or of some of the deepest thinkers of that political Party which, at the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman happens to adorn. What is the case? The greatest political thinkers, the highest authorities and the greatest exponents of Liberal opinions throughout the world, have, in a great number of instances, pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of some adequate system for the representation of minorities. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) says, very properly—and I am very much disposed to agree with him—that this clause has not had the effect which its authors originally anticipated. I do not apologize to the Committee for inviting its attention to the subject at the present time. It is pre-eminently a branch of the subject of Reform. It must be considered in connection with the franchise, and I would even go so far as to say that it would run the risk of being ruled out of Order in a pure and simple Redistribution Bill. In a Bill dealing simply with the apportionment of seats, I do not see where it could have a place. With regard to the provision itself, I I think it is a very incomplete means of carrying out a great principle. It does not go half far enough. It does not go even as far as the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), who I do not see at this moment in his place. My hon. Friend proposes that every man registered as a voter shall have power to record "his vote for one candidate only." That, I need hardly say, goes somewhat too far. But the question of the adequate representation of minorities is one which I think, nevertheless, we are bound to make some provision for. The Committee will be aware that there have been many suggestions made on this subject. I do not now see in his place the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Perhaps the cause of his absence is one in regard to which we should offer him our congratulations. At the same time, I think the hon. Baronet, or some of those in conjunction with whom he has taken up the subject, ought to be called upon at this stage of the Bill to explain what their views really are. [Cries of "No!"] All very well. I am afraid that I see hon. Gentlemen present who took a prominent part in the initial stage of these proceedings at the commencement of the Session, and who ominously rose to Order with the view of what may be vulgarly termed "snuffing out" this question. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not allow it to be disposed of in that way, although the process might find favour with mere partizans who simply look on the House of Commons as a machine for constituting Ministries and manufacturing statutes. I can quite conceive that from that standpoint the Representatives of majorities may view this Minority Clause in the light of a nuisance; but those who take the view I venture to take, as to the proper constitution of any representative body, will be disposed to think that no Government is justified in presuming to deal with, the all-important question of Parliamentary Reform, without being prepared to submit to Parliament some adequate scheme for the representation of minorities. We all admit that the present system has proved inadequate. I do not propose to go in detail, or even cursorily, into the various rival schemes, nor to repeat the arguments of Mr. Mill with respect to what is known as Mr. Hare's scheme, which I admit to be unworkable in connection with our present or any possible electoral system in the country in future. But the Prime Minister is aware that there are many other systems which recommend themselves to those who take an intelligent interest in the subject. There is a plan which has found favour with our own race in the United States of America. I need only mention the State of Illinois, where the very point raised in the Amendment placed on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough—namely, the power of applying the representation of minorities to 'a constituency returning two Members, is dealt with. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, hon. Gentlemen who are deeply impressed with the horrors of the American system of representation will not pay much attention to the illustration of Illinois. Hon. Members below the Gangway, however, ought not to be disposed to sneer at suggestions which come from that quarter. In the State of Illinois, every elector is allowed to vote in such a manner as he thinks fit. Complete freedom is accorded to every elector; and in constituencies returning three Members every elector can vote for which of the candidates he chooses—he can vote for all three, if he likes, or give the whole of his three votes for one, or he may give one and a-half votes for each of two. He can give his three votes for two candidates, and in that way his votes count for one and a half for each. This is a matter which I have mentioned in this House some years ago, and I admit that it provoked some amusement in that section of the House which is never tired of admiring Radical institutions unless they have some element in them which may tend to give protection to minorities, or the Conservative element of the State. Now, I hope the Committee will not allow this matter to drop without eliciting from Her Majesty's Government some more satisfactory statement than that which has been vouchsafed by the Prime Minister. It is all very well to say that this matter may stand over until some distant time which the right hon. Gentleman is too cautious more clearly to indicate. What guarantee, I ask, have we that the subject will be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit; or that it may not be regarded as a question with which the Government are not required to deal with at all, contenting themselves with a simple proposal for the abolition of the representation of minorities? I venture to hope that when the matter is approached hereafter, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared with some efficient scheme for the adequate representation of minorities.

(who was met by Cries of "Withdrawn!"): I will not stand in the way of the withdrawal of the Amendment for more than a moment. I merely rise to endorse what has been said by the Prime Minister as to the great inconvenience of discussing this Amendment now. There are few Members in this House who care more for the great principle of the representation of minorities than I do; but I know that the cause would be distinctly prejudiced by a discussion which is out of place. I understood that, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition, it would be better to drop the discussion at the present moment.

He did not say so.

I do not see how the Business of the House is to be conducted if, after that declaration—

The right hon. Gentleman did not say so.

If, after that declaration, another right hon. Gentleman, sitting on the same side of the House, is to get up and continue the discussion.

said, he had no desire to continue the discussion; but he wished to take notice of one expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member had spoken of the great humiliation and degradation some of his constituents were subjected to by being driven to the poll with a sort of necessity imposed upon them of voting not for the candidates they preferred, but for the particular candidates they were told to vote for. He was sure that what the hon. Member had said was fully appreciated on that side of the House, and would be appreciated throughout the country. He wished, however, to point out to the hon. Member that the course taken by his constituents was the consequence of the determination of the Liberal majority to take an unfair advantage of the law, and to drive into a majority what really ought to be the minority vote.

said, he felt bound to protest against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Raikes). He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had not intended to open his mouth upon this subject; but he sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not commit themselves in any way upon a question of this kind. If he were called upon to express an opinion on the subject, he should certainly say that he was very strongly in favour of the principle of the representation of majorities, and the manner in which it had been carried out in Glasgow reflected credit upon the ingenuity of the citizens. The Minority Clause was based on the assumption that wherever three Representatives were given, one-third of the electors must be deprived of representation; and that the majority should only elect two Members. That was the object and aim of the Minority Clause of the Bill of 1867; and to his mind it was a monstrous proposition. He would repeat, that the manner in which the difficulty had been got over by the constituency of Glasgow reflected great credit on them for their ingenuity in proving that they were the preponderating majority, and in securing the return of three Representatives. He would only make one other remark. He thought this question of the representation of minorities was bound up with the question of redistribution; and he thought Her Majesty's Government might take into consideration the question whether the same object might not be equally arrived at by dividing the constituencies, rather than by requiring a constituency to return a large number of Members, and then depriving the electors of their votes. The evil of large constituencies was, in his opinion, very great; and he thought it was desirable to deal with them in some different and more intelligent way. It was the division of the representation which at the present moment enabled the House to represent all sorts and shades of opinion; and if the same principle were adopted in the case of the large and overgrown constituencies, instead of a system prevailing in which the minority were enabled to turn the majority out-of-doors, all classes would secure adequate and equitable representation. Although, to some extent, he was responsible for the adoption of the minority principle in connection with the school boards in Scotland, and although he agreed that in constituencies returning a large num- ber of Members the minority should enjoy a portion of the representation, at the same time he thought that result might be arrived at by some better means than those now adopted.

I have a somewhat important Amendment to move, which I hope will receive the careful consideration of the Committee. I beg to move, at the end of the clause, to add—

"Provided, That the man possessed of such qualification for such county or borough respectively shall have himself personally paid the rates in respect of such qualifying premises."

The Amendment, in my humble judgment, raises a very important question; and as we are about to extend the franchise in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his Bill, I think we cannot do better than carefully consider, at the present moment, this very important question. The right hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, find some difficulty in taking in what I mean by the Amendment; and, therefore, I may explain that what I mean is this—that no man, unless he personally pays his rates, shall be entitled to a vote. It has always been the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, and especially of hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand; and I should be glad to hear any argument from them which will justify them in endeavouring to divorce the one from the other. For my part, I do not think it would be a very easy matter to throw off the old love; but hon. Members sitting on this side of the House do know that, whenever it suits the convenience of those sitting' opposite, they invariably throw it in our teeth that the one thing they wish and desire is that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand together. Now, I know that one of the first difficulties with which I shall be confronted is the next clause to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in this Bill—namely, the Service-voting Clause. All I have to say about that— and I pass it by very lightly, because I do not wish to go into a question which will have to be discussed presently—is that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly laid down, when he proposed that service franchise, that it was intended specially to meet the case of those who live in good and large houses, and who, in consequence of paying no rent, could not otherwise possess the franchise. I say at once, in regard to that class of persons, that if they wish to have the franchise, and do not pay rates, they ought to be required to contribute something towards the Income Tax; and I should be prepared to assent to a proposition that they should have a vote provided that they paid Income Tax. I will go a step further, and take the case of the Scotch agricultural labourer. The carter and the cowman, and all that class of persons are, to a great extent, paid by having a house, as well as receiving weekly wages, and they are as much paid in regard to the house as in regard to the weekly wages. An arrangement could easily be made between them and their landlords that they should pay their own rates; and, in that case, any man who wished to possess the franchise would show his sincerity by paying his rates.

And in most cases the sum paid would be returned to him.

Not only that; but, by contributing something towards local expenses, he would place himself in the position which the Act of 1867 intended to place him in—namely, that he should only have the vote on the condition of contributing something towards the rates. The Bill of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) in 1869 allowed owners to compound for their rates. Now, compounding is a very easy process; and I am not aware that there is any great value attached to it, except that it enables overseers, and officials in that position, to get the amount of the rates with less trouble than would be necessary if they had to collect the money from the individual ratepayers themselves. I venture to think that that is one of those questions which ought not to be allowed to stand in the way for one moment in dealing with a great principle of this kind, if we desire to arrive at a sound and logical conclusion. I think it will be found that the owners of houses who have hitherto taken on themselves the responsibility of paying the rates, and of paying it even, whether the house is occupied or not, with a deduction of 25 per cent, would be anxious to see their labourers placed on the Register; and if the labourer himself desired to have the vote, he would have nothing to do but to say that he would pay the rates himself, and make provision in future that his house should be excluded from the operation of the compounding clause. I may go farther than that. I think the enactment of some such provision as this would be likely to make many landlords, who are compounding for their cottagers' rates at the present moment, desirous to sea the names of their labourers upon the Register, so as to afford them an opportunity of exercising the vote. Let me take an ordinary case which constantly occurs all over England. Take the case of a man owning 4,000 acres of land, let to some 20 tenants or thereabouts, with 100 cottages on the estate. The landlord pays the rates for the whole of those cottages; the labourer pays nothing at all, except a small sum per week for the use of the cottage. He is side by side with a man in a small town or village, where you will find houses run up, I will not say by a speculator, but by a certain class of men who let their houses at very high rents and make the tenants pay the rates. The consequence is that these tenants have votes, while the other class have not. But would they not, if they wished to have the vote, pay the small amount, for it would be a very small amount they would be required to contribute? And would it not be only right and fair that they should pay the small sum that would confer on them not only the right, but the privilege, of a vote? The artizans and labourers are bettor off now than they have been for many years. We know that is so, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) distinctly told us so the other night. Of all classes in the country, the labourers and artizans are now better off than they have ever been for a very long time. They have weathered the storm we have heard of in regard to agricultural distress far better than either the landlords or the tenants. And they are really in a better position than they have been in for a considerable number of years, Let any man go back to the year 1857, and see what the wages of the labourer were then. Let him see how the price of wheat per bushel regulated the wages. Let anyone ask himself at this moment, when he looks at the price of wheat and the price of every article the labourer has to procure for his ordinary subsistence, if he is not far better off now than he has been during the last 20, 30, or 35 years, and much better able to pay a trifling sum in the shape of rates which would place him on the Register and entitle him to vote. This is a question which, in my humble judgment, deserves the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and of the Committee. There is another argument which is very often used. Hon. Members say that they desire to place the agricultural labourers in a position of greater freedom and independence. Can you place him in a position of greater freedom and independence than by requiring him to pay his rates and properly placing his name upon the Register? But there is oven something beyond that. You are trying to make those men more economical, and calling on them to purchase their own cottages, so that they may render themselves more independent. A man who has made himself independent, who has been economical, who has obtained a 40s. freehold, and who has never received outdoor relief, is, in many instances, compelled to pay rates. Why should men of less merit be absolved from doing so, and yet be entitled to exercise the franchise? Why should not all men be required to pay a small amount of rates, in order that they might be placed upon the Register? There is another question which I have no doubt we shall hear a great deal about; that is the question—"Are you going to disfranchise any of those who are now on the Register, but who do not pay their rates?" My answer to that will be very simple and plain. I say that, with regard to all these men, so long as they remain in the same house, and so long as their agreements with their landlords hold good, they ought not to be disturbed; but in any fresh letting, when the new tenant comes in, he ought to be made to pay the rates if he is to possess the right of voting. That is a principle which I think might fairly be enforced without the slightest injustice to any single person. And now I come naturally to the lodger difficulty. The lodger belongs to an entirely different class of men. It is a £10 holding that he possesses. His lodging must be worth £10 a-year; and, therefore, being a £10 holding, of a character altogether different from those which I have been calling attention to, I would not propose to interfere with the lodger. No doubt, the whole of these considerations lead up to another important question— namely, the question of local self-government. If we are to have a Local Self-Government Bill, I should like to know how these labourers are intended to be dealt with? Are they to have a vote? We ought to know that, because it is a very material question. Are they to have a vote under the Local Self-Government Bill in reference to the expenditure of money for the county? Because if the vote is to follow in that Bill in the same way, and the labourer is to contribute nothing towards the local expenditure, a very important principle will be established. Naturally, everyone would say—"If he is to have the vote, then he ought to pay his rates; because nobody not paying rates ought for a moment to have a voice in county management and county expenditure." I have no desire to weary the House with any long statement; but I come now to the most important part of the question—namely, the application of the Bill to Ireland. In Ireland I find there are 661,992 houses under a £4 rating value. Below a £4 rating value the landlords pay all the rates; and that is the reason why the £4 rating has been made use of in Ireland. Below that point no man pays his rates; and I wish to show the bearing of that fact upon this great question, because that is the test in Ireland—namely, that a man not paying rates in that country is not a fit and proper person to put upon the Register, and ought not to be entitled to have the vote. Her Majesty's Government now propose to give that vote to no less than 661,992 persons in Ireland, none of whom pay any rates. The only way in which you ought to deal with a question of that kind is to provide that if they wish to be placed upon the Register they should pay one-half of the rates levied upon their holding or their house. I venture to contend that that principle is a sound and a just one; and that it is all-important, in dealing with a great question of this kind, that we should, at any rate, not lose sight of the great fact that the Act of 1867 provided that it should be the payment of rates which should entitle a man to have a vote, yet that the other Act, passed afterwards by a Liberal Government in 1869, did enable persons to vote, although they did not personally pay rates. I do not think that that was intended at the time. I do not think the House foresaw at the time how far the principle would go; and it is because I believe that the principle is unjust, and one that it would not be wise to perpetuate, that I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

I am not able to agree with any of the special arguments which have been placed before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in reference to his Amendment. For instance, he has said that such is the flourishing condition of the labourer in this country, he having escaped the distress which has come upon other classes, especially in connection with agriculture, that it is quite fit that he should be taxed, in order to obtain his vote. Now, with that argument I cannot agree; and I think that many hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House will hesitate before they agree with such a statement as that. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that, if the voter is now a compound householder, or that, being an agricultural labourer, if he lives in a cottage for which his landlord pays the rates, let him make a new arrangement and pay his own rates. Now, to impose the necessity upon the agricultural labourer of making such an arrangement with his landlord in order to become a voter would be to impose upon him a most serious and grievous practical burden. It may seem to us a very slight matter; but, independent of the question of option in deducting from the rent the amount of the rate, the mere fact of having to make an arrangement of that kind, the altering of his little weekly payment for the cottage in which he resides, where it is a weekly payment, would, in. many cases, be an intolerable burden. As to the compound householder in towns, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think that it is in their option to pay their own. rates. The matter is not in their own option. I know that it is regulated—I do not know whether universally, but to a great extent—by the parish authorities; and how are the parish authorities to be made subject to receive individual applications from labourers in long rows of houses, exactly similar in their character, stating that they wish to be entered in the rate-book? Are they to send round collectors to gather the few pence that might be forthcoming from these householders? These are all arguments of detail. There is one argument, however, which is not one of detail, which really appears to me to dispense with all other arguments. It is that the proposal would operate as a vast disfranchisement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, undoubtedly, a rave man, and it required a brave man to propose such an Amendment in such a Bill; for this is a Bill to admit a large number of our countrymen to the exercise of the vote; and, in this Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to insert words that would go, in fact, into every borough in the country, except a few where every man pays his own rates, and I think they are comparatively few —that would go into every borough in the country and disfranchise a largo proportion of the existing electors. The question was fought out in 1867 and 1869; and, unless I am very much mistaken, in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), whom I do not now see in the House—so clear was the matter held to be then, in 1869, after all the discussion that had taken place, that the Act of that year got rid finally of this restriction ns to the personal payment of rates, and that Act was not the subject of any serious conflict. It is quite impossible to accept this Amendment, and I think I may say with confidence that there are many Members on that side of the House who will decline to support such a scheme of disfranchisement as I have described. This is a Bill to extend the household franchise to the counties, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would incur the danger of disfranchising a large number of electors in the boroughs to whom the franchise has already been given. Such a provision Her Majesty's Government cannot for one moment adopt, and I do not think that it will receive much support from either side of the House.

said, he was by no means certain that the consequences which the Prime Minister predicted would result from the adoption of the Amendment. He, for one, entertained a strong prejudice in favour of the English householder paying his own rates, and he did not think any Englishman ought to be ashamed of his prejudices. Certainly, he was not ashamed to declare himself an advocate of the old maxim—that taxation and the enjoyment of electoral power ought to go together. Why should they be ashamed of that principle, or confer upon persons who contributed nothing towards the taxation of the country themselves the right of voting away other people's money? That was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and when the right hon. Gentleman was about to create a large number of voters, in very poor circumstances, his appeal to the House was—"Will you reject these men because they are poor?" Now, his (Mr. Newdegate's) view was, that if he was to give a man full command over his pocket, it was desirable that he should know whether the man to whom control was about to be given was poor or not. Hon. Members had wandered so in the United States, that they had forgotten the action of the State Government upon the electorate, and upon the election of the chief magistrates. There were a great many things which could be done in the United States, which could not be done with safety in this country; because, every four years, the American people lost their chief magistrates, and the veto there was a positive power in the chief magistrates. The people of the United States had not adopted their democratic forms without their necessary safeguards; but here the veto was no longer with the Crown; it was supposed to be with the Prime Minister. All these considerations made him cautious, he was so dreadfully old-fashioned, that he was not ashamed of his country. As an English Representative, he should abide by the old traditions, and vote in the interest of this great country generally with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).

said, the purpose of the Bill was to enfranchise the agricultural labourers; but his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had moved an Amendment which would exclude them from the franchise. He proposed that they should pay their rates personally. It was all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask the landowners to vote with him; but they could not compel the farm labourers to pay their rates. They had their house as part of their wages; they changed their dwellings very often; and there were many other reasons which stood in the way of the application to them of the principle of his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. He (Lord Elcho) regretted his absence from the House when the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), on Friday last, alluded to a step he (Lord Elcho) had taken at a public meeting in Edinburgh, when the noble Lord was speaking on the question of Reform; but he would take that opportunity of saying that, on the occasion referred to, he had listened for a long time to the noble Lord's speech, which, like all his speeches, was of a remarkable character, and was struck by the fact that he talked of Reform in a manner which might have been suitable to the pliocene period of Toryism, but which was very unsuitable to the cause they were advocating. Therefore, he (Lord Elcho) felt bound to dissociate himself from the extravagant course adopted by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. For the reasons stated, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.

said, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had just made a speech which, in his (Mr. Gorst's) opinion, was entirely out of Order; inasmuch as he had digressed into subjects quite foreign to the question before the Committee. He (Mr. Gorst) thought that scant justice had been done by the Prime Minister, and by the Committee generally, to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttolot), which embodied the principle of the Repre- sentation of the People Act of 1867 That principle, so far from being scoffed at, was, at the time, accepted by Parliament as a most important qualification for the franchise. It was actually embodied in an Act of Parliament; and he did not think there was anything unreasonable in his hon. and gallant Friend asking that there should be inserted in the present Bill the same restriction as enacted in 1867. But many things had happened since that time, which had rendered the application of the principle historically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had introduced into Parliament, in 1869, a Bill for the purpose of re-establishing the compound householder; and for making the payment of rates, by the person compounding for them, equivalent to personal payment of rates by tenants. That Bill was passed through Parliament, and had a considerable number of adherents; the late Lord Beaconsfield having allowed it to pass without any strenuous opposition. It seemed to be tacitly admitted by the Conservative Party, and by Lord Beaconsfield himself, that, on the whole, personal payment of rates was too inconvenient in local affairs to be any longer imposed. Therefore, although he thought, in principle, the Amendment was justified from an Imperial point of view, yet, if it were adopted, the same thing would happen as in 1869—that was to say, the rural parishes would be complaining to the House of the difficulty and inconvenience experienced in collecting their rates, and asking Parliament to do for their relief what was done then. He hoped, for these reasons, his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Amendment; its principle being, as he (Mr. Gorst) had endeavoured to show, perfectly sound, but inconvenient of application.

said, he could not agree entirely with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). For his part, he thought there was a great deal in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He (Mr. Pell) was sure the Committee would believe him when he said he would not, by any side wind, or in any indirect manner, attempt to undo what the Bill proposed to do, although he might not entirely agree with it. Whether he agreed with it entirely or not, he did not say. In his opinion the Amendment was of great importance, not only in reference to election matters, but also from other points of view. First of all, with regard to the question of Parliamentary elections, they had heard for some time from both sides of the House how desirable it would be if some self-acting scheme of registration could be enacted. Now, it might be a difficult thing; but, surely, as the basis of the whole plan must be on the rate book, a full and complete entry of the householders would be arrived at by requiring them to pay their own rates. But he thought' that on both sides of the House, at all events on that side, it was asserted by many that the people were not sufficiently educated to be entrusted with the franchise, and he wished to point out that, from his point of view, there could be no better way of educating the people than by showing them, as soon as possible, the mistakes they made in local government; he thought that, for instance, the attention of the ratepayer being called to the increased taxation rendered necessary by local mismanagement and neglect of the sanitary laws, would constitute the best possible education which the lower classes could have. At the present moment, if the charge for the house was apparently high, the vulgar opinion was that the owners of the house were fixing a higher rent as a return for the capital invested in it; whereas, the rent, as a rule, was necessarily raised, as he could state from his personal knowledge, in consequence of the increase of local rates. It was, therefore, a strong argument in favour of personal payment of rates— that it would teach the poorer classes the consequence of local mismanagement. As to the inconvenience of personal payment, so far as the collection of rates was concerned, the person who collected them did not care twopence for it, as long as his services were paid for. It was simply a question of expense, not of inconvenience; and he ventured to to say that, with an efficient officer, and a resolute and consistent local authority to back him, there would be little difficulty in collecting the rates from the lowest class of occupiers. It should be no more difficult to collect the rates than it was to collect the rent; it altogether depended on the system of collection, and upon the character of the individual who made the demand. There was no more wasteful or extravagant way of collecting rates than by compounding with the owner of the property; the occupiers — that was to say, the labourers, artizans, and even people of a higher class—derived no benefit at all from the arrangement. How could it be expected that those persons could get any real teaching in sanitary laws, unless they learnt from their own experience the cost of violating them? It was well known that when a part of a village was attacked with fever, these poor people knew little or nothing else of its consequences or causes than as one of the manifestations of God's Providence; but obedience to sanitary laws would the sooner be learnt, when they found that their neglect led to pauperism, and resulted in, say, a charge of 6d. instead of 4d. in the pound for local rates. He said that, under those circumstances, they would receive a direct lesson of the value of attending to these matters, and that education would result from their being required personally to pay their rates. He believed that this system of compounding with the owners of property for the payment of rates was nothing else than the outcome of idleness and neglect on the part of the local authorities. There was, in his opinion, no reason in the world except their own disinclination which prevented them collecting the rates from every householder, however small, in their parishes. He ventured to say that, if the rates were so collected, he should get more support in his endeavours to bring about a better and more economical administration of local affairs — a question in which he was strongly interested. If, as he trusted would be the case, his hon. and gallant Friend divided the Committee on his Amendment, he should, for the reasons stated, cordially support him.

Sir, I am hardly prepared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in asking the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to go to a Division. At the same time, I feel that the question raised by the Amendment of my hon. arid gallant Friend is one which ought to be regarded on its merits. It is also a question upon which a great deal is to be said; and the argument in favour of the Amendment, which my hon. and gallant Friend put forward amongst others, was that it was the basis on which the Act of 1867 was originally framed. But it is impossible to forget the difficulties to which it led. The principle was assailed; and the compound householder came out of the controversy in a way that many persons in this House may recollect. We could never get rid of the compound householder, who was always cropping up in our discussions; and, in the end, it was found impossible to resist the objections brought forward against the Act of 1867. I am afraid, although I did then, and do still, agree in principle with my hon. and gallant Friend, that if we were to succeed in inducing the Government to introduce the Amendment, and were to try to work the Bill on the principle it contains, we should only reintroduce the same difficulties as those with which we had formerly to contend. My advice would be not to press the Amendment, although my hon. and gallant Friend has undoubtedly brought forward a subject which demands the attention of the Committee; and, were it not for the difficulties we have had with regard to it, I should be one to support him on a Division.

said, the speech of the Prime Minister had certainly done but scant justice to the Amendment he had proposed. It was certainly not his desire, as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated, to disfranchise whole masses of the people, although the right hon. Gentleman was ready to extend the franchise to 2,000,000 of citizens, without any inquiry as to whether they were fit to exercise it or not. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, a few years ago, stated plainly that he was exceedingly sorry that the "Ten Minutes" Bill had not been carried through, and that he did not like the Act of 1867 when it was passed.

Where was that stated? Will the hon. and gallant Member give me a reference?

said, it was in his memory; but he was not quite sure that he could give the reference at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman made so many speeches, in so many places, that it was difficult to give an exact reference. He wished he had the speech with him. He also recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, at one time, made some strong remarks upon the Income Tax Question, when it was brought forward by his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). The right hon. Gentleman was then for getting the Income Tax from the humblest person from whom it could be collected; but now he was all the other way with regard to those persons who were capable of paying rates. At one time in the right hon. Gentleman's life he would have been one of the first to assent to the soundness of the principle of this Amendment, which laid down that, as a qualification for the vote, a man should be able to pay the small amount of local rates due for the house in which he dwelt. As he felt, after the appeals made to him, that he ought not to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no !"]

Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

No, no.

said, he begged to give Notice that, as the aim of the Bill was evidently manhood suffrage, he should take some opportunity of placing before the House, or the Committee, the necessity there was for those persons who were to exercise the franchise under the Bill paying some portion of general or local taxation.

I rise to Order. I understood the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was withdrawn.

I, for one, at least, objected strongly to its withdrawal. The question is one on a most important matter of principle, raised regularly in a number of speeches, and was argued at some length, and ought to be decided on.

said, he certainly did not regard what had taken place as deciding the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had based his objection to the Amendment, on the ground that it was a disfranchising clause; but the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had put the matter on a right footing, when he showed that not a single man would be disfranchised, if the local authorities did their duty in collecting the rates from the occupiers, instead of compounding with the owners to avoid the expense of collection. He altogether protested against the statement of the Prime Minister, that the Amendment would disfranchise a large number of persons.

said, the Amendment spoke for itself. It was a disfranchising clause. The clause was in operation under the Act of 1867, and it was found that not one-third of the number of persons qualified, who would otherwise have done go. It was, therefore, a disfranchising clause, and, on that ground, the Government opposed it.

said, he must again say that it was not a disfranchising clause, and that this had been clearly shown by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He should not have dissuaded his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) from withdrawing; but if the Amendment was to be negatived, he wished it to be understood on what ground it had been supported.

said, he was perfectly willing to assent to the Amendment being put; but, if it were to be thus dealt with, it would be necessary for several hon. Members on those Benches to state their views with regard to the principle which it embodied. He had a great objection to anything of a disfranchising nature being introduced into the Bill. He believed in the justice and necessity of enfranchising all householders; but he, nevertheless, felt the weight of the solid reasons advanced in favour of the Amendment by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and the more, because he had experience of a locality where the working men paid their own rates, and certainly to the great advantage of the community, for the practice had given all the householders of the district an intelligent interest in the management of their local affairs. He could hardly conceive anything more important than this principle in its effect upon the political education of the people; and it was upon that ground that he sympathized with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whom he should support if he went to a Division. At the same time, he must protest against the suggestion that those who recorded their votes in favour of the Amendment, did so for the purpose of disfranchising any class of householders.

said, the Prime Minister was always charging the Opposition with uselessly expending the time of the House; but what had happened that afternoon? His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), having brought forward a matter of considerable importance, found that the opinions on that side of the House were by no means unanimous with regard to it, and, with his usual judgment and tact, said he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon the Committee expressing its opinion upon the question. He would, with great reluctance, differ from his hon. and gallant Friend; but, some years ago, when the subject was before Parliament, he had taken a line, differing somewhat sharply from some of his political Friends, and he felt it right to state the view he then took of the subject. When the Bill of 1867 proposed to make personal payment of rates the basis of the electoral franchise, he ventured to say that, in his judgment, he could not entertain so low an opinion of his fellow-countrymen as to believe that they would allow a set of paltry local Vestry Acts to stand between them and the rights conferred upon them by Parliament. Now, the personal payment of rates was made a great deal of at that time; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) regarded it as the most gigantic imposture that could be conceived. He never could see why the fact of a man paying a certain number of shillings and pence with his own hands, should give him a right to the suffrage; and he had ventured to say that no great length of time would elapse before that ghastly absurdity would disappear. His view, however, did not command much sympathy, and the personal payment of rates was regarded as the essential principle of the Bill of 1867. No doubt, it was so for a time; but long before the Bill passed into law, they had made the acquaintance of that interesting personage, the compound householder. He saw in his place the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who took a great part in the controversy, and who would bear him (Mr. J. Lowther) out when he said that a great deal of time was expended on this matter. As the Committee had been just reminded, an early opportunity was taken to sweep away entirely this absurd restriction; but his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex, however, had again raised the question as to whether personal contribution to local taxation should not be made a condition incident to the franchise. He hoped the Committee would insert some provision in the Bill which would insure that property should have some approximate share in political power; but he did not think his hon. and gallant Friend could reasonably expect to go back to the exceedingly absurd proposal made in the Bill of 1867. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had put the matter, however, in a new light. He gathered that the hon. Member proposed that all householders should be compelled to pay their own rates. That was a matter which, when it was brought before the Committee, he should be willing to consider; but he protested against being called upon to say "Aye" or "No" to that proposal without further explanation.

said, that the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was under the impression that his Amendment was being withdrawn when the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) rose and asked whether it was withdrawn or not. The Prime Minister then got up and said it was not withdrawn, because he had challenged it. The time of the Committee had been taken up, but no decision of the point had been given.

rose to move the following Amendment which stood in his name:—In page 1, at end, add—

"A 'household qualification' and a 'dwellinghouse qualification' shall mean, respectively, a tenement containing not less than two habitable apartments,"

when—

rose to Order. Could the Committee be asked to define the term "dwellinghouse qualification," which was not in the Bill, but which appeared in the Amendment of the hon. Member?

said, he would point out that the question of definition clearly arose under Clause 7, which was headed—"Definition of household and lodger qualifications, &c." It had nothing to do with the present clause.

said, it was understood that an Amendment was out of Order, when it would not make sense with the part of the Bill at which it was proposed to be inserted. If the Amendment were added at the end of Clause 2, the Committee would be said to have adopted this qualification, and that it had a certain meaning. But the term did not occur in Clause 2, and it would not make sense with it; whereas both the words were in Clause 7.

said, he could not admit that, because a word did not occur in a clause, it could not be used in an Amendment proposed to the clause.

said, he was certainly of opinion that the Amendment he was about to propose was perfectly in Order, and that it could not be put at any other part of the Bill. His object was to define the meaning of the terms "household qualification" and "dwellinghouse qualification" as respectively a tenement containing not less than two habitable apartments. The first point he had to urge in support of the Amendment was, that the man who, from poverty, or intemperance, or low habits, was content to live with wife and children of both sexes, some adolescent, in one apartment, was not, in the sense in which the Prime Minister used the words, a "capable citizen." His second proposition was, that he was one of the "residuum" as described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and likely to add to the impurity, and not to the purity, of the electoral roll. The dwellings conferring the franchise ought to be such as were fit for Christian people to live in. If they dignified a hovel by the name of dwelling-house, and gave the vote to persons living in such squalid habitations, they would discourage the excellent movement now going on for improving the dwellings of the working classes. There was, however, a class of men of respectable character, very poor, but very honest, who lived a sort of hermit life in a single room, and it might be urged that his Amendment would disqualify them; but, if that objection were raised to it, their case might very well be met by the addition of a few words to the Amendment, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could easily suggest. This was not the first time this question had been raised. On the Reform Bill of 1867 he ventured to bring forward a proposal similar to the present; and although it was looked upon by the then Prime Minister with favour, as a means of dealing with the residuum, it could not be carried. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) endeavoured to get out of the difficulty by fixing the qualification of rent at £5; and Mr. Poulett Scrope—then Member for Stroud—in like manner, proposed to deal with it by exempting houses below a certain value altogether from being rated to the poor rate; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), then senior Member for Edinburgh, also proposed to exclude houses rated under £4, in the case of the Scotch Reform Bill. The speech which the Prime Minister delivered at a meeting held only a few days previously, was quoted in the discussion, and his words were—

"I do not deny that I do feel that considerable difficulty exists with respect to that lowest margin of householders who tremble between pauperism and independence. In the present state of education in this country, and in the circumstances in which we are placed, I do not say that the evil to be apprehended is one of commanding magnitude, hut then I do regard it as a real evil."—(3 Hansard, [187] 695.]

He (Sir Edward Watkin) contended that if it was an evil then, it was an evil now, and that, as such, it ought to be dealt with. He might be accused of being anxious to disfranchise people by the Amendment—incapable citizens, no doubt, to some extent; but he asserted that the members of a small, but a distinct class, in which fathers, mothers, and children of both sexes lived in the same room, were not "capable citizens." On the occasion he referred to, he had the support, as he had mentioned, of that veteran Reformer, Mr. Duncan M'Laren, who said—

"He had some time ago, with a view to the Scotch Reform Bill, given Notice of an Amendment of this kind; but united to houses rented below £4. It might be supposed that hon. Gen- tlemen had never heard of houses that were below £4 rental; but he could tell hon. Members on the other side, that it appeared from a Return obtained by an hon. Gentleman in 1862, once Lord Advocate of their Party, that in Glasgow there were 34,907 houses at and under £4 rental. The Return was not complete for Edinburgh, and only included part of it, but in the one half of Edinburgh there were 6,100 such houses; in Aberdeen, 896; in Dunfermline, 1,612; in Perth, 852; in part of Paisley, 5,870; in Falkirk, 920. In all these cases female householders were included. The Return contained a valuable summary at the end, applicable to both counties and boroughs in Scotland, which showed that there were altogether 431,793 houses rented at and under £4 assessed to the poor. Of these, 189,555 were exempted from the poor rates on the ground of inability to pay. That was nearly half of the whole number. Many of the occupants in the large towns were a wretched class, living in one apartment, of ten dark, ill-ventilated, damp—altogether, in many cases, unfit for human habitation—yet these houses were rated to the poor, and the greater number of them were paying poor rates. Under the Bill, the occupants of each of these houses that paid the poor rates would be entitled to a vole. The argument founded on the payment of poor rates had considerable weight from the comparatively large amount of the rates laid on in England. In, Scotland the amount was not nearly so large. There was scarcely a poor rate that in Scotland exceeded 1s. 6d. in the pound, and the landlord paid one-half of all poor rates. If votes were given to the occupiers of all such houses, the door would be open to bribery and corruption by political agents paying for poor persons the trilling amount of poor rates laid upon them in order to secure their votes; and this might be done to an amount which no man could foresee."— [Ibid. 703–4.]

It might be said there were two ways of dealing with the residuum—one was to exclude or excise it; the other, to overpower it. His objection to the Bill was that it did not proceed upon any consideration of personal rights; it proceeded on the principle of selection. It proceeded by saying that the House should take a certain proportion of the population and enfranchise them, and leave everybody else unenfranchised. As regarded half the population—the best half—it came to this, that while William Sykes, living with his wife and children, and his bull-dog, in a single room, furnished probably with the produce of many burglaries, would have a vote, as a capable citizen, the son of a middle-class man, or a young man of a respectable character, because he lived in his father's house, and was not employed by his father, should not have a vote; and Florence Nightingale and Mary Somerville would not have votes simply be- cause they were women. What were they going to do with the residuum? They must excise them or overcome them; but this Bill would not overcome them. It would give a certain number of votes admitted to be bad. It would admit in towns, and in parts of counties which really were towns, a certain number of votes of a class which everyone must admit to be bad. Both Parties in the State were trying to grapple with the question of improving the dwellings of the poor; but, by this Bill, they would sanctify the squalor of the poor and the vicious, and would encourage and dignify the residences in which fathers and mothers, and children of different ages, and of both sexes, lived in one room; and in that way a great blow would be struck at the progress of sanitary reform, and a very bad class of voters would be admitted, when they need not be admitted. He thought, therefore, that the Amendment he proposed was, at all events, worthy of consideration; and he hoped the Prime Minister would state whether he claimed this class of voters as capable citizens or not? The Prime Minister must either do so, or show a better way of avoiding them. He must either accept them, while excluding capable men and capable women, or admit all capable men and women — the man because he was a man, and the woman because she was a woman.

I feel quite strongly upon and sympathize with the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the place where the Amendment should come in; but I do not suppose there is absolutely any rule of order as to Amendments, or against any amount of confusion which may consequently be introduced into the Bill. As to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), he says that satisfaction may be given to his wishes in one of two ways. He says he will be satisfied if we either adopt the Amendment, and restrict the franchise as it is conferred by the Bill; or, if we largely extend the franchise by going the whole length to manhood suffrage, and woman suffrage also. I am afraid I am not able to meet the wishes of the hon. Baronet in the second course. Let us see, then, what will ensue if we adopt the Amendment. I doubt whether the hon. Baronet has acquainted himself with the extent to which this means disfranchisement. In Ireland this means an enormous proposal of disfranchisement. I will not say what proportion of existing voters might not be cut off from the very narrow franchise now in Ireland; but if we come to this side of the water, throughout the whole of this country, the Amendment would very largely restrict the new suffrage to be conferred in counties, and abolish a large amount of the suffrage already enjoyed in towns. It proceeds on the principle that a person living in one room cannot be a capable citizen.

Living with his family.

I find nothing about a family in the Amendment; unless the Motion is to be interpreted by the speech, or, at any rate, by what comes from the speech; but, unfortunately, that would not hold good. I dispute altogether the hon. Baronet's doctrine that people cannot be capable citizens because they live in single rooms. There is a case of a Member of this House, who, in virtue of a tenancy of one room, is enfranchised for Westminster, and I am afraid that by this Amendment he would be removed from the Register. I do not admit that because a person lives in one room he is to be considered disqualified. The hon. Baronet has referred to a speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and to a speech of my own, delivered, I believe, in 1867; but it is to be borne in mind that these speeches were delivered when we were comparing a uniform system, to be applied equally throughout the whole country, by fixing a figure for the franchise, which would make it operate alike in the boroughs, with a system which would have been absolutely arbitrary and capricious, and would have made an enormous enfranchisement in some boroughs where rates were paid directly, and in others no en- franchisement at all. Since then we have learnt a great deal. After that time we began by adopting the principle of rating. We then proceeded to abolish all limitations upon household franchise, and we have now had an experience of it for the last 17 years. Is there any reason why we should be dissatisfied with the results? Let us see how this plan will act. I will not speak of Ireland, but I will speak of Scotland. At the time when I knew Scotland, some time ago, there were—and I believe even now, in some parts, there are—a large number of one-room tenements in the country, and multitudes of them in the towns, and the people living in them were perfectly qualified for the franchise. What would be the case in Glasgow? I am sure my hon. Friend is not aware of the operation his Motion would have. In Glasgow, there are 110,000 families, according to the last Census of the population, and out of those 110,000 no less than 39,000 are families living in one room. Are we really going to apply disfranchisement to them? I think my hon. Friend would shrink from such a result of his Amendment. There are many cases in which it is the most legitimate thing in the world for a man to live in one room. Take the case of a single man. What could be more proper than that he should have a vote? But my hon. Friend says that is to be only where there is a family. Take, again, the case of married people before they have children, or who have one child; why should not they remain in one room, if, unhappily, they cannot afford more? Rent is now a great burden upon the artizan. That is the point at which he is weak, and any increase of rent presses heavily upon him, and restricts many of the immense advantages he has derived in many other respects from legislation. Out of the 39,000 families living in one room in Glasgow, no less than 7,000 are, I believe, single individuals. In Glasgow, there are more than one-third of the whole population whom my hon. Friend proposes to sweep away; in Aberdeen, there are about one-fourth. About Aberdeen, I will only say that you will find it very difficult to find any person there who is incapable of exercising the franchise. In Edinburgh, there are 14,000 of these people out of about 52,000—that is, more than one-fourth, and less than one-third. I am persuaded that my hon. Friend will not persevere with his Amendment, which I do believe would lead to results which he has not taken into consideration.

said, he had hoped that if the Prime Minister could not accept the Amendment, he would have stated that the Government would take the object of the Amendment into their consideration. The Committee were now considering a Bill which proposed to confer the franchise on householders, and they were told that the franchise was to be uniform; but there was no definition of what constituted a householder or a dwelling-house in any Act of Parliament. What was the result? The result was that they were introducing a much lower franchise in Ireland than in England or Scotland. The Prime Minister, being in charge of the Bill, objected to any Amendment which would interfere with the structure of this Bill, and said that, no doubt, for the purpose of convenience, it might be better that this Amendment should be upon Clause 7; but if he would look at Clause 7, he would see that that was merely a definition of what constituted a qualification under existing Acts of Parliament. He (Lord George Hamilton) believed, however, that he was correct in saying that there was no existing Act of Parliament which defined either a householder or a dwelling-house qualification. As to the question of enfranchisement, the Prime Minister had stated that this would have a very disfranchising effect; but if they gave a vote to every man who occupied a house, ought they not to define what constituted a house? The Prime Minister had pointed out that in Glasgow 39,000 out of 110,000 families occupied one room only each, and therefore he argued that those 39,000 families would be disfranchised; but although there were these 110,000 families, there were only 66,000 voters. There was thus a difference of something like 50,000 voters in the calculation. No doubt, the actual words of the Amendment would disfranchise these people; but should not the Government undertake to consider whether they would not attempt to define what constituted a house? It did seem to him, at that time, when special attention was being given to the houses of the poor, there could be no better inducement to working men to keep their houses in good order than the promise of the franchise when their houses were fit to be called houses. Those who occupied these tenements had been freed from the direct payment of rates; therefore, they were only indirectly rated, and there was nothing to show what constituted a house. He thought it was well worthy of the attention of the Government whether they could not give some definition of a house such as would exclude a class of buildings which he was certain every Member of the House would condemn as unfit for occupation.

said, he was surprised that the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) could give even a qualified support to this Amendment, which would disfranchise a vast number of people who received the franchise under a Bill passed by the late Government. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) objected altogether to the statement of the noble Lord that this was the time to consider what constituted a house. Following the precedent of other Acts, an attempt to define a house would not come in now; but, even if that were not so, the definition would not, in any sense, come within this Amendment, and he could not but think that the noble Lord was going outside the terms of the Amendment in raising the point at all now. The Amendment would disfranchise the existing voters who lived in one room, and would prevent the enfranchisement of any man living in one room. He had lately had his attention called very much to the condition of one-room families, and he ventured to say that the vast majority of them were very capable citizens indeed. The great majority living in one room in large towns were either single men, or, more probably, young couples, either without children, or having only a small number of them of tender years. There was no reason why a newly-married man and his wife should not live in one room; the vast majority of them did so, and they would be disfranchised by this Amendment. These people had been spoken of as £4 a-year people; but the vast proportion of the people living in one room were people who paid as much as £10 a-year. There were some dwellings erected by a Company, of which his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Brand) was a leading member. The people living in them paid 4s. a-week rent. They were very respectable people and extremely capable citizens; and he would venture to say that the people who would live in the dwellings which the hon. Baronet intended to erect for the poorer class, were to a very large extent capable of exercising the franchise.

said, he wished to second the appeal of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) to the Government to consider the propriety of inserting some definition of a house. The right hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was, no doubt, acquainted with many instances of the confusion to which the present law had given rise. He (Mr. Gregory), himself, had drawn up an Amendment to Clause 7, and he would ask the Government to consider that between now and the time when that clause came to be considered. If they did not consider it worthy their attention, perhaps they would propose something of their own which would be better for the purpose. In that way, they would confer a great benefit on the public, who were now in a state of great doubt and confusion as to what constituted a house.

said, he felt indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Watkin) for bring forward this question, which he thought had been too lightly, and in a very one-sided way, treated by the Government. It seemed to him, that although there were bachelors living in splendid apartments, although consisting of only one room, and occasional instances such as that cited by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) of model lodging houses where one room was let for 4s. a-week, these were only exceptions to what would be the general rule when they thought of a house as containing only one living apartment. The right hon. Baronet compared things that were different. What the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) was striking at, was not one room in a large house, but the one-roomed house—the house consisting of one room. That was a very different thing from a house occupied in separate rooms by individuals—a bachelor, or a man and his wife. There were eases of families living in some hut, which by some sort of complacency was called a house, and there were in the United Kingdom thousands of cases of so-called houses in which the inhabitants consisted of human beings, and two or four-footed animals—in many cases there being a pig, and dogs and fowls. It was useless for the Government to evade the question raised by the Amendment as they had done. The words of the Amendment were not, perhaps, the happiest under the circumstances; but he thought the hon. Baronet was entitled to credit for having opened up a subject which would, no doubt, be heard of again. He (Mr. Lewis), at all events, submitted that this was a matter in regard to which some attempt should be made to provide an intelligent and legal definition of a house.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said that this was not the right time to consider what was the nature of a house, and that Clause 7 would be the right place; but he (Mr. Grey) would point out that if there had been in Clause 7 a definition of what constituted a house, this discussion would not have proceeded so far as it had. It was exactly because they were ignorant of what constituted a householder, that this Amendment had been proposed and this discussion had taken place. He thought it was a matter for great regret that that clause, which was the crux of the whole Bill, should proceed not by way of definition, but by way of reference. He had taken considerable pains to find out what constituted a claim to be a householder, and he had made some remarks upon the point upon the second reading of the Bill; but he must point out how difficult it was to discover who was entitled to vote as a householder, and would ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board whether it was absolutely certain that it was necessary to occupy even a single room for the purpose of getting a vote? The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to prevent any man from voting as a householder whose house did not comprise at least two rooms. The arguments against this proposal were, he thought, conclusive. He regretted that the hon. Baronet had not inserted "one" instead of "two" in the Amendment, for, so far as he could understand the law, it was not even necessary for a householder to occupy the whole of a single room. If a room was divided into two separate parts by a curtain, or even by a chalk line drawn along the floor, and those two parts were let to two individuals, each of whom occupied his separate part, then each of those occupants would be entitled, so far as the nature of the premises were concerned, to vote as a householder, and two votes would issue out of a single apartment. He should like to ask his right hon. Friend whether he was right or not in that construction of the law?

said, he felt sure that this Amendment would greatly restrict not only the future, but the present franchise. This was again the old story. the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) and his speech were made on the Bill of 1867, when household suffrage was established in boroughs; and the effect of the Amendment and the speech at that time was that the Attorney General of the then Conservative Government undertook to endeavour, before the Bill left the House, to frame a definition of a house. That definition appeared in the Act of 1867, and was as follows:—

"A dwellinghouse shall include any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and separately rated for the relief of the poor."

Since then that definition had undergone a good deal of amendment, because, he believed, he was right in saying that all that was necessary to constitute a tenement or dwelling-house was that the place should be separately occupied. The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) looked askance at this franchise which had been established in England and Scotland, and desired to restrict it by preventing persons exercising it unless they occupied rooms of certain cubic contents. He (Mr. Gorst) felt that the Amendment of which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had given notice was an attempt on the hon. Gentleman's part to put into an Act of Parliament the result of the decisions which had been given in the Registration Courts, and, in fact, to declare what the present law was. He did not understand the hon. Member to be engaged in this disfranchising campaign. It might, or might not, be desirable to put into the Bill a definition of "dwellinghouse" such as that proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex; but if they did put a definition at all in the Bill, it ought to be one which would express the real state of the law as now established by the decisions in the Registration Courts.

said, that though he did not take quite the view of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he was afraid he saw some difficulty in supporting this Amendment in the precise terms in which the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) had placed it before the Committee. He did not think, however, that the hon. Baronet's Amendment was open to the strictures which had been heaped upon it by the Government. The hon. Baronet was told he had not brought his Amendment forward in the proper place. He (Mr. J. Lowther) never knew what was a proper place for an Amendment of which the Government did not happen to approve. If the hon. Baronet had waited until they had reached some other clause, he would, in all probability, have been told that he had lost his chance. His (Mr. J. Lowther's) experience of the working of Bills in Committee had convinced him that, if any Member desired to obtain an alteration of the original drafting, he could not make his proposal too early in the proceedings. If a Member waited until the end of the Bill, he would probably find that the Committee had ceased to take any interest in the subject, and that he could not obtain the ear of the Committee. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) raised an entirely different question from that which he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood was in the mind of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) when he drew the Amendment. As he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood, his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) proposed merely to apply the decision to what were generally known as separate houses; whereas the strict words of the hon. Baronet's Amendment would include a building which was divided into numerous apartments of the kind described by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). It appeared to him (Mr. J. Lowther) that, under the plan of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis), a Revising Barrister, especially in one part of the Kingdom, which the hon. Gentleman indicated, would have to discharge functions somewhat analogous to those which were usually assigned to an Inspector of Nuisances—he would have to decide whether a house was fit for human habitation, and whether its occupation should confer the right to the franchise. It was perfectly clear that, by the Bill as drawn by Her Majesty's Government, a large number of dwellings, which were undoubtedly unfit for any human being to inhabit, would confer upon the occupier the right to the franchise. Now, if the owners of these dwellings attempted to remedy the present state of affairs, they would probably cease to exist for many days in this earthly sphere. That was all the more reason why the Committee should make an attempt to discourage the habitation of dwellings of this description. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister talked of capable citizens. He (Mr. J. Lowther) preferred the term "loyal subjects," because he preferred a Monarchy to a Republic. The Amendment had succeeded, at any rate, in drawing attention to a most important subject; and, perhaps, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe might be of opinion that his object would be served if he obtained, before the discussion closed, an assurance from the Government that they would consider some means of dealing with this branch of the question. He (Mr. J. Lowther) so far agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that he thought it would hardly be practicable, at the present time, to say that persons occupying very humble dwellings should not have votes at all; but he must take the opportunity of again reminding the Committee that there were means of preventing the lower classes from having a monopoly of the franchise. They saw from the Returns which had been laid before Parliament, that they were about to hand over, in one portion of the United Kingdom, the largest share of electoral power entirely to persons whose dwellings were clearly unfit for human habitation. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said just now that his attention had been called to dwellings not far from where they were now assembled, which came within that category. Did the right hon. Baronet realize that the Government were pro- posing to hand the larger share of electoral power in one part of the United Kingdom entirely to persons who occupied dwellings of that kind? The other plan, which he (Mr. J. Lowther) ventured once again to call attention to, was that persons who were possessed of a larger share in the rateable value of the locality, and who had a greater stake in the country than others, should have a multiplicity of votes, in order to militate against the influence of that enormous prepondrance of persons who inhabited places unfit for human habitation. He hoped they would have some plan submitted to them which would prevent persons of the lower class swamping every other class in the body politic. The Government seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that, as long as a person had a roof over his head, he had as much right to have the same voice in the national affairs as a person who contributed largely to the local and Imperial taxation. How was it they stopped there? Why did the Prime Minister say that a person who, in conjunction, perhaps, with a dozen others, occupied one room, was a capable citizen; while the person who did not occupy a room at all was an incapable one? The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe had done service in introducing this Amendment, and it was to be hoped that, before the discussion closed, he would succeed in eliciting some further explanation from the Government.

said, he objected to the Amendment, because they were asked to define "dwellinghouse qualification," which words did not appear in the Bill. He considered, however, that the Committee was indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Watkin) for introducing the question. He complained of the easy method the Government adopted of dealing with Amendments. They raised the cry, "Disfranchisement, disfranchisement!" to nearly every proposition that was made. It was very easy to call names; but the cry of "Disfranchisement" was not a sufficient answer to every Amendment. In the firstplace, he asked Liberal Members whether they would lay down the proposition, that there was not, at the present moment, on the electoral roll a single person who ought not to be enfranchised? Would they undertake to say that so perfect was our electoral system that there was not a single person on the Register who ought not to be there? Because, if there was, the cry of "Disfranchisement" would be absurd. He did not scruple to say boldly and distinctly that there were many persons on the Register now who ought not to be there. This was an age of political hypocrisy, and there were a great many men on both sides of the House who had not the courage to say what they really felt and believed. Hon. Members knew that, in their own constituencies, there were a great number of men who had votes, but who were not fit to exercise the franchise. Liberal Members especially were apt to bow down before the idol of vulgar opinion, and act in spite of their consciences. He hoped that, in this age of cant, there would be some few found who had the courage to speak their minds. Unfortunately, there were men like the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who were afraid to speak their minds on this subject. In his (Mr. Warton's) opinion, the Government ought to jump at this Amendment with pleasure, as giving some difinition of what they meant by a house, and by what they meant by household qualification. It was true that the 7th clause was a hash-up of several definitions; but it was equally true that there was not a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who would get up and say what a house was, or what was meant by household qualification. He regarded the Amendment as an honest attempt to solve a very great difficulty—a difficulty from which the Government shrank, because they were incapable of finding a solution, and because, if they could, they had not the courage.

said, that, whether that was the proper time or not to introduce it, there was considerable force in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). Up to the present there had been no definition of a house, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had begged the question. The right hon. Gentleman said the object of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe was to disfranchise a number of voters who now possessed the franchise. He (Mr. Whitley) did not understand that to be the object of the hon. Baronet. The object of the Amendment was, as far as he could judge, to place some interpretation upon the word "house," and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had at all recognized the difficulty which many hon. Members felt. They were about to extend the franchise in Ireland to men paying only £1 rent. Now, they wanted to know whether, in extending the franchise to such a class of men, they might not be extending it to perhaps 10 people in the one dwelling? He asked the Committee to consider whether the people who inhabited the hovels of Ireland were really capable citizens? If they had no definition whatever of "house," one of the huts in Ireland might give the franchise to five or six people. So far as the Committee was given to understand, every one of the persons inhabiting a £1 house in Ireland would be entitled to a vote. It was quite beside the question for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to talk about a great number of capable citizens living in single rooms. They all knew that, in large towns, there were many capable citizens living in one room; but that did not affect the Amendment, which merely sought to define what a dwelling-house was. In common with many Members of the Committee, he desired there should be some definition of a house, because he was very anxious to know whether it would be possible for a house in Ireland, rented at £1, to give more than one vote? This was a serious question, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board, or some other Member of the Government, would answer the appeal made to them by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey).

said, he did not answer the appeal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), because he considered he would be entirely out of Order in doing so.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not answer his appeal, it would be necessary for him to move his Amendment when this was disposed of. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to confine the right to vote to those who occupied two or more rooms; and what he (Mr. Grey) desired to know was, whether, under the Bill, it was necessary for a householder to occupy the whole of one room before he could claim the right to vote; whether it was possible to divide a room into two halves, and let the halves to separate tenants, both of whom would have a vote? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain to the Committee what was the exact state of the law on the subject; whether it was absolutely necessary that a man should occupy the whole of a single room before he could vote?

said, hon. Members would do well to consider how the Amendment would operate in their own constituencies. He thought it was quite possible that there were, in every constituency, persons who possessed the franchise now, but who in no sense could be considered capable of taking a rational view of the questions which were on the tapis. Personally, he did not think that any such definition as that proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) would have the effect of discriminating between those who were capable of exercising the franchise and those who were not, and for the very reason, that a certain number of rooms were let for business purposes, and could not be excluded. He could not help thinking that great difficulties and dangers would arise if the word "house" were not defined, because it might be possible for the heads of several families, occupying the same room, to find their way on the Register. He hoped he was right in understanding that the Government would turn their attention to the question of defining what a house was, when the Committee arrived at a later stage of the Bill.

said, it was certain they would have to discuss the question as to the interpretation of the term "house" at a later period. It was quite true that, in large towns and cities, the same rooms were occupied by more than one family; but he was sure the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) could not mention any case where the head of those families had got on the Register. The Government answered Amendments upon their own merits, and what they objected to answer were other points raised upon Amendments.

said, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) contended that where two families occupied the same room, they could not both get on the register. It would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that one of the families could get on, yet he (Mr. Tomlinson) did not see anything to prevent it.

said, they never could prevent irregularities occurring in great cities.

said, the right hon. Baronet was running away from the subject. It was essentially necessary that the Committee should know what the Government meant by "house," and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would give them the information.

said, he had appealed in vain to the right hon. Gentleman [Sir Charles W. Dilke). He would now appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He did not wish to be unduly importunate. He had asked a simple question, and all he wanted was a simple answer. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would say whether a single room could give two votes?

said, that, in discussing what constituted a house, they were certainly travelling beyond the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). He might, however, at once say that, by the Act of 18G7, one room could not confer two votes.

said, he would not press his Amendment to a Division; but he should reserve to himself the liberty, when the 7th clause came to be discussed, of joining others in pressing on the Government the necessity of defining what a house was. It was not only desirable to define the term as a mere matter of dry law, but in the interest of sanitation. He was sorry Her Majesty's Government seemed to consider that the matter was of so very little importance, and that men might be capable citizens under every possible circumstances. That was not his opinion. He was afraid, also, that unless some such Proviso as he and the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) proposed were adopted, the Bill would lead to the manufacture of residential fagot votes. With the per- mission of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he would move the Amendment which stood in his name. It was a rather technical Amendment, yet there was much to be said in its favour. Those who drafted the Bill were evidently under some misapprehension as to the language used in the Act of 1867, and therefore this clause would want considerable alteration, if not re-drafting. The Act of 1867, first of all, recited that every man should, on and after a certain time, be entitled to be registered as a voter. It then went on to define the necessary qualifications, the first of which was, that a man should be of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity. That seemed to be omitted in this clause. Surely it was not intended that a lad, or anyone under age, who was placed as caretaker of any house should be entitled to vote? He suggested, therefore, that some words should be inserted in the clause to meet that objection. Then, again, the following language of the clause was not quite correct, and with the permission of the Committee he would read how the clause could be improved:—

"Where a man of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, has himself inhabited for a period of twelve months by virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is rated, or capable of being rated, and the dwellinghouse is not inhabited by any person, &c."

He thought that read accurately, and really carried out, better than the language adopted in the clause as it stood, the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory). It would be necessary, therefore, to move the Amendments as they stood on the Paper; and, in the first place, he moved to insert, after "man," "of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, has."

said, he did not think the Amendment was necessary. He was aware the words "of full age and of no legal incapacity" were in the Act of 1867; but he, nevertheless, considered them entirely unnecessary. When they said a man, they meant a man; and a man was not a man in the eye of the law unless he was 21 years of age. Of course, wherever legal incapacity existed, it took away from a man the right to vote. As a matter of drafting, it had been thought proper to adopt general words, subject to no particular definition.

asked whether the clause, as it stood, would include those persons who were in the service of the Crown? because, if, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, it was so drawn, he (Mr. Gorst) would be spared the necessity of moving an Amendment on the subject.

pointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) would see, by Clause 9, that—

"Where a man inhabits a dwelling house in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwelling house belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the Grown, or by reason of any other ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled to be registered as a voter."

said, he gathered that the hon. and learned Attorney General considered the insertion of the words "of full age and of no legal incapacity" unnecessary. The words appeared in. the Act of 1867; and it was somewhat strange that they should be deliberately left out of this Bill, because their omission would certainly create difficulty.

drew the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Grant-ham) to Clause 10, where it was provided—

"Nothing in this Act shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any right to be registered as a voter or to vote."

said, that in the Act of 1867 there were the two expressions—"of full age" and "of no legal incapacity." If, however, the matter had been fully considered by the Government, he would not press the Amendment.

said, he was sorry the word "has" appeared in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey (Mr. Grantham); because, if the Amendment were negatived, the Committee would not have the opportunity of considering the desirability of inserting the word "has."

said, the doubt which was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Grantham) was removed by the 11th clause—

"This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation of the People Acts as defined by this Act."

moved an Amendment to insert the word "has," which, he said, would raise the whole question of a man's right to vote.

said, he could only repeat that the clause had been very carefully drafted, and that it had been thought better to adopt general words than to attempt to run the risk of defining the right to vote.

said, they were now creating a new franchise, and they ought to be precise and explicit. Unless they were so, they might very likely defeat the object which the Government had in view. His desire was rather to assist the Government, because he considered it the duty of the Committee to turn out as perfect a piece of legislation as they could. It was much better to do a thing directly, if they could, than by reference. He thought they could do it precisely and succinctly in the way he suggested, and therefore he ventured to press his Amendment.

said, the Government carefully considered the matter both before and since they saw the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) on the Paper. This was a purely technical matter, and the reason why some voters were to be called service voters, was that they had previously had no vote because they were not occu- piers in the eye of the law—that was for the purposes of the poor rate, as they did not pay it. What they had done was to say that the person who formerly was not an inhabiting occupier should be regarded for all purposes as an inhabiting occupier of the dwelling-house as tenant. They, therefore, saved the necessity of giving a definition.

said, if the Committee did not like to adopt the Amendment, there was an end of the matter. It was a question of some difficulty, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would probably soon have an opportunity of deciding upon it. It was not likely, at any rate, to be brought before himself, and therefore he left the matter in the hands of his hon. and learned Friend. He was not prepared to press the Amendment.

said, he was bound to observe that he was not convinced by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; his last argument particularly—that about the payment of rates—seemed to him to have no application to the question at all. Either the clause should be left out, or his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should be inserted, because he (Mr. Tomlinson) thought that if a new clause required all this explanation to make it intelligible, words ought to be put in to make it plain.

said, he must press the hon. and learned Attorney General to give a definition of what was meant by a dwelling-house, as the term was used in the clause, and how many persons might be enfranchised under it? There was nothing to prevent an employer using the clause as it stood for the purpose of corrupting voters on a gigantic scale. Suppose he, himself, were to build a large number of houses, and give everyone in his service a separate room in them; there was nothing to prevent all those persons voting. The clause might very easily lead to an evil ten times greater than what was called fagot voting.

said, the question raised by the hon. Member was substantially the same as that raised by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Gregory).

asked whether the hon. and learned Attorney General contemplated the system which obtained in Scotland, where many labourers were capable of voting who lived together under what was called the "Bothy" system.

contended that they were entitled to an explanation of the meaning of the word as it existed in the mind of the Government. Was it intended to apply to distinct dwelling-houses?

said, he had already stated that those who framed the Act of 1867 left the word to be defined by the law. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) had an Amendment to propose, let it be brought forward on the Definition Clause, when every opportunity for discussion would be afforded; but he must object to anticipate it, because the Government were not then prepared to give any definition.

said, that in the Act of 1867 there was a distinct definition; the words were—

"The term dwellinghouse shall include any part of a house occupied separately as a dwelling."

said, as it seemed to be a question of some hon. Member framing a definition, he would try his "'prentice hand" at it at the proper time.

said, the Government were introducing the service franchise, and the Committee were about to give the vote to anyone who might be put into a dwelling-house by the owner. He, therefore, asked whether it was the intention of the Government that the owner of a house might introduce a number of fagot votes under the cover of the clause? Certainly, that was a most important point to consider in connection with the Bill.

said, he would contend that this was not a point to be hurried over. If the Government, having brought in a perfectly new franchise, were to dictate to the Committee how long they were to take in considering that franchise, he must say there were hon. Members in that House who would not be so treated, and he was one of them. The hon. and learned Attorney General did not seem to have the least conception of the extent of the change they were asked to make, and could give the Committee no idea of the meaning of the terms employed by the Govern- ment in their own Bill. The Committee did not even know the meaning of service franchise; they did not know whether it was to be limited to one responsible servant, such as a gamekeeper or a steward, or one occupying a position of responsibility, or whether, as would probably be the case, labourers housed under the Scotch system would be able to vote under it. Had it escaped the attention of the Prime Minister that under this section it was possible for a farmer to arrange any large shed in such a way as would give the vote to each of a large number of persons whom he might allow to occupy it—that was to say, if it were divided into compartments like the stalls for oxen? That was what the Committee wanted to know; and it was that which the hon. and learned Attorney General said they were not to know or consider. If they were not to have an explanation from the hon. and learned Attorney General, he (Mr. Warton) trusted the Prime Minister would at least clear up their doubts.

said, at line 35 of Clause 7 there were these words—

"And for the purpose of the said section and enactments the expression 'dwelling-house' in Scotland means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling; and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be substituted for the definition contained in section fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868."

Here was a new definition. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): In Scotland.] He was aware of that; but he wanted to know whether it let in what was called the bothy system in Scotland? His hon. Friend had said truly that it was easy, under the Scotch system, to make the parts of a house a separate dwelling; cottages were very often separated in that way. He was personally acquainted with a case of the kind. There might be separate dwellings in one cottage. No one knew better than the hon. and learned Attorney General that, before a Court of Law, it would be very easy to argue on both sides of the question. He thought the Committee and the country ought to be informed what sort and number of people it was proposed to enfranchise under this clause. It was a serious thing that a tenement, artificially separated, should be made the means of multiplying votes, if that was intended. He did not say it was right or wrong; but it was entirely a new idea, and a very important one; it differed altogether from other parts of the Bill, and he thought it was only right to ask how it would work.

said, it had been decided by legal authorities that the occupiers of a lodge-gate, although it was situated at a distance from the mansion, were not entitled to vote. He was personally acquainted with a case in which it was so decided. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended that lodges so occupied should come within the purview of the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to appreciate the point; but it was a very important one, and showed that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) should be pressed on the Government for the purpose of getting from them a separate definition of dwelling-houses which was to carry with them the right to the service franchise. He did not want to occupy the time of the Committee in arguing the point at length; but he placed the matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Attorney General; because it was very important, when it was considered with reference to the next clause which related to fagot votes. What they were he never knew; but, perhaps, when the clause was reached, the hon. and learned Gentleman would define them. However, if any restriction was to be put upon votes of the kind, it was necessary that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex should be admitted.

said, the Government had made no distinction whatever in the definition of a dwelling-house from what it was before. That which existed in the Act of 1867 would exist now. Each question as it arose would have to be decided upon its merits—as to whether it was a dwelling-house or not. Whatever legal decision had been obtained in reference to the Act of 1867 would be retained. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitley) had suggested that there might be a system established of making many persons inhabit one house, for the purpose of their voting separately as individuals; but the 3rd clause of the Act of 1867 provided against that; and, under this Bill, there must be separate occupation of the dwelling-house. The question that would be considered was whether there was a separate holding; and if there were not, two persons in the same house could not vote. That existed before, and it would exist hereafter; it was efficient then, and it would continue to be efficient. It had been thought better not to make any alteration in the law in this respect; and the Government had followed the example of the framers of the Bill of 1867; and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought, therefore, to be the last persons to complain of the course they had adopted with regard to the definition of a dwelling-house. As to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), sometimes lodge-keepers were the servants of the owners of the mansion, and sometimes they were simply allowed to live in the lodge and perform the service of opening the gate. A person occupying a lodge in such a manner that the master could not close the gate against him would be entitled to the vote, and it was intended that he should have it. So long as there was a separate house into which the master had not the right to go there would be a vote.

said, that that was an entirely new proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that hon. Members on that side of the House ought not to complain, because the Government had followed the framers of the Act of 1867 in respect of their treatment of the definition of the term "dwelling-house;" but he (Lord John Manners) reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that that Act did not give the suffrage to householders in counties in England and Scotland. Was it intended that all those who lived under the bothy system should exercise the vote; that only one of them should exercise it, or that none of them should have the vote? As he read the clause, only one person was to exercise the franchise; and he should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could tell the Committee whether that view was correct.

said, he understood the noble Lord to refer to several persons in service occupying the same tenement. [Lord JOHN MANNERS assented.] Then, none of them would have the vote. The words of the Act were—

"Provided that no man shall be entitled under this section to vote by reason of his being a joint occupier of a dwelling-house."

said, no doubt the hon. and learned Attorney General thought he had effectually disposed of the question; but the Committee had not been informed as to those who were entitled to be considered occupiers in the first instance. They were told that where a man himself inhabited a dwelling-house he was to have the vote. Did that include a caretaker? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No.] Well, then, if any owner had a certain number of servants in occupation of his premises, who was to decide which of them was to be entitled to vote?

said, there must be the coincidence necessary to make a man an occupier. Whether he was a caretaker or not, he must occupy the house; he must be the dominus of that house, and able to keep others out of it; he must be in the separate position of occupier, which was a term known to the law.

said, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say—although, of course, he did not mean it—that one of the conditions incident to the vote was that the occupier should be able to hold the premises against the owners. His (Mr. J. Lowther's) point was, that the proprietor might name any one of his dependents to occupy the position of caretaker who would have the vote. If he had made such a proposal, he would have been told that he had concocted a scheme of fagot voting; that he was perpetuating feudalism, and a great deal more. He understood, then, that any person might nominate anyone he chose to be his dependent, and to occupy a position conferring upon him the franchise, and that this was to be revocable at will. Now, that was evidently a matter which, to use a popular expression, ought not to be "rushed" through the Committee. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to think him very dense for not having detected a meaning which had not been given; he hoped, however, he had profited by the instruction he had received at the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he now clearly understood him.