§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, a doubt appeared to exist in the minds of some hon. Members as to whether the Proviso at the end of the 34th clause of the Representation of the People Bill would, or would not, place the new voter, who might be a compound-householder, in a position different from that in which the compound-householder was placed under the present system. He had no doubt himself as to what was intended; but he thought it unadvisable that they should enter upon the discussion without the point being made thoroughly clear. He would therefore beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1). Whether the Proviso at the end of the 34th Clause of the Representation of the People Bill—namely—
Provided that the rates to be paid by such occupier in order to entitle him to the franchise, shall be rates calculated on the full rateable value of the premises,has reference to the 3rd Section of the Compound Householders Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 14), which enacts—That in cases where by any composition with the landlord a less sum shall be payable than the full amount of rate which except for such composition would be due in respect of the same premises, the occupier claiming to be rated shall not be bound to pay or tender more than the amount then payable under such composition;(2) whether the new compound-householder whose vote depends on the occupation of a house rented under £10 will obtain the benefit of the above-mentioned 3rd Section of the Compound Householders Act; (3) and, whether it is the intention of the Government to subject the compound-householders under £10 to a disadvantage which does not apply to the compound-householders above £10, by putting them in a different position as regards getting on the register of voters?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, with regard to the first inquiry of the hon. Gentleman it is not intended that the proviso at the end of the 34th clause should have any reference to the 3rd section of the Compound House- 1876 holders Act, although I admit there is some ambiguity in the language. My attention has been called to this fact by an hon. Member of this House, a Gentleman of the long robe, and I will at the proper time propose an alteration which will, I think, remove that ambiguity. That answer, of course, involves a reply to the second inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to his third Question, I would say that the Government do not wish to connect the new franchises with those that at present exist. The franchises that at present exist, though in some cases analogous, contain restrictions which are not contemplated in the new franchises. I do not wish to place the compound-householders referred to under the provisions of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14. I think that that is a bad Act, one founded upon a vicious principle, and though I am not prepared at present to propose its repeal, I should certainly not under any circumstances consent to be a party to extending its provisions.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was some ambiguity in the words of the proposed 34th clause, he should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House before going into Committee on the 3rd clause distinctly what was the meaning which he attached to the proviso. It was evidently quite impossible that the Committee could arrive at a proper decision with regard to the clause until that meaning had been stated.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERWhen we get into the discussion in Committee I shall be ready to state precisely the meaning which I put upon the words. I do not, however, wish the House to labour under a false impression, or to be deceived into the supposition that the clause as at present drawn has any reference to the 14 & 15 Vict.