HC Deb 21 February 1877 vol 232 cc795-6

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, after referring in detail to former similar Bills, said, the principle of the measure was the assimilation of the Parliamentary and municipal registers as far as the preparation of the first list and the revision were concerned. In the operation of the existing law of registration of voters great injustice was frequently done to persons who were entitled to have their names entered in the register. This was not the only Bill before the House which dealt with the subject of registration. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) had both Bills of their own, and he had hoped that the three Bills would have been allowed to pass a second reading, that they would then be referred to a Select Committee, and that next year the Government might take the subject up and deal with it themselves. He had been informed, however, that the Government intended to oppose the Bill, their opposition being founded, not upon the general principle of the measure, but upon certain clauses contained in it, the Government holding that it was not a Registration Bill, but a Reform Bill, because it touched the qualification of voters. He maintained, however, that it dealt with qualification only in a very small way. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill, and trusted the House would assent to the proposal.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. GORST

said, he considered it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He could not see any practical good to be derived from the annual introduction of these Bills, which did not attempt to consolidate the law of registration, but touched only isolated portions of the law. The subject was one which might be far more appropriately dealt with by the Government. The Bill, notwithstanding the hon. Baronet's disclaimer, was a Reform Bill in disguise, and as such he must regard it. When the time came, as come it would, that it might be necessary to deal with the Parliamentary and municipal registration of voters, the party to take the matter up and introduce a Bill to deal with the franchise in such a manner as might appear to require reform was the Government. The hon. Baronet, in dealing with the lodger franchise, said his object was that every lodger who paid rent should be entitled to a vote; but if that were admitted the Parliamentary and municipal franchises would be swamped with lodgers paying a very small rent.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.