§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI wish to refer to the division which took place last night on the question of residence in the 3rd clause of the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People. I regret myself, and I believe there are others who regret, that the discussion upon that question, which I think was an important one, was of so brief a character and of rather a hurried description. These are contingencies, however, which are incident to our form of 1940 government, and we must take them as we find them. I thought at the time and rather regretted to observe that misconception prevailed not merely on one side of the House with regard to the character of the qualification as to residence. It was argued generally on what I may call the numerical consideration. On one side, as if its only object was to restrict the number of voters that might under the clause be admitted by the Bill; and, on the other, as if its merits depended upon and consisted of that possible result. I must say that is not the view I have taken of this qualification. Certainly it is not with a view of restricting numbers, or the contrary, that I should propose or support such a qualification. The merit, I think, of this qualification of residence depends upon the principle, not of numbers, but of locality. The great object is to secure that the voter should possess a real interest in the locality with which he is connected. That, I think, is a sound principle, and one that ought not to be lost sight of. However, the House was of opinion that that security for the connection with the locality was unnecessarily large. I have brought the matter under the consideration of my Colleagues, who have deliberated upon this and other points connected with the Bill. Although they regret that the principle of local connection has not been enforced so much as they desired, still, upon due deliberation, they have not thought it inconsistent with their duty to defer to the opinion of the House. Their object has been to establish a borough franchise upon the principle of bonâ fide rating and bonâ fide residence. They believe that to be the sound principle, and a principle which ultimately will be accepted by the country as a solution of the many difficulties connected with this subject. With respect to the inquiry which has just been made of me by the hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Forster), I believe the words which I propose to insert in the 3rd clause with respect to the point to which he refers will remove any doubt upon the subject. I propose, in line 8 of page 2, after the word "rated," to insert the words, "as an ordinary occupier;" and in page 2, line 12, after the word "paid," to insert, "an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other ordinary occupiers in respect of," &c. The hon. Gentleman will find, I think, that that will remove any doubt as to our meaning in Clause 3, and it will not, I think, be necessary to 1941 make any change in the subsequent clause to which he refers. If it should, it can be easily done, and will be merely of a clerical character. The 3rd and 4th sections of Clause 3 will, with the addition of the Amendments I propose, read as follows:—
3. Has, during the time of such occupation, been rated as an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and—4. Has, before the 20th day of July in the same year, paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other ordinary occupiers in respect of the said premises, up to the preceding 5th day of January.The hon. Gentleman will find when he reads these words and considers them, that they entirely remove any ambiguity. While I propose the insertion of these words in the 3rd clause, I shall give notice of my intention to insert a clause which will repeal the 3rd section of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14, commonly called Sir William Clay's Act. I have already expressed my opinion of that Act in the House. It is, I think, vicious in principle, and limited in application. I find its provisions are little favoured by the country, and the Amendment will remove the objection that has been expressed to there being a difference between the two classes of voters. I have expressed my opinion that in attempting to increase the franchise in an ancient country like England, one ought not to be too curious about avoiding anomalies; because very often in the pursuit of a Utopian constitution we lose the substance of what might have been obtained. Where it is possible, without inconvenience and without interposing materially with existing rights, it is desirable, of course, to be consistent throughout in our proposals, and it is much better to avoid interfering with previous arrangements. But this is a case, particularly after the vote which the House arrived at last night, which, I think, justifies the course referred to. My opinion is that with the insertion of the words of which I have given notice—as to the meaning of which I think there can be no doubt—and in repealing the 3rd section of Sir William Clay's Act, that we shall be able to carry into full effect the vote that the House arrived at by a considerable—at least, not an inconsiderable—majority, in a very full House before Easter. That is the communication I have to make to the House, and I hope it will be satisfactory.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the table the important Amendment which he states he is going to propose to the 3rd clause, so that we may have it before us by Monday morning? I did not quite understand whether he proposes to move the repeal of the 1st and 2nd sections of Sir William Clay's Act as well as the 3rd section. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The 3rd only.] I wish also to ask whether he will take the debate upon this very important question of the repeal of the 3rd section of that Act before he proceeds with the 3rd clause of the Reform Bill?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERAs at present advised, I do not think it is in our power to do that; but I will consider the point.
§ MR. HORSMANI wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the announcement he has just made, and which, as regards the decision of the Cabinet upon the vote of last night, was the course generally expected and desired. I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in order that the House may understand distinctly what will be its position towards the Government and towards their Bill in regard to the further Amendments upon which we may have to vote, and in what sense we are to accept the public declaration of the right hon. Gentleman as to what may or may not be vital points in the Bill. I hold in my hand what purports to be a letter written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the supporters of the Government. It is dated the 9th of April, and was published in The Times on the 10th, so that it must have been in The Times office before it was received by those to whom it was addressed. I will read it, for the wording is remarkable. It says—
Mr. Gladstone has given notice of a series of Amendments which he proposes to move in Committee on the Reform Bill on Thursday night. These Amendments are Mr. Coleridge's relinquished Instructions, in another form. The first of these relates to the vital question of residence, and if any one of them be adopted it will be impossible for the Government to proceed with the Bill. I shall therefore be particularly obliged if you will be in attendance in the House of Commons on that evening.What I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to is these two expressions in his letter—that the provision as to two years' residence is a vital provision, and that if the term be diminished by carrying 1943 an Amendment to substitute twelve months, it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the letter which is attributed to him is authentic; and, if so, whether it was written with the knowledge and sanction of the Cabinet?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI did not rise immediately because I feared I should violate the regulations of the House, having already spoken, but I trust I may be permitted to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He wishes to know, in the first place, whether the letter which he has read was written by myself. Really, I have such a good opinion of the taste and talent of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he is such an excellent judge of style, that it will be quite unnecessary for me to give him any assurance upon the subject. I am perfectly ready to take the responsibility of the course pursued. With regard to his second question, as to whether I expressed the feelings of the Members of the Cabinet in the letter, I can say that, in expressing any opinion, upon any important political subject at least, it is my endeavour always to express the opinion of my Colleagues. It is not always in my power to collect them together and formally to ask their opinion upon every question; but I believe, in expressing the opinion contained in the letter referred to, I did express the general opinion of my Colleagues. As to particular epithets which might be used in a circular to the political supporters of the Government at a moment of great exigency, and as to the light in which the Government regard those epithets, if the state of business in this House rendered it advisable I might make several observations which would lead the House, perhaps, to an inference contrary to that drawn by the right hon. Gentleman from those expressions. I certainly wished to state that, in the opinion of the Government, this was a matter of great importance. But I would ask the House to view that letter in a spirit of candour. That letter was not addressed to this particular question—to this sole question of residence—nor was it even confined to this particular portion of the Bill. It was written under very different circumstances from those in which the question now presents itself to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had fairly, and I think most legitimately, challenged the general policy of the Government on this question 1944 of the borough franchise, and had given notice of a series of Amendments. I called the attention of my Friends to what might fairly be looked upon as an attempt to substitute another policy for that which, with their confidence and approval, I had brought before the House. It so happened that when the right hon. Gentleman gave these notices, the first subject which he touched upon among those to which he proposed to call our attention was that of residence. In my letter I directed the attention of my Friends to this series of Amendments, which, if carried, would have entirely subverted the policy which we recommended, and, as the point of residence claimed our attention first, I wrote accordingly. But the right hon. Gentleman afterwards substituted another point, which he doubtless considered more vital, and the decision of the House was taken upon that. If that had occurred at the time I wrote, I certainly should not have referred, as I did, to the point of residence. When we had yesterday to consider the circumstances we found them very different indeed from what they were on the 9th of April, when that circular was issued. Since then, after a solemn discussion, a very full House came to the decision that the general policy which the Government recommended should in its main principles be adopted, and that the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed should not be adopted. Surely, then, everybody of candid mind must feel that the question of residence alone must now be considered in a very different light to that in which it before stood. I regretted the decision at which the House arrived yesterday very much. I wish the question had been discussed at greater length. But the point which the Cabinet had to consider was whether, having in their hands the conduct of a measure of such vast dimensions and importance, they ought to throw up the control and further progress of that measure because the House had arrived at a decision upon one point under circumstances totally different from those in which some time before I felt it my duty to call the attention of my Friends to the subject. I say frankly to the Committee, as the author of that letter, and not at all ashamed of writing that letter, which I think was a very good one, my opinion is that the letter did express the sentiments of my Colleagues, many of whom I had the opportunity of consulting individually before I wrote it. I am sure 1945 every candid mind must feel that the course which we took yesterday, or, rather, which we have taken to-day, upon due consideration, is one consistent with our character as men of honour, and the duty which we owe to our Sovereign and the country.
§ MR. OSBORNEI rise not to continue the debate, but to give a public notice. I give notice to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who in my absence made comments which concern me, that I shall call upon him on Monday next to produce the original minute of the conversation he referred to.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI am sorry that I have to put another question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the important statements he has made; but I am sure that it is his wish to give every information to the House. I understood that he proposes to move a clause to repeal a section of the 13 & 14 Vict. I wish to ask whether he will let us have the exact terms of the clause by Monday morning?