COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS JUNE 24.] (Hansard, 25 June 1867)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
proposed to add the following words at the end of the clause:— And with the Registration Acts; and in construing the provisions of the 24th and 25th sections of the Act 2 Will. IV. c. 45, the expressions 'the provisions hereinafter contained' and 'as aforesaid,' shall be deemed to refer to the provisions of this Act conferring rights to vote as well as to the provisions of the said Act.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, the Committee ought to have some explanation of those words.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, they were very simple. The object of the 24th and 25th sections of the Act in question was to prevent any person from voting for a county in respect of a freehold house occupied by himself which would confer a vote for the borough, and to prevent a person from voting in a county in respect of certain copyholds and leaseholds in a borough under the same circumstances. The House was unanimously of opinion that a person so situated should 509 not vote in a county, and the object of the addition of those words to the clause was to carry out that view.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, the question was one which the Committee had decided, and they could not propose to renew that discussion.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
moved, after line 7, page 14, to add— 'Dwelling house' shall include any building, or part of a building, occupied as a dwelling, and separately rated to the relief of the poor; 'lodgings' shall mean any part of a house or building occupied by any person dwelling therein, and not separately rated to the relief of the poor. The Committee would recollect that they had given a vote to every occupier of a dwelling-house, and had said that in all such cases the occupier, not the owner, was to be rated in respect of it. The words were "dwelling house or other tenement," recognizing what he believed was the general sense of the Committee, that it was in tended to include under the term "dwelling-house" everything which was substantially a dwelling house, although it might only be a part of a single building, as in the case of flats, chambers in the Inns of Court and in Victoria Street, and flats as they existed in Sunderland, Newcastle, and the North of England as well as in Scotland. It would be impossible to undertake the task of defining with any satisfactory result what should constitute a flat, with reference to a separate door or staircase. They must therefore enact that the occupation of less than the entire house, if the occupier were separately rated, should entitle a man to the franchise. He could not, of course, pretend to define under what circumstances the overseers should rate persons separately. That was a point as to which persons must be left to their remedies. But it was right that words should be introduced showing that where any inhabited portion of a building was separately rated it should be treated for the purposes of the franchise as a dwelling-house.

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE
said, this was a more serious question than the House is aware of. He thought it unadvisable to insert in the interpretation clause a definition of the words "dwelling-house." A judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, when Sir William Erle was Chief Justice, accurately defines what is a dwelling-house 510 under the meaning of the Reform Act. The judgment, which had reference to the distinction between a dwelling-house and part of a house, determined that part of a house may give the franchise provided it is occupied as an independent occupation and there is a complete severance between it and the remainder of the house, even though the landlord resides there. The result of that decision is that every man who inhabits a flat, chambers in the Inns of Court, and—where a house is divided into several floors, if each of those floors has a separate entrance from a common passage leading from a common staircase, with a common outer door—each person who occupies one of these floors as a separate house, is entitled to a vote. The difference between this decision and the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was this, that according to the latter any person who occupied and resided in premises, being part of a building, whether separated or not from the rest of the building, would, if rated, be entitled to a vote as the occupier of a dwelling-house. He did not say that such a person ought not to be entitled, but what he did say was that if the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal were adopted it would make a great addition to what was meant as a dwelling-house. Now, as a clear definition of what was meant by a dwelling-house had been given by the Court of Common Pleas, what more did they want? If they were to introduce a definition of a dwelling-house into the Bill, the effect of it would be to put revising barristers at sea upon that subject.

§ MR. LIDDELL
reminded the Committee that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to which the hon. and learned Serjeant had directed their attention had been delivered under totally different circumstances from those which would arise under the present Bill. At that time the owner, and not the occupier, was in the great majority of instances liable for the payment of the rates; but by the measure now before the Committee the occupier himself should take upon himself that liability if he desired to acquire the franchise. The measure, as it stood, would thus exclude a large number of persons who were perfectly qualified to return Members to that House, and in order to obviate that grievance a provision like that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman was necessary, and he should therefore support it.

§ MR. INGHAM
also supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.

MR. HEADLAM
remarked that in Newcastle-on-Tyne many old - fashioned houses formerly inhabited by the well-to-do classes were now occupied in flats by labouring people, the outer door not being in the possession of any one person. It was to be regretted that so many persons lived in houses of this description, but it was attributable to the difficulty of finding better accommodation. According to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas these persons would not have votes, which he thought they were clearly entitled to if they were separately rated.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, that the hon. and learned Serjeant had given them the present legal interpretation of the word "dwelling - house," but that was, he understood, very different from the interpretation which had formerly been adopted. There seemed no reason, therefore, why that interpretation itself might not be again altered, and he thought they ought now to give a clear definition of the meaning the word was intended to convey.

MR. GLADSTONE
I agree with my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat that it would be very desirable to give a definition of the word "dwelling-house." I understood that Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the Attorney General, undertook to see what could be done in the way of defining it. As no clause has proceeded from the consideration which they have given to the subject, I have come to the conclusion—and I am not at all surprised at it—that they have found difficulties in their way so great that they have not been able to submit to the Committee, with satisfaction to themselves, any distinct definition in terms of a "dwelling-house." I hope, therefore, that the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond is not at all in conflict with what has been stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King), because, although my hon. and learned Friend does not directly and in terms define a dwelling—that is to say, by reference to its conformation and its access — yet indirectly he gives a perfect, absolute, and simple definition of a dwelling-house—namely, a tenement which, even if it be not a separate; house, is subject to a separate rating; and that appears to me to be a reasonable proposal. I think it is a great mistake to 512 set up judicial construction against legislative discretion in cases of this description. The business of a Judge is not to find the best possible definition, but to construe the existing law, whatever it may be; while the business of the legistator is to determine, not upon considerations of interpretation, but upon considerations of policy, what is the best course to be taken. Let me now observe that this question is essentially shifted by the introduction of the lodger franchise. We have to draw a line which will separate the lodger from the householder. Last year we had to consider this question, and to encounter the same difficulties which I imagine the Government have now to encounter. We did not then find it possible to arrive at any satisfactory definition of the word "dwelling-house," in direct terms; and consequently we were driven to the necessity of adopting the proposal which is now revived in substance by my hon. and learned Friend—namely, that that which the parish finds it convenient on the whole to subject to separate rating, shall be for the purposes of this law a dwelling-house. Let us look at the advantages which this proposal presents. In the first place, it is eminently agreeable to that which the House has adopted as the principle of the Bill—namely, personal rating. Here are a class of persons every one of whom, by the force of the terms used, must be permanently rated, and must be under exactly the same obligations with respect to their personal rates, whether they have apartments to which there is a separate and independent access, or whether they are dependent upon a common access. But what has a common access to do with the respectability or responsibility of the party? Nothing whatever: and if the principle of the Bill be the principle of personal rating—that every man who is to enjoy the franchise as a householder is to do so because he is the direct object of the local tax, and because he is under an absolute legal liability to pay that tax personally — I want to know what conceivable reason there can be in the fact that he has an outer access to his house which is common to him with many other persons, for excluding him from a privilege which does not depend upon any consideration connected with the structure and conformation of the dwelling? If we decline to give the franchise in such a case, we depart from the principle of the Bill, and mar its application. But how will this Amendment work? It will work, I 513 believe, with the greatest possible simplicity. There are two modes of proceeding proposed. One is that we should indicate separate rating as the test of the house-holding character; the next is that we should lay down as the test certain conditions connected with the structure of the house. If you adopt the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend you have, when you come before the revising barrister, nothing to do, to ascertain whether a man is qualified to register as a householder, but to turn to the rate book; but if, on the other hand, you adopt the principle that the appearance of his name on the rate book is not sufficient, you are driven to the alternative of compelling him to call witnesses and to produce evidence to satisfy the revising barrister, and probably to produce plans and drawings to show that there exists a separate access to the premises in respect of which the franchise is claimed. This question is, in point of fact, the very same question over again which was originally agitated as to clear annual value. In the case of a reference to the rate book we shall escape all these difficulties. The Government process of deciding what is to be considered a dwelling-house will be cumbrous and expensive, whereas the definition offered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond is simple and effective. If we adopt the principle of separate access, and that is to be fatal to the right of enjoying household suffrage so called, every man will be thrown back upon the lodger franchise, and then we ought to inquire what is a separate access. Some Members of this House have no separate access to their chambers, and the houses in Victoria Street have no separate access. Most of the chambers in the Inns of Court have, and they are separately rated; but they have a common staircase; and I contend that a common staircase ought to have no bearing upon this question. I understand all the anxiety manifested by the Committee is to find a definition of a "dwelling-house" which shall not cut out persons subject to the condition of a common access, but those persons who live in miserable hovels which are not fit to be called dwelling-houses. I understand that in the case of the northern towns there are buildings in which a great many of the labouring classes are accommodated in apartments one over the other, and notwithstanding they are separately rated. Now, there will be a great advantage in having 514 a natural, self-adjusting, and spontaneous working machinery, and the parish will rate people according to the mode most convenient for rating purposes; and we should follow that principle which has in itself a spontaneous action rather than a definition of an artificial and conventional character. Much has been said of the incongruity and impropriety of disfranchising proposals coming from the Liberal side of the House. But, at any rate, this proposal is not one of this description, for it is one of an enfranchising character. There is this important difference between a householder and a lodger. A householder is registered by a public officer, and a lodger will have to make out his claim and prove his title to vote; and the practical operation of the clause will be that scarcely one out of two or three will obtain the franchise as compared with the householders. Therefore, because of the simplicity of this definition,, of the enfranchising tendency, of the practical results, and of the legal principle involved, I hold that this proposal is a good proposal, and as there is no other in a distinct shape before the Committee, and as I believe no other proposal of an effective kind can be produced, I think this one fully deserves the approval of the Committee.

§ MR. NEATE
said, he thought it unfortunate that the question should be mixed up with the previous question of "What is a dwelling-house?" He wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite upon what the right of rating was to depend? Was it upon the discretion of the overseer? Had the owner of a house the right to claim to be rated for the purpose of registration, and ought he to have that right, even though the tenement he occupied might not be worth 10s. or 20s. a year? If a man had a right to be rated without reference to the nature of his tenement, the Parliamentary franchise would be very much lower than the municipal. He wished to protect the public against the influx of the lower class of voters, who he was afraid would obtain admission in large numbers.

§ MR. WATKIN
said, the addition to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was in opposition to, and would come into conflict with, the lodger clause which had been already passed by the Committee. That clause required that lodgings should be part of the same dwelling-house, whereas the clause now proposed said that the tenement 515 should be part of a house or dwelling-house. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) that they should be informed whether under this Bill the occupier of a hovel was to become one of the future legislators for this Empire. In former discussions they had had a promise from the Government of a definition of what a dwelling-house was to be considered. As this had not yet been fulfilled, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond should, in his Amendment, insert after the word "building" the words "fit for human habitation." That would deal with the question, which the House must admit to be of great importance. The effect of the clause would be to give dwellings notoriously unfit for human habitation additional value from the occupier having a vote.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
said, the difficulty in the way of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was, that anything actually inhabited by a human being would probably be determined by a Court of Law to be fit for human habitation, because if not fit it would not be inhabited. But the hon. Gentleman would find his remedy in the principle of the Bill, which was, that those who lived in hovels should be put in the position of holding political power. However, he was not one of those who approved of that principle, and if the hon. Gentleman could discover any means of excluding the hovel population, he should be very glad to give his assistance. He wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond to the result of his definition of the word lodging. As now defined, in connection with the lodger clause, it appeared to him that any man who was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment would have a vote under this Bill. [Laughter.] He was sorry that his suggestion should be received with ridicule; but he was afraid it was an actual fact. The definition included any part of a house occupied by a person dwelling there. The prisoner occupied a part of the House in which he dwelt, and was certainly not rated to the poor. There was not a word as to the occupier paying rent, but only as to the clear annual value of the tenement. It would be dangerous to leave the definition wholly to the discretion of the Courts of Law.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it had been thought wiser to leave the existing decisions, as to what was a 516 dwelling-house, to stand, instead of adopting legislation which was likely to conflict with them. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had the merit of simplicity; but the question was whether that was a sufficient reason to induce them to adopt his definition. At present it rested very much with the overseers whether they would rate particular persons occupying particular rooms; and if this definition were adopted, this consequence would arise—that rooms which an overseer was induced to rate separately in one year would constitute a dwelling-house in that year, and that they would cease to do so next year, because the overseer might then refuse to rate them separately. As to a hovel not being a dwelling-house, they must first define what was a hovel. As long as they had the definition given of a dwelling-house under the Reform Act by the Courts of Law, after a vast amount of consideration, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Rochester, was it not better to leave that definition to stand, rather than to say that any person who had a single room in a house opening on a common staircase, or even over a stable, provided only the overseer rated him separately, was the occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of that Bill?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
asked, if it was so clear what the Courts of Law had done in defining what a "dwelling-house" was, why the Government had not adopted and incorporated it with this Bill? If the proposal were not incorporated in the Bill, a large class of persons inhabiting tenements of a certain sort would be left in doubt whether they were inhabiting houses or not. The Government had undertaken to give a clear definition of the term, and they had failed. It would be very unsatisfactory to leave the matter to the Courts of Law. He wished to ask the Solicitor General whether the persons inhabiting the large blocks of buildings known as Alderman Waterlow's, and others of the same sort, were to be held inhabitant householders or lodgers.

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, he thought it obvious that by the Bill of the Government, as it now stood, the occupant of a single room on a staircase or over a stable would have a vote, and the objection taken to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond applied equally to that of the Government. He thought that if the decisions of the Courts of Law were opposed to the principles of this Bill, 517 and were not in accordance with what the Committee intended, then the Committee should take the matter into their own hands, and not leave it to the presiding judge of any court to make the law. There were thousands of dwelling-houses in this country which would be excluded if the language of the clause was left unaltered, though the occupants of them possessed every moral and social qualification for the exercise of the franchise. He took it that the object of the Government was to enfranchise every bonâ fide occupier of a house paying rates. In his own borough persons rated for rooms would not be enfranchised by the Bill of the Government without adopting the Amendment proposed, There were several houses in Sunderland all entered by a common street door. If the houses were dilapidated, or the street doors had fallen off their hinges, the inhabitants of these houses would have votes; but if there were locks to the street doors they would have no votes. He asked would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be content to take the law from the judges on this particular point, when he had the opportunity of correcting one of the most strange anomalies that ever existed. Men paying £8 or £9 a year rent would have no votes; while persons living in houses falling into decay without street doors, and who only paid 9d. or 1s. a week rent could have a vote because the winds of heaven could blow into their dwellings unobstructed by any street door. He trusted the Government would reconsider their decision, and assured them that they would be acting most unequally if they did not agree to the Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
admitted that it was necessary to have a definition of a dwelling-house, and he regretted that the learned Gentlemen employed by the Government had not prepared such a definition. He doubted, however, whether the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), simple as it was, would not leave matters worse than they were. The Amendment would get rid of a great deal of litigation before the revising barrister; but, in the case of a hostile claimant appealing before the parish officer, there was nothing to prevent the latter saying that the former did not occupy a dwelling-house, and that, therefore, he would not put him on the rate book. The matter ought not to be left in doubt, for any per- 518 son to fish up antagonistic judgments by the Courts of Law, but there ought to be a clear definition of the meaning of a dwelling-house.

MR. BRIGHT
I think if any Gentleman had received any communication from registration agents during the discussion of this Bill, he would be asked if it be possible to remove from this great question some of those apparently small matters that create great litigation and difficulty in connection with the registration action under the Reform Act. I have received such a letter from the registration agent in the town in which I live, and if the Committee could settle the question it would be of great advantage. At present the question is very much unsettled. The revising barristers are continually giving different decisions on the point; and it would be a great advantage to adopt the plan now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, even if it could be shown, which it cannot, that it is not the best plan of all that can be brought forward. Even though it should not be the best plan of all, I think it would be of great advantage to accept it rather than adopt no plan at all. The Solicitor General is afraid that if the Amendment were adopted, the overseer would rate persons out of favour not entitled to have a vote. That is a mistake. The overseer wants to have as few persons rated as possible. If he rates them, it will give him more trouble in preparing his books and in collecting the rates: and the interest of the overseer always will be to have as few persons on the rate book as possible; so that on that ground there is no real objection to the Amendment. As to the whole matter, it is not probably of great consequence whether a few persons should get on or be kept off, that the law did not intend; considering the great number of electors to be got under the Bill, half a dozen votes will be of little consequence in future compared with past times. This question will not be contested so furiously as in past times, and this House may proceed at once to define what a dwelling-house means. I think if you say any building or part of a building in which a family lives, that is rated to the poor, shall be called a dwelling house, you put into the hands of the parish authorities a mode of conducting its affairs, and of deciding how far the suffrage will go. You will thus have a definition that will put au end to litigation, and be founded on a safe principle. If the authorities of a 519 parish shall decide that a set of rooms shall be rated as a dwelling-house, I would advise the House of Commons to give the occupier a vote without further contest. Then comes the question which the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) misunderstood. The lodger question is settled; for it is not connected with the question of rating, and the lodger has only to prove that he has lived in his lodgings for a certain time, and that the room he occupies is of the clear yearly value of £10. The noble Lord need not be afraid that any person in a penitentiary will take the trouble to prove his right to a vote, and even if he did, he would not be let out to prove it. I believe it will be gratifying to persons connected with the registration if you settle the question on the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.

§ MR. DENMAN
understood some time ago that the Law Officers of the Crown had undertaken to draw up a definition of a dwelling-house. That would be a difficult task; but the present Amendment did not propose such a definition. There was considerable difficulty in the present law; and, on the whole, he thought the Committee could not do better than adopt the principle laid down by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer), that for the purposes of the franchise a dwelling house should include the case of part of a house, provided it were occupied as a dwelling and were separately rated.

MR. HENLEY
said, that the Solicitor General had failed to tell the Committee what the definition of a dwelling-house by the Courts of Law really was. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Heathcote), that it was most desirable that there should be such a definition. At the same time he doubted whether this Amendment would be a wise one, because it would leave all the overseers in the country in the greatest possible difficulty as to what dwellings they were to rate, and what they were not to rate. The Amendment would leave it entirely to their arbitrary will whether to rate one of these occupancies or not. Now he did not think that was a discretion which they would like to have, or which Parliament ought to leave to them. Parliament ought not to drive parties to legal proceedings, either to compel the overseers to put them on the rate book or to appeal against being put on the rate book. He could not vote for the Amendment because it would throw things completely into con- 520 fusion. It would be a most inconvenient thing to have overseer A. this year putting men on the register, and overseer B. next year cutting them off, without any one being able to say that they had done wrong.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the first question to be determined was whether the Committee intended to adhere to the definition of a dwelling-house as established by law, or to make a new definition of their own irrespective of the existing law. Of course, it would be quite competent for the Committee to say that they would have a definition of their own; and that definition would not necessarily be in accordance with the present decisions of the Courts of Law. Now, in his opinion, it would be wise not to interfere with the law as it now stands. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Government found an insuperable difficulty in giving a definition, but the fact was that in their judgment, it was better that the law should not be altered, and that the present decisions should determine the matter. Even if the Committee adopted the Amendment, they would still leave it to the Courts of Law to determine what it was that constituted a separate and complete dwelling-house. Could any one say authoritatively what was the rule by which overseers assessed to the poor rate any dwelling or part of a dwelling? He was persuaded the rule could not be laid down in that Bill. They had to guard, therefore, against the arbitrary exercise of discretion on the part of overseers. Besides, there were other difficulties in the matter. A person might have a room and dine in it, but sleep elsewhere, and it might be rated separately, and the question would arise whether that was a dwelling-house under this Amendment. In fact, the Amendment would bring them no nearer a definition than at present. As to the borough of Sunderland, which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Candlish) had brought under the notice of the Committee, his opinion was that if there was a door on the staircase which shut in and separated the occupier, the tenement was as the law now stood, a dwelling-house. [Mr. CANDLISH: Not if there be a street door closed.] He believed if there was a separate and independent dwelling, whether the street door was kept closed or open, that constituted a dwelling-house. All that the Committee could do, in his opinion, was to lay down 521 broad and general principles, and the best way of doing this was to adopt the existing law; if they attempted to go further, they would still ultimately, after, perhaps, a long period of new uncertainty, be left where they were by the Courts of Law.

§ MR. HIBBERT
thought there were great objections to the word "building" in the Amendment. If the word "house" were substituted it would be much better, He would suggest that the word "dwellinghouse" should be taken to include any part of a house used as a separate dwelling and separately rated to the relief of the poor. He believed those words would meet the difficulties of the case in question.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he could see no substantial objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham. He believed the hon. Gentleman's proposal was to substitute for "building," &c., "any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling and separately rated to the relief of the poor." He hoped the Committee would understand that nothing was further from his wish than to intrude upon the province of the Attorney General. It was only after they had wailed a long time, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had not suggested any definition, that he had put the Amendment on the Paper. He thought there were points which were left by the legal decisions in an unsatisfactory position, and that Parliament should take care that every part of a house separately rated should confer a vote, independent of any niceties as to the outer door or the kitchen and out-houses. As to the discretion of the overseers, his Amendment would not enlarge it, for as the Bill stood it would be left to them to discriminate between a dwelling-house of which the occupier should be rated and one wholly let in apartments.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the feeling of the Committee appeared to be in favour of some definition, although his own feeling was that, under the very great difficulties of the case, it was more prudent not to embark into the dangerous domain of definitions. If a definition, however, was to be adopted, he preferred the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Roundell Palmer), but thought it would be well to have more epithets, and that the definition suggested some time ago by the Attorney General, "a separate, independent, and complete dwelling," would more 522 perfectly carry out the idea of the hon. Member for Oldham.

§ SIR ROBERT COLLIER
thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, as amended by the hon. Member for Oldham, afforded the best definition, and that the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only add to the difficulties.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
pointed out that these questions would equally arise whatever definition was adopted. Several suggestions had been offered which were deserving of consideration, and he thought it would be better to postpone the clause.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
hoped a conclusion would be now arrived at, seeing that the Committee were favoured with the presence of many Gentlemen of the long robe. The subject was not novel, and as he had been receiving definitions of a dwelling-house for the last two months, it was, he thought, pretty well exhausted. The objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Robert Collier) to the words "independent" and "complete" equally applied to "separate." He left it to the Committee to decide on the best definition, and hoped it would prove satisfactory.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he feared that the accumulation of epithets would lead to difficulty, and thought the word "separate" would be sufficient.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham as a middle term.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
moved in page 10, line 28, after "say" to insert— The Right Hon. Lord Viscount Eversley, the Right Hon. Russell Gurney, Sir John Thomas Buller Duckworth, Bart., Sir Francis Crossley, Bart., and John Walter, Esq., to be Boundary Commissioners; three to form a Quorum.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, that some time ago it had been a question whether Members of the House should be upon the Commission; and he was one of those who thought it undesirable that they should be. That system of exclusion, however, was not adopted, and then the hon. Member for Birmingham objected 523 that there was no Gentlemen who represented his own political party who was to be on the Commission; but if the principle of party representation was a sound one, then other parties ought also to be represented there. He regretted that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had been removed from the list of the Commissioners, because he thought that if any Gentleman on the Commission would be animated by a desire to act with impartiality and justice, it would have been the right hon. Gentleman, and he made no scruple in acknowledging that he should have greatly preferred the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley), whom he considered to be the party representative of a certain section in that House. He was guilty of no discourtesy to the Commissioners of 1832 when he said that, tied down and restricted as they were, they had altogether failed in making anything like an equitable arrangement of the boroughs. For instance, some of them were confined almost to the limits of the old municipal boundaries, and others were actually spread over fifty square miles of country in order to fulfil the requisition of the Government that every borough should contain at least 300 houses of £10 annual value. In 1832 the Boundary Commission did not comprise any Members of Parliament; but was composed of persons who were in no degree subject to Parliamentary influences. What they were going to do now was to appoint a Commission, the majority of the Members of which would be neither more nor less than sleeping partners. There would be about six Commissioners, who would superintend the work only, and it was quite clear that the principal portion of the business would be done by Assistant Commissioners, who would be appointed under the patronage principally of the Chief Commissioner. He hoped that care would be taken that none of the Assistant Commissioners would be chosen from the class of political agents. There was one name on the Commission to which he could not but object. It was that of a gentleman who was very well known as a party man—he meant the gentleman who was Member in the last Parliament for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and was now a candidate for the same county. He knew of no grounds whatever why a peculiar public distinction should be conferred upon that 524 gentleman, except that he was understood to be connected with a very influential organ of public opinion, and he did not think that that was an adequate reason why he should be appointed on the Commission. While he willingly testified to the excellence of his personal character, he considered he was not in a position favourable to the exercise of strict impartiality in his treatment of a question of this kind, and he thought that other gentlemen less connected with party politics would be better qualified to fulfil this duty. He thought that it was high time that there should be a little more candour, and a little less delicacy, in that House, and that men should not hesitate to say there what they did not hesitate to say to each other at the clubs.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
was not going to undertake the invidious task of objecting to particular Members of the Commission, but he objected on constitutional grounds to the whole management and superintendence of the Commission being handed over to a Peer, who would have the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners, and all the patronage resulting therefrom. At one time the House of Commons were very jealous with respect to handing over their privileges to Peers, and they would not even suffer them to vote at elections for Members of Parliament. He thought that it would have been better if the Government had taken upon itself the responsibility of appointing the Commissioners, and not have left it to the House of Commons; the result of which was that, practically, no one would be responsible for the faults committed by the Commissioners or their Assistants.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that they could not forget that, in inserting the names of the Commissioners in the Bill, they did in fact relieve the Government to some extent from responsibility for the work of the Commissioners, and imposed that responsibility upon those who named the Commissioners. This being so, it was felt that they ought to give them power to appoint their Assistant Commissioners, and he wished to ask whether the same rule would apply to the appointment of Secretary. He believed that he was not wrong in saying that upon occasions of appointing Boundary Commissioners the custom had been that the Secretary should be appointed by the Commissioners themselves. He trusted that this course would be followed upon the present occasion.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought it but fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the names which he had now submitted to the Committee appeared to him to be free from any just objection on the ground of party preference. But he must reserve to himself the liberty of offering this criticism on the composition of the Commission. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be that in both Houses of Parliament it might be convenient to have present those who would be able to explain the recommendations of the Commissioners. He therefore thought that the appointment of a Peer as a member of the Commission was not at all liable to the objection taken by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), who should bear in mind that the Lords had a direct, immediate, and co-ordinate share in the legislation of the House of Commons. That House could not claim to deal with the question of its representation as a matter of privilege; and, consequently, it was perfectly fair that when Parliament was called upon to name persons as agents of its will for any purpose outside its own walls, among those persons, some Members of the House of Lords should be found. But he did not see the same strength of argument for the appointment of ex-Members of that House. It was evident that they could render no such service in explaining the views of the Commission. At the time of the Government of Lord Grey a course was taken which he should have thought more expedient on the present occasion—that was to say, that gentlemen of scientific attainments or engineering abilities unconnected with political party, but fully cognizant of a great variety of circumstances, bearing materially upon questions connected with the division of counties, were appointed. He thought there was nothing objectionable, as a matter of Government patronage, in the proposition now made, which seemed to be dictated by a desire to meet the claims of the Government and the general views of Parliament. With respect to the Secretary, he thought that the appointment ought properly to be in the hands of the Commission, but in a case of this kind, connected directly with the privileges of Parliament, as nearly the whole of the business of this Commission would be to direct the servants of the Legislature and not of the Government, he certainly was of opinion that there was no legitimate occasion for the interference of the Govern- 526 ment with respect to appointments such as the Assistant Commissioners or the Secretary. At any rate, in all questions of this importance it was customary to take the House into the confidence of the Executive Government. With respect to the Oxford University Commission he did not remember whether the Secretary was appointed by the Government or by the Commissioners, but the name of the Secretary was made a matter of discussion in that House, and the opinion of Parliament was taken with respect to the appointment before it was ultimately sanctioned. He trusted that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in conformity with the view of his hon. Friend, because it was but fair to urge that this was a case in which the Legislature had a peculiar and exclusive concern, and in which the Executive Government as such had no concern whatever.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was extremely glad to find that, upon the whole, the Committee seemed disposed to accept the names which were now proposed; and he would only observe that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had answered sufficiently the objections made by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to a Peer being placed on this Commission. It would have been a great omission on the part of the Government, even if it had not been in their power to avail themselves of the services of one so experienced in such matters, and so entitled to public confidence as the noble Lord alluded to. It was highly important that, on a great constitutional Commission touching particularly the representation of the people of that House, both branches of the Legislature should be intimately connected with the investigation. With respect to the Gentlemen named on the Commission, who were ex-Members of that House, they were chosen, not on that account, but because the Government really thought that they were two of the ablest men who could be selected for the duty required of them. They were not, however, selected until many others had been appealed to in vain. The question as to whether they should have scientific Members on the Commission, was one which had been much considered by the Government: and it had not been from any neglect or want of appreciation of that peculiar kind of service that should thus be rendered, but from ob-stacks and difficulties which were so great as to be insurmountable, that such Gentle- 527 men were not appointed. He still hoped that when the Commissioners settled the duties of their subordinate officers they would be able to avail themselves of services of that kind. With regard to the appointment of hon. Members of that House, he need say nothing of his right hon. Friend the Recorder of London. And he could only say with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir Francis Crossley), that the Government selected him because he was a Member of the great Liberal party, and because they believed, on the whole, that he represented impartially the opinions and feelings of the two sides. That hon. Gentleman probably represented the opinions of both sections in respect to this question, because though his own opinions were known to be what were called Liberal, and though his social position showed that he had a constitutional sympathy with the Whig party, nevertheless from his territorial connections he might be supposed to have some interest common to the country party. The Government therefore felt they might be permitted to put him as a co-member on the Commission, resting satisfied that his presence there would not frighten the hon. Member for Birmingham or his political friends. With regard to the patronage of the Commissioners, that was a question which it appeared interested hon. Gentlemen more than Her Majesty's Government. He thought it was rather premature to settle details of that kind when they had not as yet obtained the appointment of these Commissioners. As soon as they were appointed all the steps that were necessary for the due performance of their duties would be taken. Until the Commissioners met and deliberated, it would be impossible for them to form any idea of the amount of subordinate assistance they would require. He had already informed the Committee that the Commissioners themselves would appoint the sub-Commissioners. In regard to the appointment of the Secretary, his first impression was that it was highly important that there should be some intimate relation between the Executive and the Commission, as it was no doubt a Commission that would lead to a considerable expenditure of the public money. If the Government had retained the privilege of nominating the Secretary, it certainly would not have been their duty to have recommended any person connected with polities, but a public servant in whom the House and the country would have con- 528 fidence. It was, however, premature, to enter into those discussions. All he could say was that, when the Commissioners were appointed, and had met, the Government would confer entirely with them, and no Secretary would be appointed who did not meet with their approval.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
then proposed to substitute for that portion of the original clause which defined the functions of the Commissioners, an Amendment to the effect that the Boundary Commissioners should immediately after the passing of the Act Proceed by themselves or by the Assistant Commissioners appointed by them to inquire into the boundaries of every newly constituted borough, with power to suggest such alterations therein as they may deem expedient; they shall also inquire into the boundaries of every other borough in England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged, so as to include within the limits of the borough all premises the occupiers of which ought, due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances, to be included therein for Parliamentary purposes, for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such borough. They shall also inquire into the temporary divisions of counties as constituted by this Act, and as to the places appointed for holding courts for the election of Members for such divisions, with a view to ascertain whether, having regard to the natural and legal divisions of each county, and the distribution of the population therein, any, and what, alterations should be made in such divisions or places. And the said Commissioners shall, with all practicable dispatch, report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State upon the several matters in this section referred to them, and their Report shall be laid before Parliament.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
suggested that there might, if the clause were altered as proposed, be some difficulty on the part of the Commissioners as to whether the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners rested with those who would have the necessary powers to make the inquiry. It would, perhaps, be better to postpone the clause, and bring up another in which the point was more clearly defined.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought there could be no doubt that every means would on application to the Treasury he given to the Commissioners to perform their duties.

§ MR. SANDFORD
moved, as an Amendment, to add after the word "therein," the following:— For Parliamentary purposes, and in the case of those boroughs for which freemen dwelling within seven miles of them have a right to vote, to enquire whether their boundaries should be so enlarged as to include equally all householders dwelling within the same radius of seven miles from the said boroughs. The hon. Member thought it highly important that there should be a certain mixture of urban and rural voters in order to prevent the House from forming two hostile camps, with no moderate men to soften down the differences between them; and also because the enlargement of boroughs had proved, in such cases as Shoreham and East Retford, an effectual mode of putting a stop to electoral corruption.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon seemed to illustrate in a singular manner the debate of yesterday with regard to the privileges of freemen. Great indignation then existed as to the slightest suggestion being made that they were of all classes of the constituency, more open to human infirmities than the great mass of the householders of the country, and that it was dangerous to admit a special class of that kind separate from the general type contained in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was directly intended to apply to corruption; and he made it, in reference to the freemen, because wherever there were freemen the area was greatly to be enlarged. [MR. SANDFORD: No, certainly not.] For the purpose of correcting the abuse and corruption that arose therefrom. If not, why did not the hon. Member propose to extend the area in the case of every borough? That it appeared to him was the clear Parliamentary meaning of the proposal—namely, that it was to be a special proposition against corruption where freemen existed; and he referred to Shoreham and East Retford where the evil had been cured. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated the case against freemen when he supposed that his Amendment would be regarded as a cure for their erratic tendencies. He regarded the proposal as objectionable, and as one that raised a question of policy rather than a question of boundaries. If it were right, wherever there were freemen, or in all boroughs, to extend the boundaries to the uniform radius of seven miles, the question was not one 530 to be referred to Boundary Commissioners, but a political question of great importance, which was perfectly within the knowledge of the House, and one which it would be right to submit as a separate Motion rather than as a detail of instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, to whose duties it had no relevance whatever.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would extend household suffrage further than it was intended at the commencement of the Session.

§ MR. VANCE
suggested that the seven mile radius should be measured from the boundary of the borough and not as now from the supposed centre of the borough. It was measured now from the place where the poll takes place, and it often happened, as in the borough which he represented (Armagh), that the polling took place in one corner of the borough.

§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS
said, the Amendment seemed to intend to make a circle with a diameter of fourteen miles, and that all persons residing within that circle should have the privilege of being in the same situation as if they resided within the borough; thereby, in fact, creating a small county.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, his Amendment was not intended to apply specially to freemen to maintain the balance in boroughs where the town and rural element prevailed, and he should be willing to extend it to all boroughs of a certain amount of population.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon would be to completely upset the whole Parliamentary system of the country. A great dual might be said irrespective of freemen on the propriety of their making districts of this kind. They were now proceeding on a different principle, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment. He could understand the advantage of extending the area of boroughs of a rural character, but there could be no doubt that the balance of opinion was doubtful on the subject. A proposition of this kind could not be brought incidentally into a Bill of this kind, which proposed to deal with matters on principles quite different. He would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. LOCKE KING
moved, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the word "boundaries," of the words "should be reduced, or whether they." This would give the Commissioners power to inquire as to whether the boundaries ought to be reduced, sis well as whether they should be enlarged.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. There were great objections to it. It would open up a very large question, and might lead to so much disturbance of the present boundaries as to greatly retard the operation of the Bill. It would also entirely destroy the arrangement that had been entered into with the Boundary Commissioners.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
moved an Amendment to the effect that, after the word "premises" the words "the occupiers of" should be omitted, and that the words "Parliamentary purposes" should be omitted, in order to insert the words "for the purpose of conferring on the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such boroughs."

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the original proposal in the Bill of 1831 empowered the Commissioners to add to any borough any place adjoining it, no part of which was locally situated more than one mile from it except in cases where the existing boroughs were of so small a size as not to have more than 300 voters, and then their powers were limited to add places not more than seven miles distant. That clause, however, did not become law.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
asked, whether it was proposed that the Royal Commissioners should be empowered to include within the borough boundaries large villages which happened to be within the seven-mile radius?

MR. GLADSTONE
said, in the Bill of 1831 there was a distinct object totally different from that which they now had in view. The details were different then to what they now were, and consequently different instructions were given to the Boundary Commissioners. The object in 1831 was to bring the boroughs up to a certain magnitude, which was to be done irrespective of the question whether the parts necessary to bring them up to that 532 magnitude belonged to the boroughs or not. The clause as now proposed he understood to be substantially a mere expansion of the expression used in the clause as it originally stood, and the effect of it would be only to include within the area of such boroughs the population proper to them, the Commissioners having nothing to do with the question of including large villages or small towns in the neighbourhood of such boroughs.

§ COLONEL DYOTT
said, it appeared to him that they were drifting very fast into electoral districts. It had been said that the primary object of the Committee was to come to a settlement of the question.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
rose to order. The hon. and gallant Member was referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Surrey, which had been withdrawn.

§ COLONEL DYOTT
said, he was not; but he was calling attention to the fact that it was the primary object of the Committee to come to a settlement of the question. Only yesterday a petition was presented by the hon. Member for Shropshire, from a parish comprising a population of 12,000, in the immediate neighbourhood of the borough of Wenlock, praying to be in-included within that borough, which at present comprised seventy-five square miles. It would be necessary, in order to make a settlement of the question, to give the Commissioners other powers besides those of enlarging the areas of boroughs. He reminded the Committee that the present Prime Minister in 1852, speaking upon the question of Reform, as connected with household suffrage and electoral districts, observed how nearly allied were the two extremes of unlimited franchise and unlimited despotism.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
, in the absence of Mr. BRIGHT, proposed the insertion of the following words:— Due regard being also had, where advisable to any definite limits already assigned to any of such boroughs for municipal or other local purposes. He thought that, without fettering the discretion of the Commissioners, it was desirable in cases where the municipal boundary fairly comprised the borough population, to make the Parliamentary boundary conterminous with it.

§ MR. POWELL
said, the boundaries for municipal and local purposes were con- 533 stantly being changed, and he thought the Commissioners, instead of being restricted by existing boundaries, should rather be encouraged to enlarge those boundaries by including outlying districts.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
said, the Amendment was hardly applicable to the metropolis and some other towns, where there were districts for gas, water, postage, boards of health, and other things, having limits with no relation whatever to the political purposes of boroughs.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the Amendment certainly would not apply to the metropolis. The Amendment did not pretend to bind the Commissioners, but only to direct their attention to existing boundaries.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
remarked that in Halifax and many other towns the population beyond the municipal boundary exceeded that within it. The Commissioners ought, he thought, to be left as free as possible. If the Committee held it desirable to restrict existing boundaries, the policy of which he doubted, it ought to be indicated in the Commissioners' instructions.

MR. GLADSTONE
thought it would be wise to direct the attention of the Commissioners to the limits already assigned by law to any of these boroughs. They proposed last year that where boroughs were enlarged for municipal purposes, beyond the limit of the Parliamentary boundary, they should adopt a similar course with respect to the Parliamentary boundary; that would be a very proper provision to introduce into this Bill. They could not provide completely for prospective enlargement, but they should provide for prospective enlargement as far as they could. The enlargement for municipal purposes could never be considered too large, because none but bonâ fide districts were likely to be included.

§ MR. VANCE
pointed out that a suburban district frequently objected to inclusion within the municipality, on account of its higher taxation. The Commissioners should not therefore be debarred from including it in the Parliamentary boundary.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought that the districts which objected to coming within the municipal boundary ought not to be anxious to come within the Parliamentary boundary.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, Rochdale was a case where there was a large population outside the municipality. He thought the 534 question should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that in the case of Rochdale a circle drawn with a three-quarters of a mile radius would exclude a larger portion of the population than it would include, and the outer population refused to be drawn into the municipality. He thought the proposed instruction to the Commissioners altogether unnecessary, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
contended that the Amendment did not restrict the Commissioners, but merely directed their attention to a certain point.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the Commissioners would have the power of considering all the facts of the case, the municipal boundaries included, and he recommended that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
remarked that in several boroughs the extra parts were much larger than the original boroughs.

§ MR. M'LAREN
observed, that the position of Rochdale showed the inexpediency of trying to extend the boundary of the Parliamentary borough beyond the municipal boundary. In Rochdale they built a town hall, and to defray the expense 40,000 inhabitants voluntarily assessed themselves at 25s. per head. There were gas works and other public improvements and for defraying the cost heavy rates should be levied for several years. The inhabitants of a considerable township outside might say that they would avoid the payment of rates for such purposes as a country parish; but would claim, should the Parliamentary boundary be extended beyond the municipal boundary, to have an equal share in the election of Members of Parliament for the borough, though they would bear none of its burdens. That was contrary to the general principle upon which these things should be regulated.

§ SIR EDWARD BULLER
doubted whether any Commissioners would take upon themselves the responsibility of exercising so large a power. The proposed division of his own county (Staffordshire) was regarded as unsatisfactory. At present the county was divided into North and South; but by the present Bill it was proposed to divide the Southern Division into two, to be called East and West.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
asked what was the extent of power to be given to the 535 Commissioners as to the divisions. Originally no power was given to the Commissioners to interfere with counties. Now that power had been introduced. The Government proposed to divide the county of the West Riding into three divisions, and those divisions were so framed, that one of the divisions would consist of three-fifths of the whole area of the Riding, another of less than one tenth of that area. Many of the inhabitants, as well as several hon. Members, did not think this would be a satisfactory arrangement, and he wished to know from the Government whether the Boundary Commissioners would have power to revise it.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, there was no doubt the Commissioners would have the power of revising those arrangements; but they would have no power to make divisions, as Parliament would retain the right of examining and sanctioning, if it thought proper their recommendations. It was the decided intention of the Government that the Commissioners should possess these powers, and, as the Government were advised, they would possess these powers.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that, as he understood the explanation which had been given, the Commissioners were not to be prejudiced in the divisions of the counties and ridings by anything in the schedule.

MR. GLADSTONE
apprehended that there were cases where the Commissioners would really have the power to create new constituencies. They could not, of course, do that in the boroughs, nor in those counties that were already divided into two. In such cases their power would be limited to making the constituencies either larger or smaller; or to take from one division of a county and give it to another. But then take the case of the West Riding. It was proposed to divide that into three divisions, which he might call A, B, and C. Now it would be in the power of the Commissioners to unite B and C into one and to divide A into two, which would practically be a new constituency. It might therefore be well, when considering the Report, to add some words indicating the general sense of Parliament as to the limits of the power which they were to exercise.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, in his county, as well as in some others, the temporary divisions proposed in the schedules were very inconvenient to the electors, and they would be better pleased if the divisions were left as they were at present.

MR. BASS
said, it was the unanimous opinion of all persons in North Staffordshire that the divison recommended by the Government was extremely fair and unimpeachable.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
deprecated any further discussion of the schedule, which was not at present before the Committee. He would say again that the schedule had been prepared against a contingency which it was necessary to contemplate; but which was in the highest degree improbable, and which the Government did not anticipate would occur. But for this contingency it would not have been necessary to make such temporary provision; and the Government would have been satisfied with leaving a blank, and only enacting that certain boroughs should be enfranchised, and certain counties divided.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
moved the following addition to the clause:— And the said Commissioners shall Report to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State upon the several matters in this section referred to, and their Report shall be laid before Parliament.

MR. GLADSTONE
was afraid that the Government were going to leave out the two paragraphs which followed in the original clause.