§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Prohibition of Multiplication of Votes.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, in page 2, to omit the 1st subsection, which provides that subject to the saving for existing voters—
A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any 1793 rent-charge except the owner of the whole of the tithe rent-charge of a rectory or vicarage.He wished to ask for some reason why the owners of rent charges were to be disfranchised? It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in one of the speeches he had made on the Bill that property qualifications were to be retained; and a few days ago the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, speaking at Bury, confirmed that view of the Prime Minister, and stated that for the present, at least, the property qualification should remain. That being so, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wished to know why the owners of rent-charges were to be disfranchised? This really was a point of very great importance. He also wished to draw attention to the marginal note upon the clause, where what he must call the slang term of "fagot vote" was used. Could there be found in any great Act of Parliament a slang term used such as was used here—"Restriction on fagot votes?" The Government had been asked more than once to explain what a fagot vote was, but no satisfactory answer had been given to that inquiry. A fagot vote, as was well known among those who used the term, was a case where the registered voter had paid no consideration whatever for his qualification. It was to all intents and purposes a fictitious vote, and applied to any qualification. But he was utterly at a loss to understand why the owner of a rent-charge —a bonâ fide owner — should be disqualified. He would ask the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to this point. In his opening speech on the Bill the Prime Minister spoke of incorporeal hereditaments, and said—We strike at incorporeal hereditaments where there is no reversion to the person who takes the benefit.But, if that were so, how did it affect the owner of a freehold ground-rent? And what was the substantial difference between the owner of a freehold ground-rent and a rent-charge? It might be said, "the one has a reversion in the land, and the other has not;" but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not hold that view himself. Yet the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, while it disqualified and disfranchised the owner of a rent-charge, at 1794 the same time allowed the owner of a freehold ground-rent to remain upon the Register where there was an infinitesimal reversion at the end of 999 years, or even of 99 years, for a 99 years' lease in London was looked upon pretty nearly as a freehold. They had never heard, either from the Prime Minister or from the learned Attorney General, any intelligible principle to show why the rent-charge should be disqualified. He ought to be a voter just in the same way as anyone who held a feu in Scotland, or anyone who held a head-rent in an Irish county, for he could devise his title by will in all these cases. According to the Government clause as it stood in the Bill, the owner of the feu in Scotland or of the head-rent in Ireland would still continue on the Register. Why, then, in the name of all that was sensible, if the owner of the head-rent or of the feu was to remain upon the Register, why was a new purchaser to be disqualified? The clause as it stood was most unfair, for it applied only to such owners as derived their interest by descent or marriage; and while they were to be retained on the Register, and supposed to be capable bonâ fide citizens, any individual who bought at the market price was to be disqualified. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle the Government had arrived at their decision in the matter, and therefore he felt bound to move his Amendment, He could not understand why a rent-charge should be regarded as only giving a fictitious vote, when it might represent £1,000, or, in some cases, many thousands a-year. There was no particular machinery attaching to a rent-charge which made it easy to multiply votes. This extraordinary bugbear of fictitious votes, or fagot votes, was a very singular argument to come from the mouths of Her Majesty's Government, who were now engaged in extending so-called household suffrage to counties, and who were putting an instrument into the hands of any man who chose to use it to create any number of fictitious votes by what was called the service franchise. By means of the service franchise anyone could easily add 100 or 200, or indeed any number, of voters to the Register. All he had to do was to take a house, pay rent for it 1795 himself, let every room out separately, and give to every tenant a key of the street door, and all the tenants would then become voters. Under such a condition of things it would not be necessary to resort to rent-charges, or to sub-division of freeholds, when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had placed such an instrument in the hands of anyone who desired to create fictitious votes. The real fact of the matter was this, that these owners of property were likely to vote against the Liberal Party, while the so-called householders would probably vote for them. He asked, then, that Her Majesty's Government should give some reason for the course they were adopting in this matter, and to afford them that opportunity he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out sub-section (1).—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished, before the hon. and learned Attorney General answered the question which had been addressed to him, to ask for some explanation as to what limits were intended to be placed by the Government upon the proposals contained in the Bill. He did not find in the Interpretation Clause any interpretation of the phrase "rent-charge." Now, there were rent-charges and rent-charges—there was the rent-charge which was bonâ fide purchased by an individual with the view of securing it to him, and which passed at his death to his legatees and executors. That was such a piece of property as had been understood to give a man a vote just as well as if he were a 40s. freeholder in the ordinary sense of the word. He had in view the case of a gentleman, a friend of his, who had purchased for some small sum a rent-charge to qualify him for a vote for the county. Upon his death it went to his son, and that son was now a registered voter. Was that son now to be disfranchised under this clause? If so, it would be most unjust, for the man had just as much a freehold in it as anyone else could have in anything else.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks 1796 for the view of the Government on this point. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that whenever a pecuniary interest is obtained, however dissociated that interest may be from anything except the possession of a certain amount of money, there the vote is perfectly legitimate, and there is no reason for disfranchisement. However, I will say this, that we cannot undertake to maintain a property qualification if that doctrine is held and is to be applied in the unlimited manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has stated it. It is an ancient part of the electoral system of this country, no doubt; but I did not at all state, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) seemed to think I had stated—I did not at all state, in making our proposals on the introduction of the Bill, that we proposed to retain the property qualification, I cannot undertake to say that it is to be eternal; there is no utterance on the part of the Government to that effect. But if it is to be retained it ought to be associated, in our opinion, as a rule with something more than a merely pecuniary interest of a very limited amount, for if you allow that wherever a pecuniary interest can be obtained to an extremely limited amount, quite dissociated from every natural interest—from every moral and social interest—then we must consider what is the effect On a country like this where there is a very largo class of rich men with vast disposable funds—we must consider what may be the effect of laying open to their operations such a property as a rent-charge. This is not a theoretical question. There are many cases. I could quote many cases in other counties too. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is conversant with one particular case where an appropriated rent-charge of £90 was made to qualify 41 voters, without such voters having any residence or natural connection with the place in which they were registered. The Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all that objectionable system should be retained. We join issue on that point. We are quite willing that the property connection should be retained, but by property connection we mean something more than the mere possession of a sum of money. Let me take a case, no doubt 1797 undesirable in itself, but, at the same time, not so bad as the case of a subdivided rent-charge. Let me take the case of a particular plot of ground. There is something done in regard to the management and disposal of that particular plot of ground, and it is turned to account in some way besides the mere receiving of a sum of money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says why not prohibit the special division of votes in reference to a plot of ground of that kind? I hope he will not drive us to answer the question, because he might be more likely to compel us to extend our proposal than to limit it. We have endeavoured to take a very Liberal, and, at the same time, a most Conservative, view of this question of property qualification; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is discreet, I think he will do well to accept our proposal. We wish it to be understood that this kind of property vote—if it may be so called—which is merely a pecuniary interest, dissociated from every other interest, and capable of indefinite multiplication by a peculiar description of machinery, is not the kind of vote we wish to maintain.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to one point in his remarks. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between a rent-charge of a personal character and a rent-charge which devolved upon an individual by inheritance, or in various other ways. He hoped the question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman would receive an answer before the matter was disposed of.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had objected to the qualification by rent-charge, because the rent-charge was not, in his opinion, sufficiently identified with property. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) imagined that the rent-charge-was liable to Income Tax, and if the tax collector could trace the property, he did not see why the difficulty of tracing it should be insuperable to those who were charged with the due and proper registration of voters. But he held that it was quite possible to avoid any abuse, or, otherwise, how were abuses avoided under the Income Tax? He had adhered to the present provisions of the law for this reason—that he felt 1798 with the Italians, that no one should be entitled to vote unless he had proved that he had contributed something towards the taxation of the country. That was the principle of the Italian Constitution, and was the Italian system of enfranchisement, and he had not heard that in Italy any difficulty had been experienced in tracing the qualification. Then, why should they have any difficulty here? And when they were about to enfranchise under another section of the Bill—namely, the service franchise—persons who were not identified with property except by service, which was a qualification terminable at the will of another, surely a Bill which went as far as that towards manhood suffrage should attach value to a property qualification, inasmuch as property was a source of taxation. He held that the old principle was a just one—namely, that the payment of taxes should be the first qualification for those who were to vote for the election of those who were to be the imposers of taxes. He held that the old principle of the English Constitution was perfectly fair and just; and inasmuch as they had seen it preserved in the most recent Constitution which had been adopted in Europe, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who proposed to retain this property and taxable qualification, was perfectly justified in doing so.
§ MR. ELTONsaid, he thought that some modification might be made in the sub-section without getting rid of it altogether. He thought it might be made perfectly clear that fagot voting, or fictitious voting, in the proper sense of the word, should be put an end to; and also that species of new fagot voting, which the Prime Minister had described as the creation of rent-charges for the purpose of conferring a vote. The right hon. Gentleman complained that in regard to that class of voters they did not even reside on the property from which their rent-charges were drawn, and it would in some cases be a difficulty for them to do so. But, while admitting the desirability of preventing this new kind of fagot voting, he thought it would be possible to give votes to the bonâ fide rent-chargers who had obtained their rent-charges by inheritance, descent, marriage settlement, or some other properly acquired interest. For 1799 instance, he might mention the case of copyholds and fee-farm-rents acquired from the Crown. Enfranchisement was about to be very much extended throughout the country, and a great number of persons would find themselves in the possession of rent-charges created by the Commissioners under the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. He presumed that when the Prime Minister had considered the case of those individuals, which probably he had nut done hitherto, because the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill had not been permanently passed, he would find that a great number of cases would arise in which the persons enjoying property of this description would be entitled to a vote. He certainly thought a distinction ought to be drawn between the purchase of a bonâ fide estate and an estate cut up for the purpose of multiplying votes. This would apply to the case of lay rectories and vicarages which sometimes came into the market and might, undoubtedly, be made into a machine for the multiplication of votes. He could quite sympathize with the desire of the Prime Minister to prevent property of this description from being employed for the multiplication of votes; but he thought the case was very unlikely to occur in future, and although it was undoubtedly desirable that rectories and vicarages should not be purchased for the purpose of conferring votes, still it would not be just or right to abolish all votes for rectories except one single vote for each, because, as was perfectly well known by everyone who had been in the habit of dealing with ecclesiastical estates, they were sometimes not altogether composed of the rent-charges arising in the same parish. He himself was acquainted with a case in Shropshire where the rectory was divided into three or four portions, and there were chapelries and separate portions of the tithes which in ancient times had belonged to the monasteries. His own opinion was that each separate estate forming a portion of a rectory or vicarage ought to have a vote if occupied singly, and he could not help thinking that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would turn his attention to the question, he would see that there was considerable force in the arguments he had ventured to put forward.
§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the Attorney General would know very well that copyhold land formerly gave no vote, and it would only give a vote now when it was of a certain value. In a large district of the county in which he resided the property was copyhold, and all the tithes were appropriated to copyhold land. It was now provided that a copyhold should be of £5 annual value before the holder obtained a vote; but there were a variety of small copyholders in regard to which the tithe rent-charge was a certain element in regard to estimating the value. He thought there should be some words inserted in the Bill to provide that where the copyholder was also holder of the land from which the tithe rent-charge was derived he should have a vote; but he was afraid that as the Bill was at present drawn that privilege was not conceded. A person would get a vote as copyholder and tithe rent-charger to the extent of £5 annual value; but if he had no vote in respect of the tithe rent-charge itself, a large number of persons would be practically disfranchised.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not answered the objection which he had taken in regard to the anomaly of allowing this ancient qualification to remain, oven when the land had been practically disposed of, because the position of a reversioner who hold a freehold ground-rent which would revert to him on the completion of a lease for 999 years could not be said to have a very large interest in the property, and he could not see why such a holder should be preferred to a rent-charger. He considered it most unfair that while one had a vote the other should be disfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his observations upon that point, nor, also, the observations he had made with regard to the injustice with which innocent purchasers were dealt. Under the circumstances, he conceived that the only object of the right hon. Gentleman was a political object, and that he desired to get rid of a certain number of voters. Indeed, the measure appeared to him to be entirely a political move from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken in saying that n rent-charge was not associated with the land. The rent was distinctly a charge 1801 upon land, and, in the event of its not being paid, the charger had a right to enter upon the land and distrain. The right hon. Gentleman now raised a new point as to whether the Bill was a Conservative measure or not. He (Mr. Cavendish Bcntinck) certainly did not feel that it was a Conservative Bill; and, most assuredly, if it were a Conservative Bill, it would not have been pressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and so energetically supported by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House. He contended that this clause was a disfranchising clause, and that, like the whole of the Bill, its object was to gain a Party advantage.
§ MR. WARTONprotested against the manner in which the Bill had been drafted. He objected not only to the wording of this section, but to the marginal note at the side of it. They all knew perfectly well that the marginal note did not form part of the clause; but, at the same time, he thought it extremely wrong, and positively indecent, for those who drew up the Bill and for those who supported it to introduce such a note as this "restriction on fagot votes." Those words were misleading:, and had no business to be there at all. The draftsman could not have been led to the expedient of using these words from the want of any better, because he had chosen as a prefix to the section other words which were not of an objectionable character. He thought similar words might well have been employed in the marginal note; and before the clause was passed he would take the opportunity of asking the Chairman what could be done to get rid of this abominable expression, which could have been inserted only for political purposes. It was a phrase which had no legal weight whatever. ["Question!"] He contended that he had a perfect right to discuss this point.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYrose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was discussing the marginal note, and not the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that he was discussing both at the same time, as the hon. Member would have discovered if he had only the sense to see it. The point he desired the Committee to consider was the words used to describe the clause; and he wanted to know how 1802 far such words as these were justified in a Reform Act? He contended that every rent-charge was not naturally a fagot vote; and he thought the error into which the Government had fallen, was in effect that there was no distinction whatever between what was usually called a fagot vote, and what was really an important rent-charge. He thought this had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. and learned Member that this is not the time for objecting to the marginal note; but the proper time will be upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he had already left that point. He was now addressing his remarks to the words "rent-charge" in line 6, and he was pointing out that in the statement of the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman had confused a trumpery interest in land, which might be called a fagot vote, and a genuine and important rent-charge. Did the Prime Minister mean to tell the Committee that a man who had a rent-charge of £1,000 a-year, and who had had to pay for it— probably 30 years' purchase—was not a capable citizen? Hon. Members were voting for the Bill because it was proposed to enfranchise capable citizens, and he would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he was of opinion that a man who was worth £30,000 was not a capable citizen? Whether a capable citizen or not, he was to be disfranchised, and the reason appeared to be that he was a man who was not very likely to hold opinions in accordance with those of the Prime Minister. He did not know whether it was altogether fair for the Prime Minister to turn round to the Attorney General, and appeal to him whether he was not acquainted with a particular case in which fagot votes had been created. He did not doubt for a moment that a property worth £90 a-year might be cut into 41 votes, and perhaps three or four more, if proper ingenuity had been exercised. He believed that the Attorney General himself had lately acquired a vote for one-half or one-third of a property in some county or other. That, however, was not a fair way of putting the matter. There were other rent-charges besides 1803 those, and what he wished to see was some modification of the section which would enable those who had a bonâ fide and important interest in property to exercise the franchise. They might make it £15 or £10, or any amount they liked, and that would be far more reasonable than the disfranchisement of the owners of every description of rent-charge. Where was the line to be drawn? The copyholder of the annual value of £5 was to have a vote, and under the Chandos Clause £50 was the limit imposed. All the arguments which had been adduced about the owners of these rent-charges not being connected with the county for which the voting was to take place were all arguments put forward in order to prevent votes from being given to persons who were legitimately entitled to them. As a protest against the wholesale disfranchisement effected by the clause, and on the ground that it would prevent people with property from ever obtaining political influence, he should vote against the clause.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI should like to point out to the Committee that the Government have not given any answer to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), which I consider to have considerable bearing on the question before us. The suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) is to leave out the whole of the sub-section, because the sub-section will have the effect of not only doing that which the Government wish to do—namely, of preventing fagot voting; but it will go beyond that, and will prevent any vote from being given by any bonâ fide rent-charger whatever. There have been certain cases mentioned in which such a prohibition would amount to a very serious disfranchisement and a very unreasonable disfranchisement—cases in which rent-charges have been created for perfectly legitimate objects, without having any regard to the vote at all. I could mention myself, from my own personal knowledge, several cases in which the owners of estates have given up the property and taken a rent-charge for life—a rent-charge of £100 or £200 a-year. That has been done without the slightest view of conferring electoral 1804 privileges; but, at the same time, according to this Bill, if the owner had no other property than that rent-charge he would lose the vote, although the property itself really conferred it upon him before. I want to know whether the Government will consider the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, and agree to some modification of the clause, so that while fagot votes are prevented, rent-charges created under ordinary and legitimate circumstances will afford a vote to the possessor? My own opinion is that the two descriptions of rent-charges should be kept perfectly distinct and separate—one being made for the simple purpose of conferring a vote, while the other is made for entirely different purposes. If the Government would give a satisfactory answer to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, I am satisfied that the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would be contented with an arrangement on that basis, and would not desire to press his Amendment. Our only desire is to attain the object I have pointed out, and I think that it would be attained by accepting the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) would do more than the hon. and learned Member de-sirecl, for, if it were adopted, the only way of preventing a rent-charger from having a vote would be by proving that it was the intention of the person holding and the person succeeding to the rent-charge to create a vote. Thus it would be necessary to prove the state of men's minds, and clearly, if he accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton), he would be allowing all rent-chargers to enjoy the qualification. In this clause they were only going back to a provision enacted as far back as the Reign of William III., which prevented the conveyance of land and tenements in any corporate town, &c., for the purpose of multiplying votes, and which also prohibited devices for splitting up property for the mere purpose of enabling votes to be given in the election of a Member of Parliament. The words contained in the present clause would have the same effect; but if the Committee accepted the Amend- 1805 ment of his hon. and learned Friend, they would really allow the principle of a rent-charge to remain as a qualification. The Government had been strongly urged to abolish all property qualification as distinguished from occupation, and to proceed upon the principle of one man, one vote. They had not, however, gone to that length, but they had come to the conclusion that where a man had a large stake in the country it was desirable that he should be represented in the locality in which his interest was situated. Therefore, they had given way to the extent of allowing property to be represented; but they had come to the conclusion that that property should be really property— that it should be property having a real interest in the locality, and that it should not be property perfectly distinct from, the locality, which might be held by a non-resident having no interest whatever in the management of the property or in the locality from which he received his rent-charge. A rent-charger might have no special interest in the locality in which the property was situated, and in such cases the Government intended to prevent in future such a course as the creation of fictitious votes from being held in contemplation. The reason why they disqualified incorporeal hereditaments was that it was found that incorporeal hereditaments were the most convenient form in which fictitious votes could be created. It was difficult for a man to give a false qualification if he was himself required to be in possession of the property; but it was very easy to give a rent-charge of 40s. a-year, which might be paid or not. Therefore, what the Government said was that where the interest was clear and real the owner should be represented, but not where he was simply possessed of an incorporeal hereditament. It was believed that the adoption of this principle would, in future, prevent a practice which everyone admitted to be a great evil—namely, the creation of fagot votes.
THE CHAIRMANDo I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to withdraw his proposal?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it would be a pity if they were not able to come to 1806 some understanding upon this question, especially after the amount of courteous feeling the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had displayed in considering beforehand what would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). With a view of bridging over the difference between what might be called fagot votes and the mere 40s. qualification, he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General if he would object, afterthe word "rent-charge" were adopted, to insert words to provide that the rent-charge itself should not be less than £100 per annum? His (Mr. War-ton's) object was to draw a distinction which he thought ought to be drawn. A rent charge of £100 per annum, would represent a considerable amount of money, and would not be a mere matter of form. He contended that a person who was possessed of a rent-charge of £100 a-year was a person of considerable importance, especially when they took into consideration the low scale upon which they were admitting other voters. He hoped the Government would take time for reflection, and that they would not say in the end that a person of that condition was not entitled to a vote, or that he had obtained a rent-charge of that description without intending it to be real and bonâ fide property.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. WARTONasked the Chairman whether he would now be in Order in moving the Amendment he had suggested?
§ MR. ELTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said nothing about the case he (Mr. Elton) had put to him, of a person who by accident became possessed of a small rent-charge on ecclesiastical property—that was to say, a person who became the owner of a small portion of a tithe rent-charge. He thought there ought to be no difficulty with regard to that point, and he trusted that the Government would accept his suggestion.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENHY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept it.
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order. He believed that there was no Question before the Committee.
§ MR. ELTONthen formally moved an Amendment in the same clause, with the object of providing that a man should not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rent-charge
Created or sub-divided for the purpose of conferring a qualification as a voter on any person, or in respect of the ownership of any tithe rent-charge.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 6, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "created or subdivided for the purpose of conferring a qualification as a voter on any person, or in respect of the ownership of any tithe rent-charge."—(Mr. Elton.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 162: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
§ MR. WARTONmoved, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "of not less than £100 per annum." The effect of that Amendment would be that persons having a rent-charge of £100 a-year and upwards would be qualified to vote, and surely persons in that position were of sufficient importance to be regarded as capable citizens and to enjoy the franchise. It was not the case of a person qualifying in order to obtain a vote, but it was the case of a person who must have a substantial interest, because a person who was the owner of a rent-charge of £100 a-year would have been called upon to pay £2,000 or £3,000 for it. It was not the case of a man who possessed a rent-charge of £2 or £3 a-year for which he had paid nothing whatever. He thought it was only fair, if they were to give a vote to the owners of these rent-charges, that they should require a certain income to be derived from the rent-charges, and therefore he proposed to fix the limit at £100 per annum. For his own part, he would prefer to fix a much lower limit, because he was of opinion that persons possessing a rent-charge of much less value than £100 a-year would have a sufficient interest in the property of the locality to justify them in enjoying a vote.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to add, after the word "rent-charge,"the words"of not less than £100 per annum."—(Mr. Warten.)
1808§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. GLADSTONEI feel that it is not in the power of the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. We have no wish to recognize in the prospective arrangements of the country those purely money qualifications which have no connection with the different places or districts which are to be represented. Of course, we are perfectly aware that there is a great deal of property in this country of this character, such property, for instance, as the Funds, and a great mass of other property upon which people who have invested in it receive an interest for the capital invested; but, at the same time, that description of property is not represented because it has no genuine connection with the particular place or district to be represented. In the same way, there is no genuine connection in the case to which the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member applies, and it would certainly enable a rent-charge to be acquired for the mere purpose of obtaining a vote. As my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has already shown to the Committee, if we admit the principle of a rent-charge at all, we must open the door to the acquisition of fictitious votes. The main objection which the Government entertained to the proposal on which the Committee have just voted, applies also to this Amendment, and the Government have no choice but to oppose it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. ELTONmoved to insert, after the word "vicarage," in line 7, the words—
Chapelry or benefice to which an appointment of tithes rent-charge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished now to raise a point on the 2nd sub-section of the clause. That sub-section ran thus— 1809
Where two or more men are owners either as joint tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any laud or tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if his interest is sufficient to confer on him a qualification as a voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be entitled (in the like eases and subject to the like conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the Government in regard to this sub-section. He proposed to move formally to omit the word "where," at the beginning of the subsection, in order to raise n point which he did not think was at all settled by the Bill as it stood. Where there were two or more tenants in common or joint tenants, how was it to be decided which of the joint tenants was to be entitled to the franchise? As the Bill now stood, it appeared to him to be left entirely to chance who might be the first to apply, because the Eevising Barrister would scarcely be entitled to refuse to insert a man's name upon the Register, on the ground that some other person might apply who had, perhaps, a larger interest in the property than the man who claimed to be registered. It would be obviously unfair that a man possessing the minor interest should, by the mere accident of having made a prior application, be placed upon the Register, whereas the person who had the larger interest was entirely shut out. The question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, how they proposed to meet that objection? and in order to enable them to give an explanation, he would move formally the omission of the word "where" from the beginning of the sub-section.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "where."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not at all surprised at the right hon. Baronet raising that question, because he quite admitted that a theoretical difficulty did present itself. But they were now following old legislation in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Act of 1867. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] At any rate, the right hon. Baronet was 1810 associated with the Party who were responsible for it, and under the 27th section of the Act of 1867 the number of persons entitled to vote as joint occupiers in a county was limited to two. No more than two persons could vote as joint occupiers in a county. The section did not refer to boroughs; but in the Bill of 1867 under the £12 Occupation Clause, two occupiers only could vote even if there were 10, 12, or any other number of occupiers. The same provision was contained in the Scotch Reform Act of 1868, that two occupiers only were entitled to vote. From that time to this no practical difficulty had been experienced in settling the question as to who was entitled to the vote. Seventeen years had, therefore, elapsed, and as there had been no difficulty the matter in some way had settled itself, and he could not find that any objection had ever been made to this provision of the Acts of 1867 and 1868. If more than two persons did apply, the first comers were placed on the Register, and so long as they were there no other person could be placed upon it. He presumed that if any difficulty ever arose in the registration the first applicant would be the person whose name was inserted upon the Register, and it was obviously impossible for the Revising Barrister to decide that only the man who had a greater interest than another should have a vote, and that the man who had the minor interest should be kept off the Register. Parliament was well aware of what had been done in the Act of 1867, when they applied the same principle to the Act of 1868 for Scotland, and, as no practical difficulty had ever occurred on the subject, it had been thought wise to follow the existing rule, and to make no distinction of persons.
§ MR. BULWERasked whether a practical difficulty might not arise in the case of property being left to two sons by a father—say, for instance, a farm worth £500 a-year? Both might go into occupation as farmers and joint tenants; but brothers, as hon. Members well knew, were not always of the same political opinions. One might be a Liberal and the other a Conservative, and he wanted to know what would be done in a case of that kind?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that no such case 1811 could arise, but both would come under the provisions of the Bill and be entitled to votes. It was only in cases where there had been a conveyance of property to tenants in common, or joint tenants, that the difficulty arose.
§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had failed to explain how, under the Scotch Act of 1868, if several claimants equally entitled as joint tenants to be placed on the Register made a claim, their application was disposed of.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, he had only answered the question which had been put to him by his hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer), and he had intended to point out that no difficulty would arise except in the case of the conveyance of the property, because where the names of more than one person appeared on the occupation rate as occupying a farm for the legitimate purpose of cultivation, every tenant who made his claim would be entitled to a vote; but in other cases of tenants in common or joint tenancy, the persons whose names would appear on the Eegister would be those who made the first application. He believed that no difficulty had occurred on the subject of occupation under the Scotch Act of 1868; and with regard to other matters, it would be necessary in Scotland to exercise in future the same discretion which had been exercised without difficulty in the past.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would move the omission of the subsection altogether.
THE CHAIRMA.NThe Committee have not yet reached the point when it would be regular to move the omission of the sub-section.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that in that case, he would move the omission of the next words in the subsection — namely, "either as joint tenants or," although he thought, as the Amendment appeared on the Paper, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) was entitled to move the next. He objected altogether to the disfranchisement of joint tenants. He was unable to see on what grounds those who held a material 1812 interest in the country, and were capable citizens, were to be deprived of their right of voting.
§ MR. BUCHANANrose to Order. He wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANI cannot tell yet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, however, perfectly in Order.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought it was a great pity that the hon. Member had not waited to hear what he had to say. An objection had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to joint owners or rent-chargers, on the ground that they had no interest in the land. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that property should really be property, and that the owner should have a genuine connection with the district for which he claimed to be qualified to vote. But how was it possible to argue that joint tenants of a property and tenants in. common had no interest and were not connected with the land? It was not the abuse of a thing to which they should have regard, but the use of it. The fact that here and there instances could be found where joint tenancies and even tenancies in common might have been created for the purpose of giving voting power, was no reason whatever why the principle should be done away with altogether. The abuse of a principle was no justification for getting rid of the principle itself. Nobody would contend that joint tenants or tenants in common were not capable citizens, and why should they be disfranchised when Parliament was about to enfranchise a large number of persons who paid little or nothing for their holdings? They proposed to disfranchise joint tenants and tenants in common of an estate worth £10,000 a-year, while they were enfranchising others who might only pay an occupation rent of 20s. a-year. More than, that, they were establishing a service franchise.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. He asked the Chairman whether the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were regular, and had any bearing upon the sub-section before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANThe right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or," and as long as his re- 1813 marks are addressed to that point they are perfectly in Order.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), instead of interrupting the proceedings, had better go to dinner. The Bill proposed to place upon the Register a vast number of electors, and yet, while doing that, and enfranchising persons who had a very small stake in the country, this clause proposed to exclude and disfranchise the owners of joint tenancies and tenancies in common who were largely interested in the property of the country. What would be the result of passing the new service franchise? He presumed that in Scotland thousands of persons would be enfranchised under it, including shepherds, gamekeepers, and others in domestic service, and while those persons were to be put upon the Register, tenants in common and joint tenants were to be excluded. He knew himself of more than one case where, in order to avoid the payment of heavy duties, a father and son had purchased together a considerable estate, and yet only one of them was to be allowed to vote, the other losing his right and capable citizenship. He did not think that the answer of thehon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to which of the joint tenants was to be preferred was at all satisfactory. The hon, and learned Gentleman had referred to an old Act of Parliament, and then to the Acts of 1867 and 1868, in which a similar provision appeared to have been got in by hap-hazard, and he said that no inconvenience or difficulty had been experienced in consequence. On the other hand, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had heard of cases where very great inconvenience had taken place in this respect, and he thought that in new and important legislation of this kind it would be better to prevent any anomalies or difficulties of the kind. But the existence of anomalies did not affect the principle of his objection that they were about to disfranchise the owners of property who were associated with the district for no reason whatever except that the Government thought that, in some cases or other, the rights and privileges of joint tenants or tenants in common had been so dealt with as to lead to inconvenience. He begged to 1814 move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the words "either as joint tenants or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Committee would hear some reasons from Her Majesty's Government for retaining the provision proposed to be omitted from this subsection. He was quite ready to admit, as all of them must admit, that there had been great abuses in the way of creating fagot votes, under a system which the sub-section was intended to check. He would venture, however, to point out that these abuses had not been brought about so much by the facility of creating the joint tenancies or tenancies in common referred to in the section, as by the fact that the constituencies had been small in numbers, and that, therefore, the creation of fagot votes conferred a large power on the holders, and might have a material effect upon the result of an election. But if the franchise were extended as Her Majesty's Government proposed, this would no longer be the case, for it would be perfectly absurd for any person owning an estate to create these joint tenancies or tenancies in common simply for the purpose of placing persons upon the electoral roll, because it was obvious that the number of these persons would be so very small in comparison with the new electorate that it would really not be worth while to enter upon such a course in order to swamp the opinions of the resident and properly qualified electors. That, he believed, would be the real safeguard against these abuses in the future; and, therefore, he thought the Committee ought to have some reason from Her Majesty's Government why it was that they proposed to make a change in the law, which, even according to the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, might possibly prove an injustice as between the joint owners of property—an injustice which the hon. and learned Gentleman also admitted that he did not see his way to remedy, 1815 but which, by the omission of the subsection now under discussion, would be guarded against. He must say that it seemed to him Her Majesty's Government had gone quite far enough in the way of disf ranehisoment by passing the 1st sub-section of the clause. He did not deny that it dealt with a matter which the Prime Minister rightly said was not in the nature of a corporeal hereditament. But the present sub-section dealt with another matter altogether. It was a case of a bonâ fide form of ownership, in respect of which a joint owner or an owner in common ought, in all fairness, to be as well able to vote as if he were the sole owner. If there had been no abuses, no one would have ventured to propose the disfranchisement of these owners. His own opinion was that abuses would be sufficiently checked by the mode in which it was proposed to extend the franchise, and, therefore, the retention of this sub-section was really unnecessary.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, there was a broad distinction between joint tenants and tenants in common. In the first case, there was no partition, and the estate passed to the survivor of them. They, in fact, constituted one ownership; and it might be reasonable to treat them on that footing for the purpose of the franchise, giving, in fact, one vote only for the entire property. But with respect to tenants in common, the case was different. They had separate and independent estates and intei'psts in. the propeity, which they could alienate, or which passed to their heirs or devisees on their respective deaths, and they had a right to call for and enforce an actual partition of the property at any time; and he therefore thought that tenants in common were fairly entitled to enjoy the right of voting, and that their claim ought to be considered in dealing with the franchise.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that he was in favour of retaining tenants in common, and of striking out joint tenants; but he was unable to say that he agreed in the views of the hon. Gentleman. In order to save time, he might say that as far as the Government were concerned they regarded the present discussion as representing the discussion upon 1816 the whole of the sub-section. He would, therefore, say at once that the Government would adhere to the sub-section. They were willing, as he had said before, to give a vote to a property qualification even although it might include non-residence, and even although, in, some cases, the persons enfranchised might have very little interest in the locality. In that way, property would be represented; but they desired to surround that representation of property with certain safeguards, and not to allow it to be used simply as a pretence for obtaining the vote. How was it that fagot votes had been created? They had been created by giving votes to many persons who had only an interest in one tenement. The Government endeavoured to get rid of that difficulty by taking a provision contained in an old Act of William III., which enacted that not more than a single vote should be permitted for one and the same house or tenement. Words to that effect had been introduced into the present clause, and the Committee were asked to go back to the wisdom of the legislation adopted 200 years ago, and to give one vote only for a single tenement. The Government, however, had been more generous than, the Legislature in the time of William III., because in certain cases they had allowed one tenement more than one vote—namely, where the right accrued through inheritance, marriage settlement, or will; but wherever attempts were mane to split up the qualification by transference of the property to a great number of persons so as to give votes to those who had no real or substantial interest in the tenement, they went back to the old legislation of the time of William III., and said that only one such person should be entitled to vote, whether the persons in question were joint tenantsor tenants in common— the intention was to allow one vote, and one vote only, for a single tenement. As he had pointed out, the Government had recurred to the legislation of the Reign of William III.; but in 1867 the Bill of the Conservative Government said that only two occupiers should vote for a single tenement, and all that had just been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might, with equal force, have been urged against the legislation of 1867. The only alteration 1817 made by the present Bill was that, whereas by the Act of 1867 two occupiers were allowed to vote for the same tenement, the present Bill took only one owner instead of the two occupiers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember that the Prime Minister had already referred to an instance in Scot-land in which 40 votes had been created for one tenement. Her Majesty's Government wished to put a stop to such a state of things, and to prevent the creation of fictitious votes for the sole purpose of conferring the franchise on persons who had no real interest in the property.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that a technical distinction existed in England between joint tenants and tenants in common. Although precisely the same distinction did not exist in Scotland, the same objectionable practice had been resorted to for the purpose of creating fagot votes. It had long ago been discovered that a similar description of tenure afforded peculiar facilities for the creation of the same evil of fagot voting. All that was necessary was to divide the annual value among the number of persons it was wished to enfranchise. An indefinite number of votes might be created in that way, and in Scotland they had become so familiar with the system that there were instances in which 40 voters qualified for what would be called in England a single tenement. In the present Bill the Government endeavoured to preserve the rights of property, and all the legitimate claims of property were carefully safeguarded in the later part of this provision. Where the acquisitions of interest were not fictitious, and where there were evidences of good faith, the Bill preserved to them their capacity of conferring the vote. Rights obtained by descent, by marriage, by co-partnership, or by will, were preserved; but in other cases, where they were obviously fictitious and only acquired for the purpose of giving the vote, they were done away with.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was a very strong one against the general principle of the Bill—namely, the extension of household franchise to counties, and, so far from being a protection 1818 against fagot voting, the provisions of the Bill would afford ample opportunities for the creation and multiplication of fictitious votes; all that it would be necessary to do was to pay the rates and give a man a key of the street door, and they would be able to create at once as many fagot votes as they liked. Indeed, he thought the Bill ought to have had a provision inserted in the Preamble to this effect — "Whereas it is desirable to extend the principle of fagot voting." He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment, because he desired to enter his protest against this disfranchising process, whereby joint tenants and tenants in common, who were associated with the land itself, were to lose the rights as electors which they had enjoyed from time immemorial.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Government had now enunciated their views with regard to the extension of the franchise, and had fully exemplified what the real principle of the Bill was. They refused to acknowledge any of the rights or privileges of property in the franchise, and spoke of them as incorporeal hereditaments. Surely, the Public Debt of this country had become a property; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister emphatically declared that he would not acknowledge that kind of property as entitling the owners of it to enjoy the franchise. This was a very serious declaration, because the right hon. Gentleman also excluded taxation —either general taxation or local taxation—as an element of qualification. The right hon. Gentleman established this rule and principle when he was about to add 2,000,000 to the electorate —2,000,000 of persons who were certainly not be identified by their possession of property. He was ready to admit that he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had formerly written—that the tendency of this democratic change would probably be in the direction of establishing again the principle of the protection of labour in this country; and he trusted that that protection would not be limited to protection for the property of the country, but would be extended to the competition of foreign nations.
THE CHAIRMANI must request the hon. Gentleman to confine himself 1819 to the Amendment, which is to omit from the clause the words "either as joint tenants or."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEapologized, raid said, he would bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. At the same time, he thought it was only fair, seeing that these arguments had been adduced upon the subject-matter of the clause, to make the observations he had made. He would now sit down, subject to the authority of the Chair, by repeating that he had learnt a lesson from the discussion which had taken place.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he would make an appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaveu (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) not to press his Amendment. His object in making the appeal was this. There was a distinction to be drawn between the case of joint tenants and tenants in common, as had heen pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be bettor to keep tenants in common in the Bill, and to strike out joint tenants. He thought such a course would fully accomplish the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to treat joint tenants as if they were in precisely the same position as tenants in common, which, as a matter of fact, was not the case. If the Government were in favour of giving the vote to one of these classes of tenants, then those who ought to have it were tenants in common and not joint tenants. Personally, he did not see why several persons who enjoyed the same rights as tenants in common should not have the privilege of the franchise. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, so that the Committee might be in a position to proceed at once with the discussion of the real question at issue.
MR. BULAWERsaid, he had gathered from the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that they were now really engaged in a discussion of the merits of the entire sub-section, and that the vote they would be asked to give, as accepted by the Government, would be upon the Amendment to leave out Hub-section 2. 1820 The Amendment of his right hon. arid learned Friend the Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) applied to a portion of the sub-section only; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had also an Amendment upon the Paper lower down, for the omission of the subsection. As it did not seem to be generally understood, he wished to know from the Attorney General if he was right in the impression that they were now engaged in discussing the entire sub-section?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought it was understood that the vote would be taken upon the entire sub-section.
§ MR. GREGORYsuggested that the Division should be taken upon the word "either." The object of those who agreed with him would, he thought, be best attained by the withdrawal of the Amendment now before the Committee, and the substitution of an Amendment to omit the word "either." That would leave it open to retain joint tenants, or tenants in common, provided that the Committee agreed to take one or the other, but not both.
THE CHAIRMANThe Question before the Committee is to omit the words "either as joint tenants or." Does the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) press that Amendment?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKNo; I will withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GREGORYmoved to omit from the sub-section the word "either."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "either."—(Mr. Gregory.)
§ Question put, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 24; Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had an Amendment which he should like to move at the end of the clause, with the object of making the clause clearer.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he rose to move the Amendment standing in hia name, the object of which was to limit the number of owners of land or tene- 1821 ments proposed by the clause to be entitled to vote by reason of their carrying on trade or business as partners on such land or tenements. It occurred to him that the term "partners" was a little too comprehensive. In that county of Scotland represented by the Prime Minister (Edinburghshire) there was a large number of oil-making Companies, and he could see nothing in the Bill, as it stood, which would prevent the partners in those Companies, however numerous they might be, from being put on the Register and voting. The words of the clause wore—"and are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon." His object in proposing this Amendment was to prevent any possible abuse of the intention of the clause by a large number of partners carrying on trade or business, and with that view he had in his Amendment put down the number of persons who should be entitled to be registered as voters at six, which number was taken from the Joint Stock Companies Act.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the word "and," insert the words "not exceeding six in number." —(Mr. Anderson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were not disposed at present to accept the Amendment. So far as the persons forming Joint Stock Companies were concerned, the Company as such would be the occupier, and no member of the Company simply because he had shares in it would be entitled to vote. The clause contemplated people who were engaged as partners in trade or business personally on the conditions specified, and not as members of a Company. Then with regard to partners not members of Companies, bearing in mind the safeguards contained in the clause, the Government saw no reason why the number of persons entitled to be registered and to vote should be confined within the limit proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, inasmuch as they considered that in practice the abuse apprehended by him would not arise.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYpointed out that the wording of the clause was alternate; it was "or"—not "and"— 1822 where they occupied the land or tenement.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Attorney General to the wording o£ the clause which rendered it necessary, for the purpose of this franchise, that certain businesses or trades should be carried on. He had no doubt that the intention of the Government was to include the class of persons whom he was about to refer to; but the words of the clause were—
Where" (such owners) "occupy the land or tenement, and are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon.Now, it was clear that this wording covered the case of owners occupying land for the purpose of farming; but he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that it might not be sufficiently comprehensive, because he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) conceived it possible that owners occupying land as woodland, or for grazing purposes, might not be held to be carrying on business as farmers. If his view were incorrect, he should be glad to hear a statement from the Attorney General on the subject.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were quite at one with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire not to exclude from the franchise persons occupying the land for purposes of the kind indicated, and which they believed would come within the words "carrying on trade."
§ MR. WARTONobjected to the words "restriction on fagot votes," and proposed to substitute the words "prohibition of multiplication of votes," which stood at the head of the section.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport was discussing the wording of a marginal note which was not part of the Bill. If the hon. and learned Member would communicate with him. any suggestion he had to make on this point should receive attention.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that the words proposed to be substituted were perfectly innocent, and he could discern no reason why the Attorney General should object to his suggestion. The drafting of the 1823 next clause showed that he was perfectly consistent, the same wording, "Assimilation of Occupation Qualification," having been placed both at the heading of the clause and in the margin.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought there might possibly be some misunderstanding in regard to the point he had just raised. He did not mean the ordinary acceptation of the word "farmer." His desire was to prevent the exclusion of persons owning and using land for some purpose which would not be ordinarily covered by the words "trade or business"—grazing or woodcutting, for instance.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the right hon. Gentleman would communicate with him, the subject should receive attention.
§ MR. BULWERasked if persons owning and occupying laud for the purpose of sport only would come within the meaning of the Proviso?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), said the clause referred to the ownership of property as distinct from occupation.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he regretted extremely that the clause should pass in its present form, because it was clearly a disfranchising clause. There were a large number of persons ia the Kingdom who had rentcharges— especially in Ireland— and who were particularly interested in the various localities in which the rents were receivable, and these persons would be clearly disfranchised. He himself had a rent-charge ia the county of Kent, which had been in the possession of his family for many generations, and he presumed that by-and-bye it would cease to be available for the purpose of voting. He had an undoubted interest in the locality in question—he was anxious to know whether the rent would be paid or not—and therefore he, for one, did not hold with the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman that owners of rent-charges had no interest in the localities where such rent-charges were receivable. It was perfectly well known that there were many persons who owned rent-charges, and the effect of the clause would be that they would lose all interest in the localities, so far as the vote was concerned. Although the clause might, to a certain extent, prevent fagot 1824 voting, it clearly took away from persons legitimately holding property the right of voting, which, he thought, they ought to possess.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Assimilation of Occupation Qualification.
§ Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification).
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he proposed to move the omission of the words "clear yearly value," in line 30, on the ground that their interpretation would cause difficulty hereafter. The words were internreted in Clause 11 with regard to Scotland as the "Annual value appearing in the valuation roll;" in respect of Ireland they were interpreted as the "Net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being;" but with regard to England they appeared to have no interpretation at all. He suggested that it would remove some difficulty in the settlement of the value before the Revising Barrister, in the case of applications for registration under the clause, if the value were taken in the same way with regard to England as in other parts of the Kingdom.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "clear yearly value," and insert the words "rateable value."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee would perceive that the question of striking out the words "clear yearly value," for the purpose of substituting the words "rateable value," was one of considerable importance, The object of the words was very simple—namely, the assimilation of the occupation franchise in boroughs and counties. The borough occupation franchise, as created by the 37th section of the Act of 1832, was a £10 clear yearly value, and the county occupation franchise was a £12 rateable value, which latter, as the Committee would be aware, represented a yearly value of £15 or £16—the rateable value being arrived at by making certain deductions. The intention of the Government being to assimilate the two fran- 1825 chises, they put in the words "or tenement" after "land," as distinguished from the simple building in the case of boroughs, the effect of which would be that the occupier of a field would have a vote, whereas before the field must have had a building upon it to entitle him to be registered as a voter. For the purpose of assimilation they had reduced the £12 rating to a £10 clear yearly value. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood that this was a Bill for equalizing the franchise in the three Kingdoms. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Yes.] But that was precisely what it did not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the rateable value was less than the yearly value; and yet the Government proposed to take the yearly value with regard to England, and the rateable value in the ease of Scotland and Ireland. Everyone knew that the rateable valuation in Ireland by no means represented the real value of the property; a few years ago it was very much less than the real value, and it was so, to a certain extent, even now. Therefore, as far as this clause was concerned, the occupation franchise in Ireland was not the same it would be in England. The reason for the introduction of the words "clear yearly value" was, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the Government wanted to lower the value as much as they could. Then, why not take the yearly value in all cases? His object, as he had already stated, was to have a fixed standard, instead of a phrase which would become the subject of constant discussion in the Revision Courts; and that point had not been met by the argument of the Attorney General. He was willing to take a lower figure than 10 for the purpose of equalization, his anxiety being that the work of the Revising Barrister, which would be materially increased under the Bill, should be made as easy as possible; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would not admit his Amendment at this place, he should certainly move an Amendment to Clause 11, where the question could be very conveniently raised, and where the interpretation "rateable value" would more obviously carry with it the intention expressed 1826 by the Government that the franchise in England should be the same as in Scotland and Ireland.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question was practically whether they should take the clear yearly value, or whether they should allow the overseer to determine the value of the property. With regard to the difficulty which it was supposed the words would place in the way of the Revising Barrister, he believed there was very little difficulty indeed in interpreting what constituted a clear yearly rental for the purpose of registration.
§ Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to move to reduce the qualification from £10 to £5. He hoped the Committee would not think there was any bugbear of property in this matter; it was a genuine occupation franchise, and had nothing to do with property. The hon. and learned Attorney General, therefore, need not be afraid of it. The clause enfranchised non-resident occupiers; his Amendment merely reduced the amount of qualification. The ground of his proposal was this—that he thought the occupation franchise should bear some proportion or relation to the household franchise, as it was proposed in this measure. The franchise, as they knew, was degraded by the Bill, and the degradation would produce very illiterate and ignorant voters. Testing a man's capacity by occupation, he did not think it could be said that by reducing this qualification from £10 to £5 they would be introducing incapable people, or people below the level of dwellers in mud huts, or of those included under the lodger or the service franchise. His proposal would certainly be a lowering of the franchise; but not to so great a depth as was already proposed by the Bill. The tenant of a £5 holding without a house was a more respectable and a more trustworthy person than the householder or lodger who might be paying 6d. a-week for his house or room. He did not think the Government would be able to say that he was proposing to enfranchise anyone who ought not to have the franchise by reason of incapacity. He therefore looked about to find what earthly argument the Government could produce against his proposal. Was the £5 occupior so disreputable 1827 that the Government would refuse to allow him to have the franchise, or was it because he did not occupy a house together with the land? The latter could not be the case, because in proposing this £10 occupation franchise the Government were deliberately abolishing the necessity of residence. Residence was no longer a test or a condition for a vote; therefore, what reason could the Government bring forward against the Amendment? Five pound holdings were holdings occupied by capable persons; and why should not they have the franchise? There seemed to him to be an incongruity in enfranchising a £1 householder, as they did in Ireland, whilst refusing to enfranchise the occupier of a £5 tenement. He could not, in thinking over the matter, conceive any possible argument that the Government could bring forward against his proposal, unless, indeed, it was that the Bill was be incomplete, and so full of anomalies, that it was useless to attempt to remove any of them, and that they were determined to send it up to its account in "another place" with all its imperfections on its head. As a sincere reformer, he could only Joolr with anxiety and dread upon the determination of the Government not to accept any improvements, from whicheverjside of the House they were proposed. He begged leave to propose this reduction of the occupation franchise from £10 to £5, and would only express a hope that the Government would accept it, or, at all events, adduce some reasonable argument against it.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "five." — (Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CUBITTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General whether this franchise was to be dependent or not on residence? If he (Mr. Cubitt) understood aright, the present £50 county occupation was independent of a residence; but the £.10 household franchise was dependent upon it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the borough franchise was dependent upon a residence within seven miles of the borough; but that residence was not required in respect of such franchise in a county. 1828 As to the Amendment, it sought to enfranchise a non-resident voter—it was;he enfranchisement of the property owner. He really could not tell why the sum of £10 should be the uniform limit of occupation; it had been so fixed in boroughs in 1832, and in 1867 it was retained at £12 in the counties and £10 in the boroughs. The hon. Member objected to such a sum being fixed; but he had adduced no more argument in favour of the reduced sum he proposed than could be offered in support of a proposal to reduce the qualification to £2, or even to £1. It was necessary to have a uniform limit, and the £10 limit having been decided upon, and being well understood, it was desirable to retain it. All he could say on the question was that the Government had been anxious to avoid altering the franchise more than they considered to be absolutely necessary. They found the £10 franchise in existence, and thought it well to retain that figure, although they admitted they saw no particular charm in it.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he must confess that he was a little disappointed by the answer given by the Attorney General to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), because it seemed to him that though what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said might be a very good argument against any reduction of the £10 occupation franchise to a £5 occupation if this question stood alone, he had hardly touched the point as to how it was to be dealt with in connection with the other provisions of the Bill. The principal point of the hon. Member for North Shropshire was that the Government were going to enfranchise a great number of persons of presumably less intelligence than the £5 occupier. It appeared to him (Mr. Raikes) that that was an argument the Government were bound to meet. If they thought that a £5 occupier was likely to be a less "capable citizen" than the people it was proposed in this wholesale manner to admit to the franchise then there would be some reason in their rejecting the Amendment. If this matter stood alone, he should oppose the proposal that the £10 should be reduced to £5; but, having regard to the different parts of the Bill, it seemed to him that the Government were bound to show that the people whom the hon. 1829 Member for North Shropshire proposed to enfranchise were less fit to receive a vote than those to whom it would be given by the Bill. The 2,000,000 of capable citizens who were to be admitted to the franchise by the measure would not, he presumed, be very largely increased if this Amendment were adopted; and it would, at least, be said that those who would be admitted under the Amendment had more of a stake in the country, and were possessed of a higher qualification, having regard to what had hitherto been considered essential to make a capable citizen, than the great mass of the new voters the Government proposed to bring in. He trusted the Committee would hear some further argument from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in connection with the other provisions of the Bill before this Amendment was disposed of, because, unless they did, it seemed to him that up to now the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations had rather missed the point.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had given no reason at all why £5 should be adopted in place of £10. If the Committee were disposed to adopt the £5 limit there was no earthly reason why another proposal to reduce it to 40s. should not be brought forward, and supported by precisely the same arguments as those which they had heard to recommend the present proposal. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Shropshire were pressed to its practical conclusion an Amendment reducing the occupation franchise in regard to land to 40s. might just as well be accepted. This was the first occasion, to the best of his belief, on which it had been proposed by any Government to establish a franchise of a non-residential character in boroughs, without any connection with houses or buildings; and, for his own part, he should have been very glad if the proposal contained in Clause 5 had never been made. The Prime Minister had said that the occupation of land would confer a franchise in boroughs, whether the land was connected with buildings or not.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were following the old rule laid down in 1882, by which, in case of a borough 1830 franchise, residence was necessary within seven miles of a borough.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was glad of that, and he understood the franchise was only introduced for the sake of uniformity. It was introduced as a borough franchise as it had been in Scotland. It was felt there was no reason why they should adopt £5 any more than they should retain the present figure, only that having been adopted and having become generally known, it was as well not to interfere unnecessarily with the arrangement.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, if the effect of the proposal were to add voters, not otherwise enfranchised, to the Registor, he would have supported the Amendment, and declared that he could not understand Liberal Members voting against proposals which would bring about an extension of the franchise. But he could not help thinking that the Attorney General had put the thing on an intelligible footing when he showed that the Amendment in the clause would only put the law on a worse footing as to fagot-voting than it was at present. The Government were giving them an antidote first, and then, offering them the poison in this Bill, because to his mind the clause, even as it stood, did more harm than good. It would practically confer a fagot qualification in boroughs, and such a proposal was made for the first time in our legislation.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the matter was rendered rather worse than he had supposed by the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). The hon. Member for Salford not unnaturally supposed that the requirement of residence with respect to a borough was to be abolished, and that this clause was practically introducing in boroughs the franchise which now existed in counties, lowering it from a £12 rateable value to a £10 yearly value. But that, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, was not his intention. The Government proposed to keep up the qualification of residence in boroughs. Why did they do that? Why, because they feared that if they were to abolish it they would be introducing a system of fagot votes through this occupation franchise. But why were they going to 1831 inflict on counties a system which they would not inflict on boroughs?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)The clause will not do so.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcertainly thought it would. The present county qualification of England was a £12 rating qualification, which did not require residence. The Government might leave that as it was—he had no objection at all to their doing so; but he certainly did not think they ought to lower it if they had in their mind the danger that would be brought about by lowering the qualification without requiring residence through the creation of fagot votes. If the rating were lowered to £10 yearly value they might see a great many people over-estimating the value of their property in order to get votes out of it. They would find many people possessing property, with a value of £7 or £8, using every means they could devise to persuade the Revising Barristers that they had a £10 qualification. There might be just as many fagot votes created in counties in this way as Her Majesty's Government proposed to abolish by the clause which had just passed the Committee. If this county franchise, free from the requirements of residence, was to be inserted in the Bill, the other clauses of which would give the county franchise to every householder in the county, there would be very few cases indeed in which it could be fairly applied. On the other hand, it was a clause which, by the showing of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was capable of being- applied for the purpose of creating fagot votes, or else there was no reason why they should continue to require a residence in boroughs. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give some further explanation beyond that he had tendered to the Committee, which was that the Government desired to keep up the existing law. The Committee should have some reason why the Government proposed to inflict on counties this possibility of the development of a new system of fagot votes.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid he did not quite clearly understand the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed any Amendment they would discuss it; 1832 but, so far as he could follow him, he was objecting to the necessity for a residence in boroughs.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHNo; I did not.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the fact that the non-resident voter should have a vote in the county, and the right hon. Gentleman was willing there should be a residence qualification in boroughs, and declared that non-residence was not necessary in the counties; and he said, on an Amendment proposing to reduce the qualification from £10 to £5, that he wished to leave the franchise as it was the right hon. Gentleman, as a county Member, refused to allow a £10 occupier in the county to vote, because he supposed such a person was not fit to exercise the franchise.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI did not say so.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman had said something to that effect. He must be consistent. If he wished to allow the franchise to remain as it was he wished to allow the county franchise to rest unaltered, which was a £15 or £16 rental. The Government, on the other hand, wished to reduce it. The Government were seeking to enfranchise the county occupier, and the right hon. Gentleman to prevent it. The Government wished to assimilate the two franchises—that was to say, to reduce the £15 or £16 rental to the same qualification as that of the boroughs.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him that the Attorney General got into difficulties, not understanding the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), because of his extraordinary passion for assimilation. That passion led him to ludicrous lengths. Hon. Members could quite understand that the object of the Bill was to give the same household franchise to the counties that the boroughs possessed; but the Attorney General was now endeavouring to assimilate things which were not at all similar—a qualification where residence was required in boroughs, and a qualification where residence was not required in counties. These things could not be assimilated bv making the £15 or £16 rental a £10 qualification as it was in the boroughs. 1833 If they had a householder in the county, and a householder in the borough, they could, in a certain sense, assimilate their franchises; but they could not assimilate totally dissimilar qualifications. Upon the Amendment before the Committee, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given due force and weight to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). With regard to "capable citizens," these Irish voters, or the majority of the Irish people who were to be admitted to the franchise, were persons who were paying somewhere about £1 a-year rental. He believed there was a majority of about 100,000 of these people who paid no more than £1 a-year rental: and he certainly thought, with due submission to the Attorney General, that a £5 occupier in a county or borough in England should have as nuich, if not more, weight than a £1 occupier in the wilds of the West of Ireland. However, the Government knew very well that by the proposals they were making they would get the support of the Irish Members; and he presumed they cared more for the votes of these £1 occupiers than they did for £5 occupiers in England. With regard to the whole clause, he must repeat that the passion of the Government for assimilation had produced a most deplorable state of things.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he had listened to the arguments of the hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with amazement; it seemed that his main contention was, "what has been shall be;" because £10 had been the qualification in the past so it should be in the future. Such logic would be fatal to the Bill. Why had the Prime Minister brought in a measure to overturn the whole system of voting if the Government were to argue, as soon as an Amendment of this sort was brought forward, that because a certain thing had been done up to this time, therefore it was right? The Attorney General declared, with the confidence of a man asserting some incontestible truth, that because £10 had been adopted up to this time, therefore £10, and nothing but £10, should qualify for the franchise for ever. He was glad that he had, at any rate, elicited by his Amendment some evidence of the fact that the Government were opposed to 1834 anythingin the shape of an enfranchising clause when it came from the Opposition side of the House. It was as well that that fact should be known to the Committee and the country—that the Government were afraid of accepting an enfranchising clause when it came from the Conservatives. He confessed he felt some tenderness for hon. Members opposite, many of whom sympathized with the Amendment, but did not dare to go against the Government. He pitied hon. Members opposite very much, and out of pity he would withdraw the Amendment, and not put them to the trouble and difficulty of having to vote against their convictions.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished to move an Amendment, which was not on the Paper. In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words, "after the passing of this Act." This he proposed in order to carry out the undertaking which had been given by the Prime Minister that they should not at present fix a date at which the Act should come into operation.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "after the passing of this Aet."—(The Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. WARTONwas under the impression that the words "after the passing of this Act" remained in Clause 4. If they struck them out here, when they went through the Bill again on Eeport it would be necessary to strike them out of the other clause.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if it were necessary to strike the words out on Report it should then be done.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Supplemental Provisions.
§ Clause 6 (Voter not to vote for county in respect of occupation of property in borough) agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto).
1835§ MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 3, line 2, to leave out from "as," to "Ireland," in line 7, inclusive, and insert—
The occupation as tenant, for a period of twelve months, of a tenement which is rated, or capahle of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid, and to which tenancy is attached the right of free access and egress to and from such tenement, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him.The hon. Member said the Amendment he proposed was rather an Interpretation Clause than an Amendment, and it was not proposed in any spirit of antagonism against the Bill. The clause in which he proposed to move the Amendment was the 7th of the Bill, and the marginal note relating to it was—Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto.What he desired to make clear was what the expression "household qualification" meant. He contended that its meaning under the clause was no meaning at all, and the interpretation given was no interpretation and no definition whatever. There was no question, he believed, in the whole range of the law, about which so much difficulty and conflict had arisen as what was the determination of the expression "household qualification." Under these circumstances, it was desirable in this Bill to give some definition which should guide the Revising Barrister; and it had occurred to him that some attempt should be made to give a definition, or, if not a definition, at all events some indication of what was meant by "household qualification" when the expression was made use of in an Act of Parliament. He had referred to the legal decisions upon the subject, and he found that there was nothing as to which greater difference of opinion had arisen. The matter was, however, considered to be of so much importance that it was ultimately taken before the Lords Justices of Appeal for a decision upon the question. The late Sir George Jessel was one of the Judges before whom the appeal was brought; and in the Amendment which he (Mr. Gregory) proposed to insert in the Bill he had followed as far as he could the interpretation of that learned Judge. Sir George Jessel pointed out that the question was one 1836 of extreme difficulty, and that it had been very much complicated by the conflicting decisions which had been given in regard to it, and which it was impossible to reconcile. The learned Judge admitted the difficulty of laying down a definition applicable to all circumstances; but, at the same time, he laid down a certain principle by which a Judge or Revising Barrister who was hereafter called upon to deal with the question might be guided in giving a decision. The principle thus laid down by Sir George Jessel he had endeavoured to follow in giving an interpretation to the clause. The leading principle of the decision of the learned Judge was that "household qualification" meant that the man claiming it should have the dominion or control of his tenement —'that was to say, that he should have the uncontrolled possession of it, and free access and egress to and from it without the interference of the landlord, or of any other person claiming throusrh or under the landlord. Of course, he would be liable to the landlord in regard to repairs; but, subject to that, he ought to have the uncontrolled possession of the tenement, and to be able to go in and out of it without any interference on the part of the landlord, or of any other person. That was the interpretation which he proposed to give to the expression "household qualification," and he believed the Amendment would fully carry out his object and intention. He proposed to leave out of the clause certain slip-shod words which now appeared in it, and which were, he believed, taken from the Act of 1867 for the purpose of giving a clearer and more distinct interpretation; and for that purpose he proposed to insert words to provide that the occupation of the person claiming to be qualified should consist in his having been tenant for a period of 12 months of a tenement which was rated, or capable of being rated, to which tenancy was attached the right of free access and egross without the control or interference of the landlord, or of any person claiming through the landlord. It would thus be seen that he contemplated three elements in regard to qualification. First of all, there must be an occupation of 12 months, which was the law as it now stood. Secondly, that the tenant should be rated, or capable of being rated, 1837 which was also the law at the present moment. The law originally, however, went further, and said that the rates must have been duly paid "by the tenant. In his Amendment he did not go as far as that; but he simply required that they should be paid by somebody. Whether they were paid by a foreigner he did not care, nor did he inquire; but what he did contend was that the tenement should be rated, and that the rates should have been paid. In the third place, he came to something which was somewhat new, and which was founded principally upon an argument to which he had already referred—namely, that the tenant should have the right of free access and egressWithout the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him"—that was to say, that the tenant should be in full and complete enjoyment of the tenement. He thought that was a very material and important requirement, and he was of opinion that there was no qualification which they could fairly define as an element for the enjoyment of the franchise unless they insisted upon some provision of this kind. He did not claim that the right should be confined to the tenancy of two, three, or more rooms; but he gave it to one room, provided the tenant complied with the provisions contained in the Amendment. All that he said was that the person claiming to be placed upon the Register and entitled to a vote should be an independent person, and that the tenement he occupied should be a real tenement—a tenement of which he had the unrestricted possession, and in regard to which his right of access and egress was free, and uncontrolled by the landlord or any other person. The only stipulation was that the tenement should be rated, or capable of being rated, and that the rates should have been paid. He thought the Amendment, if it were adopted by the Committee, would give some indication of what the opinion of Parliament was upon the matter, and would obviate hereafter a good deal of the confusion which now arose from conflicting decisions. With that view, and not from any antagonism to the Bill, he ventured to submit the proposal to the Committee.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that before the Chairman put the Amendment, he 1838 wished to move an Amendment after the word "Ireland."
THE CHAIRMANThe right hon.Gentleman can propose his Amendment after that which has been submitted by the hon. Member for East Sussex has been disposed of.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 1, to leave out all the words after the word "as" down to the word "Ireland" in line 7, inclusive, in order to insert the words, "the occupation as tenant, for a period of twelve months, of a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid, and to which tenancy is attached the right of free access and egress to and from such tenement, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him." —(Mr. Gregory.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure that his hon. Friend had not moved the Amendment in any hostile spirit, but that he was desirous of bringing before the Committee the principle which it contained. He was afraid, however, that his hon. Friend had, with the very best intentions, undertaken a very difficult and ambitious task. He recollected a learned Judge saying, not long ago—
If you ask me to define what is day and what is night, I cannot really do it; but I can tell you what is day and what is night.His hon. Friend had now undertaken to define what was a house for the purposes of the Bill, and he wished that his hon. Friend could have been successful. If he had been, he had no doubt the Committee would have been most happy to accept his hon. Friend's definition. He asked the Committee to examine what it was that the proposal of his hon. Friend did. He had suggested that "household qualification," which was substantially the same thing as a house, should mean the occupation as tenant for a period of 12 months—that was without reference to any date before the registration—"of a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated." That would include any building with a roof upon it, even a coal-shed. Of course, his hon. Friend did not mean for a moment to confer a vote upon the tenant of a coal-shed; but he would be aware that a tenement did not mean a dwelling house only, but any building.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment referred to a building which was rated.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the coal-shed could be rated. "A tenement" was a word of very wide signification, and included anything that had a roof over it; and under the Amendment as it now stood any holding would be able to confer the franchise upon the tenant who was in occupation of it. He thought his hon. Friend must admit that he had broken down on the very threshold of his attempt to define the term "household qualification." In the next place, the: Amendment dealt with the question of the payment of rates. It said "a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid." What was the meaning of the words "duly paid." If they were paid in March, April, or May, they would be duly paid; and how was the Revising Barrister to be guided upon the matter? No dates of any kind were specified, and he contended that in that respect the Amendment broke down for the second time. Then, again, how were the words "rated, or capable of being rated," to be applied? Where there were two or more tenants in occupation of different parts of the same premises, would it be necessary that each of them should be separately rated? Hishon. Friend admitted that he did not care whether the tenant was the occupant of one room, two rooms, or any number of rooms in a tenement. So long as he had
The right of free access and egress, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him,the tenant was to be regarded as enjoying the "household qualification." The hon. Member had failed to make a complete definition. Under the Act of 1867 a house was any part of a house separately occupied and separately rated, and that was exactly contrary to what the hon. Member now proposed. The result was that the Act of 1869 was passed, and the question again came before a Select Committee in 1878, and in the Act of 1878 it was enacted that the term "house" should include any part of a house where that part was separately occupied. Upon that defini- 1840 tion decisions of the law had been given, the law had settled itself down, and the Government thought it better to take the law as it now stood; lint the hon. Member proposed to disturb it by this definition. Under these circumstances they could not assent to the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, some of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman had force, but others had not; while those that had some force had been weakened by the introduction of a word here and there. With regard to the word "tenement," he wished to make a suggestion to his hon. Friend—namely, to insert the words "fit for habitation" after "tenement." A cowshed would not be fit for human habitation; and he thought these words would be useful to define a house within the intention of the Bill. In the Sister Isle the inhabitants lived with their cattle, and perhaps a cowshed might be a proper place as a dwelling for many of the voters in that country. The Attorney General had missed the most important part of the definition. He had criticized small matters, and had not given the hon. Member credit for the best part of the definition; and that was the part which was supported by the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel—namely, as to the control or interference of the landlord. About that the Attorney General had said nothing; and the real point, after all, as to a tenement was, whether the occupier of the tenement was or was not free from the control of the landlord? If a landlord lived on the premises, and let the house out in separate rooms, the tenants ought to be considered as occupying separate houses, otherwise the landlord might shut the door, and refuse to let the tenants go in or out. But the Attorney General had omitted all reference to that important point, and had devoted himself to trivial matters. The only criticism he had made of any importance was that as to the word "tenement." If they inserted after the word "tenement," the words "fit for human habitation," they would get over the difficulty as to the house or any part of it being rated. If the hon. Member would consent to this trifling alteration, that would, he thought, obviate all the criticisms of the Attorney General, and allow the important point 1841 which he had not noticed, to stand by itself. He begged to move that Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANWhen the Amendment before the Committee has been disposed of, then will come the time for the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to move his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he must apologize to the Prime Minister, and to the Attorney General, for not having placed the Amendment he now proposed to move on the Paper. The question he was going to raise had hardly been discussed, and it had, by common consent, been deferred until the Definition Clause was reached. Words very much to the same effect as his Amendment were moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) on Clause 2; but it was felt that that was not the right place for the Amendment. What he proposed was, to insert after the word "Ireland" the words—
The occupation of a dwelling house containing not less than two habitable rooms.That Amendment had, in substance, been formerly proposed; but it was withdrawn. He anticipated that it would be negatived; but he believed he was perfectly in Order in moving it now. The Amendment attempted to define what was to be a household qualification; and although the Attorney General had stated, and with great emphasis, that there was great difficulty in attempting a definition, he did not think this was a particularly abstruse definition. It was based on the contention of the Prime Minister himself as to a "capable citizen." There might be Members of the House who might have some hesitation in expressing an opinion as to what was or was not a "capable citizen;" but he was not afraid to say that a man was not a capable citizen who inhabited one room with his family for all purposes. He knew he should be told that this Amendment might have a disfranchising effect; but he should be quite ready, in the event of the Committee accepting the Amendment, to propose words subsequently which would protect against its operation any persons who now enjoyed the franchise, and who otherwise would be excluded from that enjoyment by this Amendment. He had no wish to make 1842 this Bill the means of disfranchising a single elector; but, after all. he did not think the individual rights of a particular elector were of so much moment as the stability of the State; and he thought extreme scrupulousness had been shown for individual interests more than for the interests of the country at large. He did not wish to detain the Committee by arguing this question at any length, because it seemed to him that it lay in a nutshell. Something of this kind, he thought, was intended by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) just now, when he proposed to modify the provisions of the Bill by limiting its operation to tenements that were suitable for human habitation. He could not help thinking that the words he proposed were a better way of explaining what was meant; and he was very anxious to repeat what he had already said—that he had no wish by this Amendment to interfere with existing or vested rights; but he could not consent to see the destinies of this great Empire in future committed to people living in the unfortunate and unhappy way in which he regretted to see a large class of people were compelled to live; nor to give them an equal voice in determining the affairs of an Empire like this with those who were more qualified by the surroundings of their life, and by such leisure and intelligence as they might possess, to deal with questions of Imperial affairs. he confessed that it seemed to him that when they talked of giving this boon to constituencies, nearly half of which consisted of persons inhabiting single room tenements, as was the case in Ireland, houses which not only contained but one room, but which were largely occupied by the live stock belonging to the head of the family, they had reduced the question of the franchise almost ad absurdum. He earnestly hoped the Committee would pause now that this matter was before them, and would give itself an opportunity of acting on the principle that was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when he brought in this Bill, by fixing some sort of definition of a capable citizen. If the Committee considered that persons in the unfortunate position and circumstances to which he had adverted were capable citizens, he should very humbly bow to the decision; but he was bound, at the 1843 same time, to take this opportunity of giving the Committee a chance of deciding upon this clause and this Amendment, whether or not they considered that all citizens were equally capable, whether they were persons enjoying all the ordinary privileges and advantages hitherto regarded as belonging to citizenship, or whether they were persons who had not had an opportunity of obtaining the experiences of civilization, so as to fit them for the exercise of those duties.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 2, to leave out all the words after "Ireland" down to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert "the occupation of a dwelling house containing not less than two inhabitable rooms."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman is, of course, within his right in moving this Amendment. It is true that we objected to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), on the ground that it was out of place; but it is also true that we argued the question upon its merits, and I shall, therefore, be very brief in dealing with it. We are utterly opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman; and I cannot say too strongly that our decision is to resist it by all the means in our power. In our opinion it is doubly out of place. It would be the introduction in a great enfranchising measure, which I admit this is, of a very large and sweeping disfranchising proposition. Recollect this, that the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs went into the towns, where it is thought most of these objectionable one-roomed qualifications are found, and enfranchised the occupiers without the smallest question, and in no point has that been productiv e of any ill. I absolutely demur to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman that those who live in those one-roomed tenements are unfit for enfranchisement. I will refor to Scotland, and I would like any Member of this House to go among those one-roomed houses in Glasgow, or in Aberdeen more particularly, and get into some argument with the occupiers, and see whether they are not tolerably well able to hold their own. In my opinion, Members of this House would come off second best.
§ MR. RAIKESThe Amendment does not apply to Scotland. I have applied it only to England and Ireland.
MR. GLADSTONEAs a Scotch Member, I think I may express my gratitude for that; but I must protest against this invidious distinction which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to establish between the three countries. But I am not prepared to admit that even with regard to the North of Ireland the misfortune of having to live in one room constitutes, or should constitute, a disqualification; and the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that, as regards great towns, this would be a sweeping disqualification, not of persons at present on the Register, but of the classes to which they belong. I will refer again to Scotland, and quote a most remarkable and interesting illustration of the doctrine I am endeavouring to lay down. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows a most interesting and curious book written by Dr. Arthur Mitchell; that gentleman made a searching examination of the tenements in the extreme Highlands, and he found there that the dwellings were of most primitive, and even what would be called barbarous construction. They were houses in the erection of which it was evident that no cutting instrument had been employed. They were, in fact, houses of the lowest order of construction, and yet Dr. Mitchell observed that the people inhabiting those houses were not inferior to the rest of the population. That was the conclusion he came to as a careful and impartial observer, and not at all as a person examining the matter from an interested point of view. We demur to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman in this. We do not admit that those persons whose circumstances are, no doubt, very limited are unfit to exercise the franchise. We protest against introducing a disfranchising provision into a Bill of this kind, aimed at a large class of people for no fault they have committed, and without the allegation of any fault; and on that account we cannot consent to entertain, in any shape, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONmentioned that what Dr. Mitchell stated was that the waifs and strays of a population were always to be found in the great cities, and one of the remarkable 1845 facts of civilization was that there were always persons who were perfectly unfit to maintain the ordinary character of civilization, and that most of them were to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of great cities. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was for manhood suffrage, not for household suffrage.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he thought the sequitur of the argument of the Prime Minister was that the more unfit a house was for habitation the more fit was the occupier of it to have a vote. It was either better or worse, more fortunate or more unfortunate, that a man should live in one room with his wife and children of both sexes, many of them growing up to manhood and womanhood, or it was not. He had always assumed that all the efforts they were making to improve the dwellings of the working classes were intended, if possible, to get rid of those uncivilized and barbarous dwellings. Certainly, the speech of the Prime Minister would have great effect in encouraging the continuance of residences, not only a disgrace to civilization, but which would be considered indecent, inhuman, and improper, even in barbarous countries. The right hon. Gentleman had again used only one argument, if it could be called an argument—namely, that any restriction would be a disfranchising measure. But if they were to go on the principle of enfranchising the largest numbers without restriction of any kind, without considering whether the new element was good or bad, why had not the right hon. Gentleman the courage to say that every man should vote because he was a man, and every woman should vote because she was a woman? He did not say that. He said—"No; I will select my own future constituency;" and he hugged to his breast what most people would say was the worst element that could be admitted in any country. He admitted the unilocular voter, and he kept out the educated man. Were they to encourage people to live in those places by dignifying them with a vote? He must protest against that. The alternative was to enfranchise everybody, and then the great mass of good elements would overcome the bad; but the Prime Minister said—" No; we will have these men who live wholesale in one room with their families, and all 1846 kinds of beasts beside; we will make them citizens, dignify their abodes by the franchise;" and so he would perpetuate what was one of the greatest curses of the country.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, that this was not a Bill dealing with sanitary subjects, and did not aim at improving dwellings; but it was an enfranchising measure. He must say a word in reply to the extraordinary speech they had just heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). The hon. Baronet wished to make the Bill a disfranchising instead of an enfranchising one, and contended that those who lived in one room should cease to have a vote. How did the hon. Gentleman wish to effect that object? By improving the condition of the people; but was it by telling them that because they lived in one room they were degraded, and were not fit to have a vote, that he would improve their condition? He would deprive them of the vote in order to assist them to get better dwellings. The hon. Baronet wished to be considered a friend of the people, and a Gentleman, anxious to elevate the people, and lift them out of any condition of degradation that they might be in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) said he had made his protest, and had asked hon. Members opposite to give him their assistance in his efforts to put a stop to the degradation of the people. That was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee had heard the assistance he had received from the hon. Baronet; but he (the Attorney General) must confess that if they allowed themselves to be guided by this alliance, instead of putting the people in a better position, they would be doing something that was eminently calculated to degrade them. They would be marking poor people who were confined to the occupation of one room amongst their fellows as unfit to have the vote. It was proposed to leave these people without the means of raising themselves from their degradation; and if the Government adopted the principle, instead of helping them, they would be perpetuating that degradation.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was very much surprised to hear the observations 1847 of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that it was impossible to improve the condition of the people by giving a premium to those who were in a worse position. Amongst school children they did not reward the worst simply because they were so; but they first gave them 1d. banks and such like, and afterwards gave them a treat. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) was that the worse the people were the less trouble they took to get from one room to two and live in a more healthy and decent state; and why the Government were to reward these people who were content to live in degradation, by giving them that which ought to be the prize given to energy and decency, he did not know. As he had understood them, the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had been directed to the development of that idea, and he certainly thought those remarks, and also the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, did not deserve to be treated in the cavalier fashion in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had dealt with them, though there might be difficulties in the way of carrying out the Amendment in some cases. It could not be denied that very intelligent people were often found living in one reom—immediately after marriage, for instance. A man, under such circumstances, was as much entitled to vote as his neighbour who lived in two rooms; but he would soon acquire the vote, because it would not take him long to attain the position of his neighbour.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was very much astonished that they had not heard anything from the Prime Minister in the course of his speech with regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had studiously avoided all reference to that country in his observations.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned Ireland incidentally; but he had been referring mainly to Scotland, stating that he was a Scotch Member, and was glad to say that even in the 1848 poorest houses in that country they were all "capable citizens" — capable of taking part with any Gentleman in that House—as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had understood the right hon. Gentleman—in the consideration of matters of policy. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that with regard to Ireland, because he knew perfectly well that of those who occupied the 435,000 houses which were rated below £1, 40 per cent could not read or write; and he also knew that these were not capable citizens, and were liable far more than others to be influenced by those whose object was to disturb the peace in that unfortunate country. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman might shake his head and quarrel with that view; but he was aware of the condition of things in Ireland, and must know that he was about to add tremendously to the difficulties that he would have to encounter if he were Prime Minister when the Bill came into operation, or that any other Prime Minister would have to encounter by adding 435,000 persons, taken from the lowest strata of society in Ireland, to the electorate. He (Sir Walter B. Barttcelot) would venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had stated accurately what he know with regard to this clause he would have put them in a very different category to the class of Irishmen to whom he had referred. Many of the dwellings occupied by the people who would be enfranchised in Ireland were not houses at all; but the right hon. Gentleman was so determined that they should have 2,000,000 voters of any kind and of any sort that he did not think it necessary to inquire whether or not it was right that any part of them should be enfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman's great point was to say "these men are deprived of their rights." He would venture to say that if these men were required to be in a better position, to live in better dwellings, and if they were better educated, they would be much more fit to use the franchise than they would be found when it was given to them by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he wished to add the words "except in so far as repealed by this Act," to the 1849 definition of a house qualification in Scotland as the qualification enacted by the 3rd section of the Representation oi the People (Scotland) Act, 1868. His object was, by a subsequent Amendment in the Schedules, upon which the present Amendment was consequential, to strike out from the Act of 1868 the provision that the payment of poor rates against a certain specified date should be a necessary condition of electoral qualification for the occupation franchise. This was a most important matter with regard to the Highlands. The Prime Minister had stated, over and over again, that this was a great enfranchising measure, and he was quite willing to take it that that was so; but it would be a very considerable disfranchising measure indeed if the prior payment of poor rates was necessary to enrolment. In Glasgow alone the numbers disqualified could be counted by thousands, and the same thing would occur amongst the small householders in the counties. In 1832, at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, there was no such disqualification as the non-payment of poor rates, because those rates did not then exist. There was, however, a disqualification at that period —namely, the non-payment of Queen's or assessed taxes, and that disqualification had since been removed. But in the Act of 1868, with regard to Scotland, the disqualification of non-payment of poor rates by a certain date was introduced. There was no reason for extending the disqualification, as it would be extended under the Bill if his Amendment were not carried. There was no particular virtue in the payment of poor rates by a fixed day compared with the payment of any other tax; and if it were necessary that disqualification should apply in the case of non-payment of poor rates there was no reason why it should not apply in regard to the non-payment of other rates. He should very much like the Lord Advocate to explain, if he could, why this clause was to be adopted in its present form.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, after the word "qualification," to insert the words "except in so far as repealed by this Act."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1850THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that though, as a matter of fact, the Amendment now proposed was a very small one, it was intended to prepare the way for a much more important proposal which was to be made later on. The hon. Gentleman quite frankly avowed that what he proposed to do was to make inapplicable to the county voter that which was made a condition of the franchise conferred on the burghs in 1868— namely, that a person should perform one of the first duties of citizenship— pay the taxes which were required of him. In the Act of 1868 it was provided, not only that the failure to pay poor rates should beadisqualification, but that the circumstance of persons being exempted from the payment of poor rates on the ground of inability to pay, and also the circumstance of having been in receipt of parochial relief within 12 months before the date of registration, should form a disqualification. The hon. Member did not propose to remove either of these two disqualifications; and yet where persons were liable to pay poor rates and did not pay them, the hon. Member would enact that they should be enfranchised. That seemed to be directly in the teeth of the elementary principle that representation and taxation should go together. The principle of the Amendment, it must be borne in mind, would not apply to Scotland alone, but would be of general application.
MR. ERASER-MACKINTOSHpointed out that small owners in counties in Scotland were not disqualified by reason of non-payment of poor rates. The disqualification was a most anomalous one altogether, not applying in Ireland, for instance, to any qualification; and, under the circumstances, he felt compelled, in justice to those he represented, and the great body of small householders in the Highlands proposed to be enfranchised, to take a Division on the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 194: Majority 185.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
§ Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts" and "Registration Acts").
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and 1851 which, he considered necessary to make the Bill suitable to Scotland, had, he believed, been accepted in principle. He should not, therefore, detain the Committee further than to say that he would leave it to the Lord Advocate to explain the object of the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 4, after the word "boroughs," add "Provided, That no change shall be made in the mode of making up the register of county yoters in Scotland."—(Sir John Hay.)
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that a difficulty had been experienced in consequence of the different modes of making up the valuation roll in counties and burghs in Scotland. As it was desirable that the matter should not remain in a state of ambiguity, he proposed to bring up an Amendment on the Report which, although it might not be in the same terms as that placed upon the Paper by his right hon. and gallant Friend, would meet the object he had in view, to the extent of making it clear whether the county or the burgh method should be adopted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).
§ MR. CUBITTsaid, he had to apologize to the Lord Advocate and hon. Members for Scotland for rising to move an Amendment which, at first sight, appeared only to affect Scotland; but the Amendment was in connection with another to the same effect on pago 6 with regard to England and Ireland. He asked the serious attention of the Committee to what were the Penal Clauses of the Bill. He believed the Prime Minister, on introducing the Bill to the House, said that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a self-acting Registration Bill; and he thought the Committee would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if a measure of the kind with regard to the occupation franchise could be arranged and carried, it would greatly improve the present system, and that if Parliament decided that a great mass of new electors should be placed on the Register, it was also bound to provide means whereby those electors could be regis- 1852 tered with the least possible trouble to themselves and expense to the State. He had, on a former occasion, asked both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, how this was to be effected; but, up to the present time, the House had not been treated to any information on the subject He, therefore, again appealed to the Government to state to the Committee in what way they proposed to carry out the change, or to omit this clause as having no direct connection with the Bill, the Government laying their whole scheme of registration before the House on a future occasion. Pending that Bill, he was only able to get an inkling of what was in the mind of the Government from this paragraph relating to Scotland, and that upon the next page which applied to England and Ireland. In both these a new penalty was applied. There was a penalty in the case of Scotland of £5 upon the occupier, and in the case of England and Ireland a penalty of 40s. upon the occupier and overseer if they omitted to do what was required of them. He should, no doubt, be told that Parliament had already made enactments of the kind. He found the first instance of this in the Act known as the Poor Rate Assessment Collection Act of 1869, which provided that the owner should deliver to the overseer a list containing the names of the occupiers of the hereditaments for which he was rated, or liable to be rated; and that if such owner wilfully omitted to deliver such list when required to do so, he should, for every such omission or mis-statement, be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £2; and another section of the Act made the overseer liable to the same penalty. It did not appear that there was any great discussion in the House upon that clause of the Act; but he believed he was correct in saying that, when the Bill was brought in by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr, Goschen), then President of the Poor Law Board, that the right hon. Gentleman explained it by saying that the Act permitted an agreement to be made between the owner and the occupier in consideration of a definite commission being paid to the owners in reduction of the rate; and he excused it on the ground that it was proposed, in the first place, that the 1853 owner would lose the commission he would otherwise get if he omitted to give a list of the tenants. There was a sort of quid pro quo, and on that ground he believed it passed through the House. The point of the wedge having been introduced, the principle was afterwards extended, and he found in the present Bill two paragraphs, both of which inflicted new penalties; and he believed that many hon. Members would agree with him when he said that there were some points in them which made the penalties much more stringent than those formerly introduced. The penalties, as the Committee would observe, in the case of the Act he had cited, were only to be inflicted upon those who wilfully omitted to deliver a list of occupiers, whereas in this clause they were to be inflicted upon those who merely made default—in other words, failed to do so— and, therefore, he said that it was much more severe. Without any pretence on his part to legal knowledge, he believed the Attorney General would at once allow that there was a great distinction between these two acts of omission. He observed on the Notice Paper that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had put down an Amendment bearing on this subject; he should have thought the hon. Member knew enough of pains and penalties to cause him to desist from endeavouring to inflict further penalties on the people; but hs found that he also had fallen into the snare, and was prepared to move a clause that would have that effect if it were agreed to by the Government. The subject was, undoubtedly, one which demanded the serious attention of the Committee; and he asked the Government at once to tell the Committee how this boon, in the shape of a self-registration Act, was to be conferred, or to say that they would postpone the present clause until they could bring in a complete Bill to provide for registration.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, to leave out from line 22 to line 35, inclusive.—(Mr. Cubitt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that he had an Amendment to move in lines 26 and 30.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cubitt) would excuse him if he did not enter then into the provisions of the Registration Bill, which would, of course, stand alone. He believed the Committee would see that this part of the clause was absolutely necessary in order that persons entitled to vote should find their names upon the Register. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Act of 1869; but the clause he had cited had been found in practice to be insufficient, inasmuch as the overseer had no means of ascertaining the names of the different occupiers of tenements separately held. The present clause, therefore, was intended to remedy that defect in the Act of 1869, which was due to the fact that the overseer was entirely dependent upon the voluntary action of the owner for a list of the occupiers. In the present case, instead of leaving the matter to the voluntary action of the owner, the Bill said that the overseer was to deliver a request to the owner for the names of the persons occupying. The owner was called upon to answer that application, and he was, of course, more likely to do so if he were liable for a penalty than would otherwise be the case. The clause had been drawn with great care, and was the result of suggestions coming from overseers in the Provinces; showing that a large number of occupiers would be in the circumstances described — prevented from exercising the franchise. That being so, hon. Members who were desirous of seeing the franchise exercised by those upon whom Parliament conferred it would, of course, allow the sub-section, which was the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, to remain part of the Bill.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, there ought, in his opinion, to be some words introduced into the clause which would compel the overseer to inform the owner that he would be liable to a penalty if he made a mistake, or was inaccurate in any one of the particulars he was called upon to give.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was informed, on competent authority, that the term "rated in respect of" used in the clause was not sufficiently precise; and 1855 that, as it would apply to a considerable number of person?, it was desirable that the words which he was about to move should be substituted in their place. He believed those words covered the whole class contemplated in the clause, and at the same time provided against the evils which might result from the retention of the words which he proposed to strike out.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "rated in respect," and insert the words "being a proprietor, or reputed proprietor, or tenant, or occupier."—(Sir John Hag.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must give the same answer to this Amendment as he had given in the case of the last ono proposed by his right hon. and gallant Friend. He found there had been some difficulty throughout different rating areas as to the manner in which this provision was to be worked out; and he proposed on Report to bring up a clause giving effect to this and some other Amendments, which, he believed, were generally desired throughout Scotland, for making the method of referential registration more clear and effective.
§ SIR JOHN HAYDoes that apply also to the second amendment standing in my name?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)I cannot accept my right hon. and gallant Friend's second Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, Withrawn.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was one point in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) which had not been replied to by the Attorney General. His right hon. Friend pointed out that by this clause the Government was imposing a severe penalty on the owners of property coming within the definition in the clause; but the Attorney General had merely explained to the Committee why it was that the defect in the Act of 1869 rendered it necessary to make further provision for obtaining an accurate list of occupiers entitled to the franchise. His right hon. Friend spoke of the stringency of the clause as against the 1856 owners of property occupied by persons entitled to be registered. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say that it was a very stringent provision indeed to compel an owner to give an accurate list of occupiers under a penalty not exceeding £5. He knew the danger of inserting the word "wilfully;" but in the present ease he should venture to move its insertion. He had no objection-whatever to the owner being called on by the overseer to do his best to furnish the necessary information; but he certainty did object to his being liable to a fine of £5 for any inaccuracy which might be found in his statement, in view of the strict interpretation which the Revising Barrister was always obliged to place on an Act of Parliament in the case of application for registration.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the word "he," insert the word "wilfully."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'wilfully" be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. In requiring an owner to make a Return of the occupiers of his property, they were not imposing a very difficult task upon him. It was the duty of the owner to make the Return, and the insertion of the word "wilfully" would be saying, in effect, that he should find some excuse for the non-performance of that duty.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General had not quite correctly stated the case. It rnig'ht very well be that the owner of a house perfectly bonâ fide gave a list of occupiers which was not accurate. Then he was to be fined £5; not for any default on his part, but perhaps owing to the dishonesty of persons occupying his houses. There was nothing in the clause which would protect him under such circumstances; and as he understood that the word "wilfully" appeared in the Act of 1869, he was unable to perceive why its omission should be allowed to increase the penalties under the Bill.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had made a vovy furious statement with regard to this clause He was 1857 not aware that any penal clause in any Act of Parliament could be enforced against a man for what was the result of an accident. There must be wilful disregard of the duty imposed by the Act. He had no adequate information as to the operation of the clause with relation to Scotland; but in the present case he did not think there was any necessity for the Attorney General to depart from the ordinary acceptation of the law, and therefore he considered the Committee were entitled to further information.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question to be considered was not the intention of the individual, but whether he had performed the duty imposed upon him by the Act. It would have to be proved affirmatively if the Amendment were adopted that such duty had been wilfully neglected before the penalty was imposed, whereas under the clause as it stood it would depend upon the circumstances of the case whether the maximum sum of £5 or the minimum fine of one farthing were inflicted. They must look at the common sense of the matter, and he believed the Committee would see that if this Amendment were admitted it would be in the power of every owner to disfranchise every one of his tenants. An owner might say, for instance—"I have let these houses to 10 different tenants; you must come to me; I refuse to give you any information; I do not care what consequences will follow; you must prove affirmatively that I acted wilfully, but you will only be able to prove omission, and that will not carry the penalty." That being so, he could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he entirely disclaimed the imputation cast upon him by the hon. and learned Gentleman that he desired to allow the owner of property to escape from the performance of his duty. But he objected—and he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee on the question— to the imposition of a fine upon an owner of property for what might very well be an unintentional inaccuracy, but which might be an inaccuracy sufficient to deprive a person on the list of his title to be registered as a voter. It seemed to him, however, that the word "wilfully" hardly raised the question 1858 in the manner in which he should like it to be raised; and therefore, if the Committee would allow it, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order to move the insertion, in line 31, after the words "and if he fail to do so," of the words, "with such accuracy as may be reasonably possible." Those words would show the intention of the Committee; but, of course, if the Attorney General would propose better words on Report, they might be agreed to.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the words "do so," to insert the words "with such accuracy as may reasonably be possible."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment, because it was impossible to say what it might lead to. A man might say that he could not make inquiries into the affairs of his tenants; and who, then, was to judge whether his return was made with all the accuracy that was reasonably possible?
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he could not quite agree with the words suggested by his right hon. Friend, although he was strongly of opinion that the clause in its present form was one which ought not to be accepted by the Committee, because it imposed a serious penalty upon that which might be a mistake, and therefore reasonably excused. He would, therefore, propose to substitute the words "without reasonable excuse" for those put forward by his right hon. Friend. The clause as it stood made it incumbent on a magistrate to inflict a penalty for an inaccuracy which was the result of accident, and might therefore be reasonably excused, and against that he altogether protested. He suggested that the words he had just mentioned were words which the Attorney General might very reasonably accept. They were words one was not unfamiliar with; they were words which would remove the difficulty with regard to the clause.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpressed upon the Attorney General the acceptance of some such words as these. It was quite impossible that the clause 1859 could stand as at present. It was not fair to the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should simply say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)— "I object to your words on account of a legal technicality." [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I said just the contrary.] That made his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) case all the stronger, because, if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the principle of the Amendment, it must lie upon him to accept words, or find words, to get out of the difficulty.
MR. GORSTsaid, that if they were going to divide, it would be better they should divide on the words of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), to which words he (Mr. Gorst) was not aware that any objection had been raised by the Attorney General. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would assent to those words, or any other similar words, it would save the Committee going to a Division.
SIR, MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to put himself in competition with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) as to the best phrase for insertion in the clause. He was quite willing, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEthen proposed to insert, after "So," the words "without reasonable excuse."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the word "So," to insert the words "without reasonable excuse."— (Mr. Edward Clarke.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 95; Noes 192: Majortiy 97.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
§ MR. WARTONproposed, in page 5, line 32, to omit the words "fivepounds," and insert the words "forty shillings." He had two reasons for moving this Amendment. First of all, the previous penalty was only 40s., and why it should be increased in this case he did not know. Again, if they looked at the 1860 next page of the same clause they found that—
Both in England and in Ireland where a house is let out or occupied in separate parts, …. the overseers shall within twenty-ons days after the first of March in every year give notice in writing to the person rated or rateable in respect of such house requiring him…. to furnish…. an accurate list containing the name of the occupier of every such part which constitutes a separate dwelling-house.And in case of default of duty, either on the part of the overseer or the person rated, a penalty not exceeding 40s. might be imposed. He did not see why in the case of Scotland there should be a different penalty; and therefore he proposed to omit the words "five pounds," and substitute for them "forty shillings."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the words "five pounds," and insert the words "forty shillings."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'five pounds' stand part of the Clause,"
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he believed there was a different estimate of the value of money in England and Ireland as compared with Scotland, and that it was thought necessary that a greater penalty should be imposed in Scotland. In order, however, to produce assimilation, he would agree to the substitution of the words "forty shillings."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WHITLEYproposed, after "is," in page 6, line 15, to insert "wholly." The Amendment had reference to the service franchise, and he hoped he shoul d be able to induce the Government to accept it. In establishing the service franchise it ought to be made clear that the owner must not be resident in the house. He had no doubt he would be told that this Bill was a Bill for enfranchisement, and not for disfranchisement; but he could not help thinking that this clause was open to great objection. A boarding-house keeper would be able to exercise great influence over the inhabitants of his house, and in order to guard against such a state of things he contended that the Government ought to agree to the Amendment he now proposed. His Amendment really carried out the Go- 1861 vernment's own view of the service franchise. He was the Representative of a large number of the working classes, and in their interest he considered some such Amendment as he suggested necessary. He had heard a great deal that night from the Prime Minister with regard to the duty of protecting voters in the exercise of the franchise, and with regard to the importance of bearing in mind that this was a great enfranchising measure. But, at the same time, they must take care that in enfranchising the multitude they gave them complete liberty of action. A clause like the one under consideration was, however, utterly at variance with that freedom which it was essential should be given to the new voters, and he believed it might be made the occasion of acts of tyranny and oppression. He hoped he had said enough to induce the Government to accept in this instance the principle they had accepted in a previous clause, and to provide that it was only where a house was "wholly" let out that the persons should be enfranchised; to provide that in all cases it must be a sine quâ non that the owner did not live amongst his tenants, in which position he might coerce them in the matter of voting. He hoped he should receive an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would accept the Amendment, which clearly was in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the service franchise.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, after the word "is," to insert the word "wholly."—(Mr. Wliitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word ' wholly ' be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had not quite realized the effect of his Amendment; the hon. Gentleman evidently intended the Amendment to go much further than it really did. Was he to understand that the hon. Gentleman meant that if a landlord lived in one room of his house, and let to separate occupiers other portions of his house, those separate occupiers should not have a vote? [Mr. WHITLEY assented.] That was the hon. Gentleman's intention. Then he must see that the Amendment did not carry that object into effect, because it did not say those 1862 persons should not have a vote, but merely provided that the machinery to bring them on the Register should not be brought into operation. All that the Amendment did was to provide that if a house was wholly let, the machinery by which the overseer should require the owner to make an accurate list of the separate occupiers should apply; but if the landlord occupied a room himself, the machinery provided by the Bill should not apply. To be consistent, his hon. Friend should go a little further and say they should not vote. If they were to have a vote, and to remain on the Register, why not give them the best machinery to get on the Register? His hon. Friend would not take separate occupiers off the Register, but would simply provide that the machinery of making a Return should not apply to them if the owner lived on the premises. He, on the part of the Government, must look at the matter as one of substance, and he could not see the difference between the landlord living under the same roof and living next door.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. WHITLEYproposed, in page 6, line 17, after the words "dwelling house," to insert the words—
Separately rated to all poor rates laid during the twelve months previous to the fifteenth of July.Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite wero inclined to enfranchise people who themselves paid no rates at all, on the ground that they might, nevertheless, be capable citizens. They had hoard a great deal that night about the working classes. After a very long acquaintance with the working classes, he ventured to say that the vast majority of the working classes of the country would prefer that some gauge of respectability was placed upon them. He believed that if the working classes were polled, it would be found that the greater number of them were in favour of their rights being safeguarded. He could not help feeling that many of the arguments he had heard during these debates had been rather in favour of putting the working classes against the other classes of the country. They had heard a great deal about disfranchise-ment. It was a singular thing that if two men held property worth £5,000 a-year, only one of them could vote in 1863 respect of it, while, if there were 10 men living in one house, the whole of them should be entitled to vote. That, he thought, was transferring power in the country to mere multitude. The stability of the country depended upon all classes being represented, and he believed the working classes were as sensible of the fact as any Member of the House of Commons. He had no doubt it would be said that he, as the Representative of a working class community, should be the last man to say that; but it was because he was the Representative of the working classes, because he understood their feelings, because he was satisfied they did not want to have the whole voting power transferred to them, that he considered it would be a very unwise course if Parliament transferred all the voting power to mere multitude. Was it not inconsistent? It deprived gentlemen of the vote who might hold property as joint tenants. That was to say, it would only allow one to possess it, and yet in a small house of 10 rooms of the annual value of only £10, they might have 10 voters. He acknowledged the intelligence of the working classes, and agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that they were worthy of the fancbise; but, at the same time, in their interests and in that of the country, he must say he did not think they were doing a wise thing by giving them that power which they denied to the wealth and property of the country. He did not ask for personal payment of rates. He was one of those who believed that if the measure of the late Lord Beaconsfield had remained intact, and there had been payment of rates, they would have been saved from the difficulties in which they now found themselves. It was not right to taunt the Conservatives with having taken away the personal payment of rates. Of course, his Amendment would be rejected. Still he believed that it was one which would meet the wishes of the working classes, and which was a statesmanlike proposal.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 17, after the words "dwelling house," to insert the words "separately rated to all poor rates laid during the twelve months previous to the fifteenth of July."— (Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1864§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could only believe that the cheers with which the speech of the hon. Member was greeted were due to the hon. Member's personal ability. He could not believe that they were in any way due to the merits of his proposal. The Amendment was open to the objection which had already been stated by the Attorney General. It would not disfranchise the class in question, but would only have the effect of depriving them of the same facilities of being put on the Register as other people. As to the terms of the Amendment, and the speech in which the hon. Member recommended it, he might point out that the measure was one which was mainly intended as an Enfranchising Bill, and that the Amendment would make it in a high degree, so far as certain boroughs were concerned, a Disfranchising Bill. It could not be the intention of his hon. Friend to bring forward this Amendment as a means of undoing the work of the Acts of 1868 and 1869, which enfranchised the persons whose unfitness for the franchise had just been proclaimed to the Committee. The effect of the Amendment would not be to disfranchise them, although the effect of his speech would be to deprive vast numbers of his own constituency and of the constituencies in all large places in the country of the right of voting. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not think that such a proposal was seriously made, and he was sure that if it were put to the vote, it would not be supported by the majority of those who sat on the other side of the House.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was not sure that the Committee would be willing to accept what the right hon. Gentleman had said on this matter, because it was not so long since the Bill of 1878 was passed, and passed in a large measure on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman himself that it was only a Registration Bill, and, therefore, that it might be allowed to go through the House helter-skelter without any great examination of its provisions. The result was a larger extension of the franchise in some parts of the country than had even followed from the Act of 1867. But without going into the larger question which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested in his speech, he (Mr. E. Clarke) would point out to the Go- 1865 vernment the curious position they were placed in by, he would not call it the obstinacy, but at any rate the stiffness, on the part of the majority which had led them to resist the Amendment 011 which the last Division had been taken. It was proposed to insert words which provided that the dwelling-houses to which the clause referred should be separately rated to the relief of the poor. That might or might not be a good proposal; but, supposing that it were not a good proposal with respect to its disfranchising effects, it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of working this particular clause, because, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would look at the rest of the provision, they would see that it imposed a duty on the overseer to give notice in writing to the person rated in respect of premises at a particular time to give a list containing the name of the occupier of every such part which constituted a separate dwelling-house. But how was the overseer to serve any such notice unless he himself had notice that there had been an under-letting of the premises? Was he to be called on to serve this notice in respect of every house within the parish with which he was connected in order to ascertain whether it were or were not let out in tenements? He did not say that this was a conclusive justification of the proposal before the Committee; but, at any rate, it was a conclusive answer to what the Attorney General had said with regard to the last Division they had taken. Because here they proposed, if these words were not inserted, to call on the overseers to give notice with regard to the sub-letting or otherwise of the premises, and, although the circumstances he was required to state might be altogether beyond his knowledge, to inflict a fine of £5 upon him if he did not give the notice. Unless some such words as were suggested a little time ago were inserted as to these penalties, the clause would become a simple absurdity.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the Attorney General accepted the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if he had accepted them he should have said so.
MR. GORSTsaid, he did not think the Government were treating that side 1866 of the House at all courteously. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) brought forward a proposition which clearly, if true, showed the existence of a very distinct blot on the Bill, and which, if it was not true, those who were anxious to support Her Majesty's Government in carrying the Bill had a right to have refuted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to state, in a very curt manner, that he did not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. Would he rise and say why he did not agree with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and what it was that was fallacious in the statement of the hon. and learned Member? What the clause said was—
Where a house is let out or occupied in separate parts, and any of such parts constitutes a separate dwelling house within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, the overseers shall within twenty-one days after first of March in every year give notice in writing to the person rated or rateable in respect of such house requiring him within fourteen days after the service of such notice to furnish in a form to be supplied by the overseers an accurate list, &c.,and inflicted upon the overseer a penalty of 40s. if he failed to carry this out. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth had pointed out that the overseer had no particular means of knowing what house came under the conditions of the requirement. In the case of the house of the occupier to which he had not served the notice, if it was let out in separate tenements, was the overseer to be fined for his failure to serve the notice?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the reason he had not replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was that the hon. and learned Member's observations had really gone back to a subject which had been disposed of. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman really had no reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). The Amendment now moved would, in point of fact, cause this clause only to apply where portions of houses were separately rated. They never were separately rated, and therefore it could not be made to apply. The Govern- 1867 ment could not accept the Amendment for the reason given by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—namely, that it would have the effect of disfranchising a great many people in boroughs. One point which the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised had been raised before, and it was one which should be dealt with. He (the Attorney General) would endeavour to deal with it, and try, if possible, to meet the objections which had been taken. He would promise to confer with the Prime Minister in the matter, and see what could be done.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have said that before.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "to be supplied by the overseers," and insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto." Whereas the clause only provided that notice in writing should be given—
To the occupier of every such part which constitutes a separate dwelling house,he wished to take care that the list should contain not only the actual names of the occupiers of the parts constituting separate dwelling-houses, but should show that they were properly qualified in respect of the premises. He should like to have a statement as to how long they had been in occupation of the premises, so that there might be something to show that they had been the requisite 12 months according to law in the occupation of the premises.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 22, to leave out the words "to he supplied by the overseers," and insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought it would be better that there should be one uniform form, leaving it at will to be determined by each particular overseer, and he, therefore, accepted the Amendment proposed. As to what the form was to be, there was no Amendment at present on the Paper. If it was understood that a form should be given, he had no doubt, 1868 if the hon. Gentleman would prompt him, he would be able to draw up an Amendment to moot his views, and they would have an opportunity either in Committee or on the Report of considering the precise details.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought it would he rather hard to ask the overseers to make out their own forms. Therefore, he would propose that the words "to be supplied by the overseers" should be left in, and that after "overseers" the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto" be inserted.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had no objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), and would accept it if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had no objection.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he quite approved of the proposed alteration.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, after the word "overseers," to insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto."—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. ELTONsaid, he had put an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the following words:—
And if any overseer makes default in giving such notice as last aforesaid, or any person rated or rateable as aforesaid makes default in furnishing the list so required to be furnished by him, such overseer or person shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.He had intended to propose this, because the words seemed to have the effect of creating a new offence with a certain ambiguity as to whether a man would be punished for that which he had done wilfully or not; but after the declaration of the Government on the subject, and after the suggestion which had been adopted, he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee by arguing the question over again, therefore he should refrain from moving the Amendment.
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Saving).
§ MR. ELTONsaid, he had proposed to move, in line 42, after "borough," to insert "or by reason of any purchase or descent is entitled to be so registered," 1869 but this Amendment fell with the other, and he should not propose it.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words—
Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such latter franchise only.He brought forward this Amendment in consequence of an opinion which had been submitted to him from certain people in Scotland, an opinion which he had submitted to the Lord Advocate. He would not express an opinion as to how the Bill would affect England or Scotland or Ireland.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out from line 1, to line 4, inclusive.—(Sir John Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that he was afraid that he could not agree to the Amendment, because the omission would practically amount to this—when the Bill was read with existing Acts of Parliament the same person might be possessed of several qualifications. The substance of the provision was that every occupier as well as householder would be qualified as a householder. Where a person had two qualifications, it was right to make it clear in respect of which of them he should be registered.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Construction of Act).
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment with reference to a matter on which he had already addressed some observations to the Committee in the early part of the evening, when the Committee were dealing with the clause which related to the assimilation of qualifications arising from the occupation of land. He had called attention to the words "clear yearly value." The last paragraph in Clause 11 said the expression—
'Clear yearly value' as applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ire- 1870 land the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being, &c.This, so far as he could gather, related simply to the 5th clause, in other words, to the £10 occupation franchise which was proposed to be given in counties and boroughs after the passing of this Act irrespective of residence upon the land, There was no siich definition of the meaning of clear yearly value in England, and his object was to secure that there should be in the Three Kingdoms the same definition of these words. He wished now to move, after the word "means," to insert "in England rateable value." That portion of the clause would then run as follows:—The expression 'clear yearly value' as applied to any land or tenement in England means rateable value, in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated.In that way he would place England in this matter on the same footing as the other two Kingdoms. This would define clearly what the value should be, instead of leaving it to be proved in evidence on one side or the other before the Eevising Barrister, on whom it would rest to decide the value of the qualification. That had been found to lead to great difficulty and waste of time, in the different views that were taken pro and con on such a subject. He was anxious that the clause should be in as great a degree as possible self-acting. If his proposal were adopted there would be no difficulty in deciding what the value of property might be.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 27, after the word "means," to insert the words "in England, rateable value." —(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was unable to accept the Amendment, as he had stated at an earlier period of the evening, for the reason that it would really have a disfranchising effect. The term "clear yearly value" was a well-known one, and was to be found in the Act of 1832. The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to establish a uniform value throughout the Three Kingdoms, and he wished to do that not by raising the Irish qualifi- 1871 cation to that of England, but by lowering the English valuation to that of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, because the valuations of Scotland and Ireland were not the same. In Scotland the valuation was a rental value, which might be either a clear yearly value or a rateable value; but in Ireland it was a rateable value. Therefore, the Amendment would not secure the uniform franchise that the right hon. Gentleman desired, because, although the franchise of England and of Ireland would be assimilated, Scotland would stand in the middle position. If the Government wished to adhere to what they had proposed, they must object to this Amendment. The £12 rateable value was equal to about £16 of rental value, and the Government were now proposing to reduce the qualification to £10 clear yearly value. The Revising Barristers had experienced no difficulty in regard to this matter hitherto.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was introducing a difference between the Three Kingdoms that did not at present exist, because what he was doing by Clause 5 was carrying the present county franchise into boroughs. They were introducing in the English counties a franchise of £10 dependent upon clear yearly value instead of rateable value. The hon. and learned Gentleman might lower the qualification if he liked below the figure of £10; but he was clearly creating the difference pointed out. Under the words of the clause as they stood a good deal would depend upon the Revising Barrister, and the matter would be subject to very conflicting evidence not taken on as fair grounds as the valuation was arrived at for other purposes. A good deal of difficulty would thus be imported into the registration, and a very unfair means of arriving at the valuation of the tenant.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there could be no difficulty in the matter. Clear yearly value existed in boroughs now, and all that was now being done was simply to introduce it into counties. In Ireland the valuation was uniform; in England it differed in every Union, and, therefore, it was thought better to get rid of the differences which existed in the va- 1872 rious Unions of a county by bringing into the counties the clear yearly value.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, nothing would be more difficult than to ascertain in the agricultural districts not what was the rental value, but what was the clear yearly value. In the case of an agricultural holding it was very difficult indeed to ascertain this. It was proposed to change what at present was certain for something that was quite uncertain and wholly undefined. That was to be done for the purpose of the agricultural franchise under this Bill, and it would lead to great confusion and uncertainty and to very conflicting decisions.
MR. SOLATER - BOOTHsaid, he must apologize to the hon. and learned Attorney General for interposing again; but he wished to point out that there was no such expression as "clear annual value" known to the Registration Courts. It might be known in Ireland; but in English counties and boroughs that which was ascertained by the Assessment Committees was the "gross, estimated rental." Clear yearly value was something new in the English counties.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that whatever might be the different meaning that was attached to annual value on the valuation roll in Scotland, and to net annual value as it appeared in Ireland, in both those instances there was a sort of public document to which reference could be made; whereas in the case proposed to be dealt with by this Bill there was simply an agreement between the owner and the occupier as to what might be the rent, and it was very possible that for the purpose of creating a vote a larger rent might be paid. It was surely much better to avoid contention before the Revising Barrister as to what might be the annual value. It would be better to produce the rate-book, which no doubt might show a slight difference between the different Unions, but which after all was a public document from which there could be no appeal.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, the valuation for rating purposes varied very much in counties, and it frequently happened that in one borough it would be very much below another, the rateable value in ouch cases being very much lower 1873 than the annual value. It would be very much better to have the clear rental value than the rateable value.
§ MR. PELLsaid, the Bill had nothing to do with boroughs, but with counties; and the question was whether they should introduce an imperfect and unacknowledged estimate of value from the boroughs into the counties, or retain there a system which was thoroughly well known, even though in many cases it was imperfect, and not entirely in harmony throughout the country. The question was whether it was best to retain ail understood system which answered its purpose, or to introduce a new one which would be extremely unsatisfactory in determining the method of valuation. He would like to make one further observation. They had heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) an admission, which was true, with some correction—that there was no true standard of valuation, neither would there ever be one, if, in. Bills brought into that House, and especially in a Bill so important as this, the Government of the day proposed to introduce fresh terms, and a fresh method of valuation. He would venture to say that if the Government would admit the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had just proposed, and accept the term "net rateable value," this Bill would be the means of correcting the valuation and bringing the rating more into harmony with the facts. It was well understood in the country what was meant by "net ratable value;" but "clear yearly value" would be an altogether newthing. The Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would, at all events, remove a difficulty, and be much better than the Bill as it stood at present.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was admitted that the valuation was uniform in boroughs. Why should it not be so in counties?
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General did not seem to have seen what was the real difficulty. The proposal was now made for the first time to introduce a fresh definition which was not understood in the rural districts, where there was no such thing as the phrase "clear annual value." Objections would be raised before every 1874 Revising Barrister—"Is this, or is it not, the clear annual value?" The phrase "rateable value," or "gross rental," did occur; but the term "clear annual value" was not known, and there was no legal definition of it. It might be known in the boroughs, but it was not known in the counties; and it was a matter which would be sure to give rise to constant disputes, which would have to be raised before every Revising Barrister, and which would produce innumerable difficulties. Why in the world should the Government go out of their way to introduce a term which had no acceptation, and which was not understood, instead of acting upon the plain and simple admission that the ratebook might be commonly accepted?
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought that if it was necessary to raise the question at all, it ought to have been raised on Clause 5. That clause dealt with the occupation qualification. Speaking for his own county (Lincolnshire), he was afraid it would disfranchise a very large number in the best-regulated Unions in the county; and because some Unions were highly rated, he did not think it fair that many of the people should be disqualified who would be voters in other Unions with a lower assessment.
MR. SOLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought the Attorney General was under some misapprehension with regard to this term, "clear yearly value." It was a term not known in boroughs as a term of valuation at all. The local authorities had no right whatever to take up the valuation roll—it was for the Union. There might be some which had a separate valuation as being Unions within themselves. The whole of the valuation of the Kingdom was conducted by the Union authorities, and they knew no such term as "clear annual value."
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 176: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Repeal of certain superseded sections) agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEAs we have now arrived at the end of the clauses, and as the new clauses will come before the 1875 Schedule, I move that you, Sir, do report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.