HL Deb 04 December 1884 vol 294 cc572-84

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Kimberley.}

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he rose to make a few remarks. Their Lordships were about to go into Committee on a Bill which was to add 2,000,000 of voters to the electorate of the Three Kingdoms. Taking this Enfranchising Bill in conjunction with the very drastic Redistribution Bill which had been introduced in "another place," then he thought they could only characterize the change to be thus effected as nothing short of a peaceful, but great, revolution. A very great change was being made, and he noticed, with anxiety and some apprehension, that the effect of those two measures, in the long run, would be practically to disfranchise the middle classes who were enfranchised by the Act of 1832; and he, for one, looked upon that change with all the greater anxiety—he would not say alarm—on account of the Socialistic tendencies of the times, evinced not only as regarded foreign countries, but more or less in the case of our own country. They had only to look on the legislation of the last 14 years or more to see how many Acts of Parliament had been passed, bearing a Socialistic stamp. It was a well-known fact that some, of the ablest writers looked with grave concern upon this new development of ideas; and he could well recollect a conversation which he had in 1881 with one of the most thoughtful and able statesmen, whose recent loss, without distinction of Party, every Englishman deplored—he meant the late Postmaster General. In 1881, before the introduction of the Irish Land Bill, he had a conversation with Mr. Fawoett on this subject, in the course of which he (the Earl of Wemyss) said that, from what he had seen, the measure was likely to be one of a very drastic and Socialistic character, and one that would seriously affect the rights of property, if not property itself. What was Mr. Fawcett's reply? He said— Do not suppose that I approve of this kind of legislation. I believe it to be wrong; I believe it can lead to no good. Then he went on to use these remarkable terms— Depend upon it, the days of the old Party distinctions between Whig and Tory, Liberal and Conservative, have for ever gone by; and that the next great division of Parties in this country will be into Socialists and Anti-Socialists. As somewhat confirming that view, he (the Earl of Wemyss) had recently read, in The Pall Mall Gazette, an account of an interview with a rising statesman of the Conservative Party—he meant Lord Randolph Churchill—and what he gathered from the interview was, that, in the opinion of the noble Lord he had mentioned, the Conservatism of the future might possibly be, so far as the noble Lord was concerned, of a Socialistic and Communistic character. Conservative Communism was certainly a startling anomaly—he might even call it a hybrid monster—and, he hoped it would never receive the approval of the Conservative Party; but, at a time like the present, he might be allowed to point out that there was a regular Socialistic organ in this country. It called itself The Organ of the Social Democracy, and, in a heading of a paragraph, in a copy which he held in his hands, in large letters, he read— Send your shillings and pence for the propaganda fund to Mr. Win. Morris. In the same journal, he saw a paragraph which he would commend to the notice of the noble Duke on the Liberal Benches (the Duke of Argyll). It referred to the crofters, and was headed "The Campbells," not "are coming," but "are going." He pointed to that, to show the Democratic-Socialistic tendency of the age. He should like the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to take that paper and study it; and he could assure him that he would find it contained, if not very amusing, at least very instructive literature. He (the Earl of Wemyss) was bound to add that if the old Whigs could only realize what was going on in the ranks of Society in England, they would hesitate before supporting any more of this kind of legislation that had lately been passed, and would fall back upon the lines of Adams, Smith, Ricardo, M'Culloch, and other writers on politi- cal economy, whose teachings ho hoped had only temporarily fallen into oblivion. They might be recalled from Jupiter or Saturn, to which he trusted they had been only temporarily relegated. If they did so, he thought the result would be that they would put their foot down against any further application of Socialistic doctrines. The question they had now to ask—and it was why he introduced these remarks on this occasion—was, How would the great body of new voters think and act? When this new division of Parties took place, would all the new voters place themselves on the side of the Socialists, or of the Anti-Socialists? He hoped not on either, but that there would be a division of opinion among them as there was among their Lordships. Indeed, he knew that amongst the working classes there was, already, a marked division of opinion, and that they met and argued as Socialists and as Individualists. Having said this, he had only to add that both existing Parties were agreed in regard to the Bill now before them. There were no difficulties as to the extension of the franchise—the only difficulty had been in regard to procedure; and as to procedure—as one of those who had last Session been very anxious for compromise—he could only express the great satisfaction which he, in common with many others, felt at the arrangement which had been come to, and that a great Constitutional crisis had been thereby avoided. The events of the last three weeks were certainly of a novel character. During that time they had seen trial by jury, to a great extent, abolished by the Judges, and Parliament superseded by a Caucus of ex and in Cabinet Ministers; they had seen Party Leaders setting Party interests aside in the interest of the common weal. He himself was not a strong Party man, and he was very glad to find that for the interest of the public good Party interests could, if necessary, be set aside. The arrangement was certainly as startling in its novelty as any transformation scene, and what its effect would be on the Constitution he did not know, and could not pretend to say; but he thought that there were occasions on which it would be most desirable that Party should be set aside in the interest of the country, and that a Cabinet Caucus might advantageously deal, for example, with great questions of national defence, and other matters affecting the unity and strength of the Empire. The difficulty in which they found themselves placed upon questions connected with the national defence often arose because the Leaders of both Parties knew perfectly well what was required, but they were afraid to come down and propose it, because they dreaded that the other side would immediately say that they asked them to support a Vote for bloated armaments, and perhaps they would be told that they were advocating a Jingo policy. Where questions of Imperial importance were concerned, he thought they could not do better than enter into some such combination as had been entered into with regard to this question of the extension of the franchise and the redistribution of seats. It was not, however, for the purpose of obtruding himself upon their Lordships that ho gave utterance to those candid remarks. They were making history now, and he was anxious that he should not be misunderstood, as he had been last Session. What he had suggested then was very much what had been done since. He found that some of his Conservative Friends were under the mistaken impression that, last Session, he had wished their Lordships to pass the Franchise Bill right off before they actually had the Redistribution Bill before them. Ho hoped, however, that he had made it perfectly clear last Session that, although he was anxious to go on with the Franchise Bill, he would not consent to pass it into law without their Lordships having some hold or other upon the Redistribution Bill. He only wished them to proceed to Committee in order that the Redistribution Bill might be introduced at a later stage. After the Bill had once been rejected, he had seen that it was impossible that it could not be accepted in the Autumn Session without conditions; and, speaking in his own county on a public occasion, as early as August, he said it appeared to him impossible that English gentlemen having acted as their Lordships had done, should take the Franchise Bill as if it had been presented to them at the point of the sword; and he added that, if their Lordships were asked simply to accept the Bill without any condition as regards redistribution, their Lordships could only give one answer, and that was—"Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" But, fortunately, the difficulty had happily ended; they had got a spirit of compromise which, had led to this union between the two Parties and an arrangement of their difference. He rejoiced that a grave Constitutional crisis had been happily avoided; and as a humble occupant of the Cross Benches, he desired to express his heartfelt thanks to the Government and the Leaders on both sides, for the spirit of conciliation and compromise which they had shown. While saying that, however, he was bound to add that the fact that a crisis was imminent, and to a certain extent had arisen, was due to the way in which the Government had at first endeavoured imperiously to force through Parliament an incomplete measure of Reform, and was not duo to the Constitutional action of their Lordships' House.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, he would leave his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) to settle his differences with his Conservative Friends, and would ask leave to say two or three words before their Lordships went into Committee. By this measure 2,000,000 persons were about to be enfranchised; and so far as he was concerned, and, he was sure so far as the great majority of their Lordships were concerned, it was with the most hearty goodwill on their part that they saw this enfranchisement about to take place. He thought that when this was the case, it was a great pity to talk about Socialistic tendencies, and to speak of these new voters as if we were afraid of them. He had no doubt they would make quite as good electors as those who had already been admitted to the franchise; and he was of opinion that in admitting those persons to the franchise the less their Lordships prophesied of evil from that admission the better it would be for all parties. When this franchise measure was last before the House, he stated with pain that he was compelled to vote in favour of the Amendment to postpone the further progress of the Bill until the whole scheme of the Government had been produced. On that occasion he was subjected to a very severe attack from the noble Earl who hailed from Mid Lothian (the Earl of Rosebery). He regretted the absence of his noble Friend. On that last occa- sion of this Bill being before their Lordships, that noble Earl referred in a sarcastic tone to his (Lord Brabourne's) position in that House, and made an allusion, the irreverence of which was probably excused by the House on account of its wit. Had his noble Friend been present that night, he (Lord Brabourne) would have offered him his sincere condolence; for he perceived, by the ordinary channels of information that morning, that his own coronet had, since making that speech, become so painful to him that he was willing to abolish the hereditary principle sooner than that so intolerable a burden should descend to his children. He (Lord Brabourne) understood that it had been stated that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition would vote against the Amendment of a noble Lord on his own side (Lord Denman) dealing with the subject of woman suffrage. If that was so, he (Lord Brabourne) was inclined to believe that the noble Marquess would not be against the principle of that Amendment, but that he merely wished to express the opinion that it was not an opportune moment to bring the question forward. That, he thought, was an intelligible standpoint to take lip. The question, however, was one which had come into great prominence of late years; and he hoped it would not be long before the right of admission of duly qualified women to the suffrage would be recognized. If, therefore, he and others forebore to press their views upon this and other points at this moment, they must not be precluded from doing so at a more favourable opportunity.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, as a consistent Liberal, it did not seem to him to be a desirable thing that a measure of this great importance should be settled, not by Parliament, but by private arrangement between the Leaders of the two great Parties in the State. The compromise on this matter reminded him of what was said of the Peace of Amiens—"It is a Peace of which everyone is glad, but of which no one could be proud." He spoke as a consistent Liberal, for he defied anyone to cite any vote, speech, or publication of his inconsistent with his life-long attachment to the great principles of civil, religious, and commercial liberty. Indeed, as regarded the measure before them, he had, as long ago as 1867, years before the conversion of the present Government to it, pressed upon their Lordships the justice and expediency of extending to the agricultural labourers, as, at least, equally deserving of it, the franchise, which they were then widely conferring upon the householders and lodgers in the boroughs. He had then shown from official statistics how little lower in education, and how much better as regards crime, immorality, and drunkenness, the agricultural labourers, on the average, were, mainly, no doubt, from their being so much more decently lodged than the inhabitants of towns, hundreds of thousands of whom had, with their families, only a single room to live in by day as well as sleep in by night. He congratulated the Government on their doubtless sincere, but somewhat tardy, recognition of the agricultural labourers' just claims to the franchise, and congratulated the noble Marquess and his Friends on their still tardier, but doubtless equally sincere, conversion. As a consistent Liberal, ho earnestly hoped that the Liberal Governments of the future would not convert this compromise into a precedent for superseding the deliberate action of Parliament, and preventing the discussion and amendment of the Bills brought before them. Measures might hereafter be rushed through the House, as he feared was likely to be the case in regard to this measure, with defects in the wording. It would, he thought, be a great misfortune if this Bill were passed without any verbal Amendments, because the want of clearness of expression in legislation would lead to difficulty and doubt, and to much costly litigation.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, he had not intended to say anything on the Motion for going into Committee; but a few words had fallen from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne), who, he believed, had correctly interpreted the views of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), which made him feel that, personally, at all events, it was desirable that he should add a caveat to the remarks of the noble Lord. He was quite aware that it was desirable, on all accounts, to pass the Bill substantially in the same condition in which it had come before their Lordships; and for that reason he, for one, would be averse to suggest the introduc- tion of any new matter which might endanger the Bill; but he agreed with those who thought that the time was rapidly approaching when the claims of a very important section indeed of the community—namely, duly-qualified women—must receive the attention of Parliament; and it was no use putting the question aside by a bad joke. He considered all the arguments that had been used, whether logical or practical, really pointed to the admission of duly-qualified women. There was very little, indeed, to be said on behalf of the large class they were now about to enfranchise that could not be said with equal effect on behalf of duly-qualified women. In making these remarks he did not wish to raise any discussion, but simply to express his own opinion in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, and he should make no Motion on the subject.

Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

Preliminary.

Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.

Extension of the Household and Lodger Franchise.

Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).

LORD BRAMWELL,

who had on the Paper a Notice to move, in page 1, line 13, the insertion of the words "not in a borough," said, that the object of the intended Amendment had been to dear up a doubt arising from its having been forgotten that all boroughs were in counties; and so a voter in a borough might claim to vote for a county, which could not have been intended. But there was no question of principle. After a certain amount of litigation, and an Act or two to amend, a meaning would be put on the clause. He meant his Amendment for the good of the Bill; but as the Government objected he would not move it. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) was quite mistaken in supposing that the learned Judge had done anything contrary to law. What he had done was quite in conformity with the practice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he would point out to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) that it was provided that the word "county" should bear the same interpretation as it did in previous Acts dealing with the Re-resentation of the People; and these previous Acts expressly excepted the boroughs that had Parliamentary representation of their own.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, that the explanation might be right, but that it would be better that the clause should be so worded as to need no explanation. With reference to a remark made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) with reference to the action of a certain learned Judge, that that learned Judge had done what had been done not only hundreds, but thousands of times before. He (Lord Bramwell) also had some personal interest in this matter; because he had done the same at least 150 times himself.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that, as their Lordships no doubt anticipated, the Government were not disposed to agree to the insertion of this large Amendment on their scheme of enfranchisement. He should, however, follow the example of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who had just now alluded to the subject, by declining to go into the question. He had only one remark to make with reference to what had been said by that noble Earl. The noble Earl said he saw no reason why duly-qualified women should not be admitted to the franchise. By that he supposed the noble Earl meant that ho considered the question as to women who paid rates settled, and that a large and not unimportant section—the women who happened to be married—should have no consideration for their claims. As to the question itself, he did not wish to express any opinion personally, but only to point out the distinction that was drawn between single and married women; and he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) had correctly interpreted what he had said the other evening, as not implying any unwillingness to consider the principle of female franchise, but simply as an intimation that he would vote against the intended Motion. His own judgment leant certainly to some relaxation of the law in this respect, though he was not prepared to go all the lengths to which some of the advocates of the proposal went. But he agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that this was not a suitable time—not suitable in the interests of women's franchise itself—to press the Amendment, because the House of Commons had clearly resolved not to agree to such an Amendment; and if it were inserted, when the Bill went back to the House of Commons, many would be compelled to vote against it, who otherwise might not be disposed to do so. Therefore, there was no advantage to be gained by pushing the Amendment; and the effect of so doing might rather tend to injure the chances of success of the movement for the extension of the franchise to women.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Tenure of house by office or service not to invalidate vote) agreed to.

LORD DENMAN,

who had given Notice of the insertion of new Clauses A, B, C, and D, on the first being read, said, he could only propose this clause as the House was pledged (by Speech from the Throne, June 1859) to pass a well-considered measure, and the late Lord Lyttelton proposed such a clause in l867. It was said that his Lordship did not write a legible hand himself; but he (Lord Denman) had great respect for some men who could neither read nor write—their memory was so good. A huntsman named John Shirley, quite illiterate, saved Sir Richard Sutton much money by keeping 30 horses and 90 couples of hounds at Burton for the same that 30 horses cost at Lincoln. Such men, for the sake of a vote, would soon learn to read and write; and he had seen, in a school on the borders of the county of Tipperary, in 1836, a man aged 60 learning to read and write. Since the last harvest he had had two letters from men who worked for him in County Galway, written in the best possible handwriting, and expressing the best possible sentiments. Voting papers might be used generally if this clause were carried; but to avoid delay he would withdraw it.

Moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—

(Disqualification for inability to write.)

"Clause (A.) From and after the expiration of six months after the passing of this Act, no one shall be entitled to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament who cannot write a legible hand.

"The Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council are hereby authorised and required to frame and issue, within three months after the passing of this Act, regulations to carry the last preceding enactment into effect."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that it was impossible to agree to clauses of this kind. The noble Lord proposed, for instance, that no one should vote who could not write a legible hand. He (the Earl of Kimberley) had in his official capacity considerable experience of illegible handwriting, and he could wish that people could be made to write legibly. But he thought the application of the clause would be very much wider than was contemplated by the noble Lord.

Clause negatived. Clause (B.) No person who has been three times convicted of drunkenness shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in the next election after the last of such convictions.

LORD DENMAN

said, he had tried to carry it in 1867, as some persons were many times convicted of drunkenness; but he would not press it.

Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause (C.) During the continuance of the Contagious Diseases Acts no person receiving a registered woman or women as a lodger or lodgers shall be entitled to vote during the continuance of the harbouring of such registered woman or women.

LORD DENMAN

said, the clause was framed to prevent the franchise from being in bad hands; but it was rather the subject of such a Bill as passed the House of Lords as to brothels last Session, so he would withdraw it.

Clause negatived. Clause (D.) All women not legally disqualified who have the same qualifications as the present (or future) electors for counties and boroughs shall be entitled to vote for knights of the shire and burgesses for boroughs at every election.

LORD DENMAN

said, the clause was framed because, in the Bill in "another place," a marked exclusion of married women existed, and in cases where a woman was ill-used, as in the case of "Greenhill v. Russell," alluded to in the debate on the Custody of Infants Bill, 1859, July 10. Sufficient time might have been given to insert this clause, and if it had been rejected for it to have been reinstated by this House, and to have been made the subject of a free conference between the two Houses of Parliament, Lord Fitzgerald's Infants Bill might, in the Select Committee, deal with the subject. In the 43rd year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Parliament met on October 27, and sat, with short intervals, till December 19; but the noble Marquess, whose ancestor had, in 1605, been on a Committee of this House for public piety, had pledged himself to expedite this measure, on the principle of which all their Lordships were agreed, therefore he would not press it.

Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Prohibition of Multiplication of Votes.

Clause 4 (Restriction on fagot votes) agreed to.

Assimilation of Occupation Qualification.

Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification), agreed to.

Supplemental Provisions.

Clause 6 (Voter not to vote for county in respect of occupation of property in borough); Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto); and Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts," and "Registration Acts,") severally agreed to.

Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).

LORD BALFOUR,

in moving an Amendment with the view of providing that in Scotland householders paying less than £4 of rent should not be put on the Valuation Roll, but should be enumerated in a separate list, said, he objected to the proposed inclusion in the County Valuation Rolls of Scotland of persons whose holdings were of less value than £4. They would run the risk of being rated, which they were not at the present time; besides, that would be adding the trouble and expense of keeping a Roll made for purely local purposes to the inconvenience of those who had to deal with it, and doing it not for local, but for Imperial purposes. If the clause were carried as it stood, the expense of preparing and printing Valuation Rolls would be largely increased. It would not be fair to throw on local funds what ought to be an Imperial burden. The insertion of householders under £4 would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and expense, and would not serve any purpose that could not be equally well served by a separate list. In connection with the subject he had received a letter from one of the Assessors of Aberdeenshire, in which he pointed out that there were at present 25,000 names on his Roll, and that this Bill would require the addition of 12,000 more names, which would be of no use for rating purposes.

Amendment moved, in page 6, line 11, after ("book") insert ("in Scotland a separate list, instead of a separate column, may be added for such entries.")—{The Lord Balfour.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was unable to follow the technical arguments of the noble Lord, because he was not personally acquainted with the mysteries of Scotch valuations. A similar Amendment, however, had been brought forward in the other House, where it had been fully considered and negatived without a division. He understood there was a difference of opinion among hon. Members from Scotland on the subject, some thinking it would be better to have a separate list and others not; but, after considering all the circumstances, the Lord Advocate had come to the conclusion that it was better that all the names should be given in the Valuation Roll. He might simply add, as reference had been made to the Assessor of Aberdeenshire, that the Assessor of North Lanark had written a letter in which he expressed the opposite opinion.

LORD BALFOUR

said, his Amendment was only permissive; and therefore, even if it were accepted, the Assessor of North Lanark could still follow his own course.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Saving); Clause 11 (Construction of Act); Clause 12 (Repeal of certain superseded sections); and Clause 1.3 (Commencement of Act) severally agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.