§ [SEVENTH NIGHT.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ New Clauses.
§ MR. ECROYD, in proposing, as an Amendment, to insert, after Clause, 3, the following clause:—
(Enfranchisement of owners of copyhold andleasehold estates.)
Every man who is the owner of a copyhold estate, or of a leasehold originally created for a term of not less than forty years, in any land or tenement in the United Kingdom, of a clear yearly value of four pounds or more, shall be entitled, after the passing of this Act, to be registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote at an election in like manner as a freeholder,said, its effect would be to widen the limits of enfranchisement. He did not pretend to any legal knowledge, and he had no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) could, if the Government accepted the substance of the proposal, put it into a more effective and better shape. He should like to explain, as briefly as possible, what his object was in moving the clause. The tenures upon which small cottage properties were created, especially in the industrial districts of the North, were 1898 very varied; and in many localities, his own included, there were three kinds of tenure — the first, absolute freeholds; the second, copyholds, which, in the case of the great Northern, manors, were practically equivalent to freeholds; and, third, leaseholds for 999 years, which for all practical purposes were also equivalent to freeholds. He had not ventured to ask that the ancient 40s. limit should be extended to these copyhold and leasehold tenures, though he should be extremely glad if it could be. He had desired to avoid even the appearance of proposing that which might be used for the extension of fagot votes; and, therefore, he had fixed the limit with regard to leaseholds and copyholds at pound;4, the value of the humblest tenement and garden of which any labouring man could become the owner. His desire was not only that a small measure of enfranchisement should be granted in this direction by lowering the present limit of £5 to £4, but also that there should be such simplicity in the law as would enable owners of these small properties, who might have very little legal knowledge, to comprehend their position, and without perplexity to claim and exercise the franchise. He could not but believe that this was an object which would commend itself to Her Majesty's Government as much as it did to himself. He hoped, therefore, that he should have the sympathy and assistance of the Government in carrying it into effect. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee needlessly; and therefore he would only say, in conclusion, that if what he proposed were adopted, it would be cause of great satisfaction to one of the most deserving and capable classes of citizens in the industrial districts of the North.Clause (Enfranchisement of owners of copyhold and leasehold estates,)—(Mr. Ecroyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ecroyd) hoped to have the assistance of the Government in carrying the object he had in view into effect. The Government were 1899 absolutely precluded, by all the declarations they had made on the subject, from entertaining a question of this kind. No doubt there was a multitude of subjects in regard to the franchise, some of them small, and some of them great, which might be entertained by Parliament at its discretion. This was one of the very small questions. In the first place, it proposed to reduce the value of the copyholds from £5 to £4, and that might be regarded as a very minute change; and, in the second place, many of these copyholders would be householders, who would already be entitled to vote. This appeared to him to be an Amendment which ought to be introduced into the present law rather than in a Bill of the kind under notice. The Government had considered the matter carefully; and they were distinctly of opinion that it would be unsafe, and extremely unwise, for them to entertain new questions of this kind, which they thought ought to be raised, and no doubt would be raised, on their merits from time to time.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had adopted a rather summary mode of disposing of a clause of this character. Sometimes the Committee were told that Amendments went too far; and now they were told this was too small to be considered. It seemed to him that the Government had said to themselves—" The franchise contained in this Bill is the only one we will recognize in any form or shape; and if you attempt to modify it in any way, the only answer we will give is, that we have decided otherwise. That was not a fail-way of treating his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), or of treating the Committee. That hon. Gentleman had stated that that would affect a large number of probably the most industrious classes in Lancashire, especially in that division of the county in which he resided; and he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) thought the Committee ought to have some better reason given to them than had been given by the Prime Minister before this matter was disposed of.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross), when he complained of the Government having said they were indisposed to ac- 1900 cept the introduction of questions of this kind in the Bill. What he (Mr. Gladstone) said was founded upon a calculation they had made as to the prospect of the Bill passing, if all the different Amendments proposed were adopted by the Government. It was on that account, and not from any want of respect to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ecroyd), that he (Mr. Gladstone) declined, so far as the Government was concerned, to entertain the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The Committee, of course, was perfectly free to act as it thought fit. He had previously observed that the change proposed was one of a minute character, and one which would hardly have any practical operation, inasmuch as the great bulk of the persons contemplated by the clause would, in the present state of the general law, be voters as householders.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, he did not complain of the course which had been taken by the Prime Minister; but he disagreed with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, that this was only a small question, because most of the persons affected by the Amendment would already be enfranchised as householders. The object of the Amendment was to protect their right to a second vote for the county, and it was the possession of that vote which these people valued. He maintained that the proposal would in that way have a very considerable effect, and that it was not only a just, but an important proposal.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee, instead of being, as many supposed, under the control of the Prime Minister, was really unquestionably under the control of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). A few weeks ago, the hon. Member advised the Prime Minister not to listen to any Amendment of any kind which might come from the Tory side of the House. Although it was extraordinary for the majority of the House to be subservient to the Prime Minister, it was very much worse for the Prime Minister to be subservient to the hon. Member for Northampton. It was all very well to say that the Bill must be rushed through the Committee, and, therefore, that the Government would not listen to any proposal that was made. When the Prime Minister spoke of having made a computation, he would 1901 ask him if he had made any computation whatever as to the number of leaseholders who were affected by this proposal; or whether he had made the smallest computation with regard to the number of copyholders who would come under it in various parts of the country? He (Mr. Warton) ventured humbly to submit that the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the kind; but the Bill had been submitted in a most rugged and crude state, without any statesmanlike consideration whatever of the rights of large classes who held different tenures and enjoyed different privileges.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Government, as far as he understood the matter, had urged two reasons against the acceptance of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd); but those two reasons were obviously inconsistent with each other. In the first place, they said that the Amendment was so small a matter as hardly to be worth consideration; and the other reason was that the Amendment would so overcharge the Bill with matter as to imperil its progress. One of those reasons might be true, but hardly both. Surely the Government could not be serious in saying that the progress of the Bill would be imperilled by adopting the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He did not deny that the Bill had perils to fear in the future; but those perils had not yet been reached. He could not help thinking that the Government were proceeding on wrong lines when they said that the proper course in a Bill of this kind was not to try to make it a perfect measure, but to leave to future legislation the burden of introducing all remaining improvements into our representative system. When a definite improvement was suggested, and when not a single argument was urged against it, he was certainly unable to understand what was the motive which induced the Prime Minister to crush it by his mere fiat, without adducing any argument upon the merits of the question at all— simply saying that he would have nothing whatever to do with it. He must say that unless they had some better reason advanced from the Government Bench against this Amendment than any which the Government had yet urged, he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and, at all events, place on 1902 record his conviction of the importance of enfranchising the class which he wished to benefit in the matter—a class which formed no unimportant portion of the constituency which his hon. Friend represented.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is entirely wrong in asserting that I have adduced two arguments which are inconsistent with one another. My argument was that the introduction of such an Amendment would overcharge the Bill, and run the risk of imperilling its passing; but that it is easy for those who wish to oppose the Bill by indirect means so to clog the measure as to endanger its passing, and that it is one of a class of Amendments which, if passed, would be inconsistent with the objects of the Bill.
MR. A. F. EGERTON, in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), said, that the argument that persons who held leases for 999 years were provided for as leaseholders was beside the question. As all persons connected with Lancashire knew, there were a very large class of persons living in the towns in that county who had invested their money in that kind of property, and who, consequently, if this clause were passed into law, would become county as well as borough voters. He did not think the argument—that they were provided for as householders — had anything to do with the matter. They were inhabitants of boroughs who would by this clause obtain votes for the county; and he ventured to think that they were a class of persons who were entitled to consideration. He failed to see what was the objection to them. A good many of these leaseholders did not hold leases for 999 years, but were leaseholders for ever. Of course, the landlord had a right of re-entry in the event of the non-payment of rent, and that was the only safeguard he had. He was certainly unable to see why this class of persons should not have votes.
MR. GLADSTONEThere is an important and fundamental objection to the Amendment. We are not prepared on principle to introduce into this Bill any enlargement of the existing property qualification, as we are asked to do by this clause. We propose to preserve, but we do not propose to enlarge.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought that the decision of the Government to refuse an Amendment of this kind would be received with great dissatisfaction in Lancashire. A considerable amount of property was held on long leases by respectable people living in that county, and he knew that a county vote was very much valued by them. Moreover, he was of opinion that it was desirable in every way to encourage this kind of investment, because it would help to carry out that which they professed to be for the advantage of the labouring classes, and would introduce into the county constituencies the most respectable of the working classes. He ventured to hope that the Committee would support the clause of his hon. Friend and Colleague, and he hoped that it would be pressed to a Division. It was a proposal which only did adequate justice to one of the most respectable classes of the community.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that, whatever distinction the Government might draw, it was perfectly clear that the objection was one of three classes— either the objection was that some Bill or other should be passed; or else it must be that this Amendment was one which the Government chose to say, without the slightest particle of proof, was introduced with an indirect and sinister purpose; or a still more ingenious line of argument was that the clause could not be accepted because it was not already in the Bill. He looked upon that declaration as a practical admission that the Government meant to pass some Bill this year, even although it might be a bad Bill. He was glad to have had that fact established, because it justified what he had said all along about the intentions of the Government in introducing the Bill.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he could quite understand the objection of the Prime Minister to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd); but he maintained that the clause would only modify to a, slight extent that which was the existing law at the present moment. The Reform Act of 1867 contained a similar clause, the only difference being that the qualification was £5, and the number of years 60. The present proposal reduced the qualification from £5 to £4, and the number of years from 60 to 40. There- 1904 fore, there could not be any objection to the clause on the ground of principle, and it was only right that they should go fully into the matter and consider it fairly. He quite admitted that the clause formed part of the larger question which would be raised by the 2nd clause, which had been placed upon the Paper by his hon. Friend, and by the clause of which he (Mr. Grautham) had also given Notice. He would admit at once that he did not feel any great amount of interest in the present proposal, because the difference was so very small between the existing law and that which his hon. Friend proposed to substitute. At the same time, if his hon. Friend decided upon going to a Division, he should support his proposal.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grautham) was labouring under a mistake. It was true that, with, respect to counties, the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) would only reduce the property qualification of existing copyholders from £5 to £4, and the number of years from 60 to 40; but the adoption of the Amendment as it stood would give a £4 copyholder a vote, and it would create a vote for the boroughs in regard to property within the boroughs, or within a contain distance of them. Therefore, it would enfranchise a new class of copyholders, possessed of property valued at £4 per annum and having 40 years to run; and the vote would be given not to the person who occupied the property, but to the owner. Now, that was a departure from the principle that the only person upon whom the Government intended to confer the vote was the occupier. He would remind the House that the old borough franchise had always been one of occupation. It was an ownership franchise in counties, and an occupation franchise in boroughs. This proposal was also a departure from the principle that the borough franchise was an occupation one, and would amount to an increase of the property vote.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he wished to point out that the interests of the leaseholder, as well as the freeholder and copyholder, were undoubtedly guarded; and therefore the fact that the voter held a leasehold was a secondary question.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, that, drawn as this Bill was, to increase the franchise to an enormous extent—an extent which he thought would create great danger to the institutions of the country, he, for one, could see no objection to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd); and he was quite at a loss to understand the arguments of the Prime Minister, or of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the old franchise in the boroughs was an occupation franchise. He (Mr. Hicks) believed that that was correct, although in some boroughs, previous to 1832 and 1868, there might have been exceptions; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman was so fond of the old traditions of the country, why did he seek to destroy the great distinction between the county and the borough, and to hand over the property of the county to the tender mercies of the occupier? ["Oh, oh !"] He would repeat, to the tender mercies of the occupier. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that the Bill would increase the franchise by something like three to one, and that the increase would come entirety from one class. After that statement, would any hon. Member in that House venture to deny that the object of the Bill was to hand over the power of the counties to the occupiers? Nevertheless, when a proposal was made to make property, to a certain extent, powerful in the boroughs, they were told that they were not to expect it, because it was contrary to the old traditions of the boroughs; while the old traditions of the counties were to be scattered to the winds. He believed that the Bill was bad in principle from beginning to end. He believed that the old principle, which recognized the freeholders and possessors of property in counties and the householders in boroughs, was the best principle to go upon in regard to the electoral franchise. He believed that the Act of 1867 was right in adopting that principle, and he thought that it ought to be adhered to in the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, however, let the Committee into the secret He had told them that he was opposed, to any increase in the influence of property. He (Mr. Hicks) hoped that that declaration would be remembered by 1906 every Member of the House, and he was sure that it would be remembered by the owners of property.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 76; Noes 168: Majority 92. —(Div. List, No. 114.)
§ MR. ECROYDmoved, as an Amendment, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
(Provision in respect of county and borough voters.)Every man qualified to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any freehold, copyhold, or leasehold estate in a county or borough shall, after the passing of this Act, when duly registered, be entitled to vote in respect of such qualification at an election for the county or borough wherein such estate is situate, whether he be or be not also entitled to vote at such election in respect of an occupation or lodger qualification; subject always, in the case of boroughs, to such conditions as to residence within, or within a certain distance thereof, as are now by statute or shall be under the provisions of this Act prescribed; Provided however, That no man shall, after the passing of this Act, he entitled to be registered as a voter for a county, or to vote at any election for a county, in respect of the ownership of any estate situate within a borough.The hon. Member said that the clause must, of course, be taken subject to the alterations made in it by the decision at which the House had just arrived; but in moving it he should certainly not lay himself open to the objection raised by the Prime Minister to the previous clause—that the proposal raised a very small question; for it raised one of the largest questions it was possible to consider in connection with a Franchise Bill. He felt himself perfectly justified in raising it on the present occasion. In introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that, although the measure dealt with only one branch of the subject of Reform, it dealt with that one branch exhaustively and completely; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), in a speech which he delivered shortly afterwards, told the House, with equal emphasis, that the Bill was a just and complete settlement of the Franchise Question, which might be expected to endure for one or two generations at least. It would, therefore, be right to treat the present measure as one involving the whole consideration of the 1907 amendment of the franchise. What was more, the people themselves understood it to be nothing less. Now, the Bill gave to capable citizens who happened to live in boroughs a very great political advantage over those who happened to live in counties; and he had with regret taken special note of the observation made by the Prime Minister, that he entirely objected to the introduction into the Bill, of any enlargement of the property qualification. That declaration, he (Mr. Ecroyd), believed would be received with great discontent by the highest and most deserving class of working men, especially after the disposition which the Government had evinced to create, possibly, 10 or a dozen votes out of a single lodging-house. That formed a marked contrast to their indisposition to give a second or property vote to a working man resident in a county who had become the possessor of property after 20 or 30 years of earnest industry and self-denial. He thought the Bill displayed a desire on the part of the Government to depend in future on the votes of the ignorant and improvident, and to reduce as far as possible the political influence of the more capable and intelligent working men. On that account, he should press to the very utmost the proposal he had now to make, believing that this was the occasion, and the only occasion, on which the question could be satisfactorily discussed. The position in which the class of voters who were both owners and occupiers would be placed was, he believed, strictly speaking, this—Under the Bill every householder, whether he resided in a borough or a county, would have one vote founded on his occupancy. So far, all were equal, and to his mind that was a perfectly satisfactory state of things. But when they went a step further they were confronted by a state of things neither just nor rational. A householder residing in a borough might, if he possessed a freehold either in the borough or in the county, which he did not himself occupy, have a second vote for the county. That second vote exercised by the same citizen gave him a double share of political power, no matter where the vote was given. But the householder who lived outside the borough and possessed a freehold either in the borough or county would have 1908 no such second vote. Now, that fact appeared to the minds of unsophisticated and plain men to be a gross practical injustice. They did not exercise their minds upon mere verbal subtleties in regard to what might be called a dual vote, and what might not be called a dual vote. All they understood was that to a man in the borough was given a double share of political power as compared with his neighbour occupying exactly the same position in life, but who happened to reside in the county and not in the borough. The freeholder who lived in the county would only have one vote, notwithstanding the fact that he possessed a far better property qualification than that which gave his more fortunate neighbour in the borough a second vote. No amount of subtle distinctions and phrases would alter that fact, and it would become profoundly impressed upon the minds of the people affected by it when once they had realized it in practice. He had discussed it with working men of both political Parties, and he knew that the greatest dissatisfaction would certainly result if the Bill were to come into operation in the form in which it was now proposed. The object—the only object—of his Amendment was to remedy that injustice, and to put these two classes of voters in that position of equality which justice required. It contained no proposal whatever inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, for it only extended to the owner resident in a county the game share of political power which the Bill secured to the owner resident in a borough. It gave no new kind of franchise whatever. It established equality in the only way in which, without disfranchisement, it was possible to establish equality. There were two courses open to the Government for the permanent settlement of the franchise—either to give one vote to one man everywhere, or to give a second vote to the owners in boroughs and counties alike. They had reduced the county qualification with regard to occupiers to the same level as that in the boroughs; they had done away with the distinction which had heretofore justified a vote being given to one class and not to the other. They had reduced the two constituencies to sister constituencies under the same occupation franchise; and it would be a gross absurdity to give preferentially to persons residing in the boroughs one 1909 vote for the borough and one for the county in this altered condition of things. It was quite clear that unless exactly the same privilege were extended to voters livingin the counties this settlement could not last long. Indeed, he had no doubt that in the minds of certain supporters of the Prime Minister below the Gangway it was one of the merits of the Bill that it left matters in a position which inflicted such gross injustice upon a large section of the most capable citizens amongst the working population, that they know it must almost immediately breed a new and powerful agitation, and re-open the whole question. The Committee had now to decide, in point of fact, whether they would leave ground for such an agitation, founded on a sense of injustice, in regard to the manner in which property owners outside boroughs were dealt with by the Bill; or whether they would, once for all, establish the matter on such a basis of equity and reason as would leave no rankling sore in the minds of the people of this country. It was objected that his proposal amounted to the establishment of the dual vote. He was not going to argue a question of mere words and names. If a man living in a town had one vote by reason of occupancy and one by the possession of property, it did not matter into which urn the voting paper was dropped, nor whether in the county or in the borough polling booth. The man himself would possess a double share of electoral power as compared with his neighbour in similar circumstances residing in the county; that was a plain and incontestable fact. Then let them get rid of those narrow ideas which rested entirely upon words and names, and look honestly in the face the fact that the Bill would give a double vote and a double share of political power to persons who were both owners and occupiers in boroughs. The question, then, was, how could they give the same share to those in exactly similar circumstances who lived in the counties? They could only give it in one way—the way proposed in this clause. He knew how great a proposal it was; but it was no innovation upon the principle underlying this Bill to give a county voter the same privileges which were conferred upon the owners of property ' in the boroughs. Her Majesty's Go- 1910 vernment admitted that property was entitled to a second vote, and they were now only discussing the question in which polling booth the vote should be given. The Government, in the present Bill, proposed to admit to the franchise the whole of the householders in counties, which would entirely change the aspect of the county representation. At the same time, it was manifestly their intention to leave some representation to the owners of that property which was responsible for the debts and obligations of the country, who by that very fact were bound over to a policy of wisdom, and prudence in national affairs far more effectually than those who had no fixed property at stake. Now was the time, therefore, to give on equal terms to the owners of property resident in counties that legitimate influence which the Government declared the owners of property in boroughs were justly and properly entitled to. He believed this to be at once the most just, the most truly liberal, and the most truly Conservative settlement of the franchise, and he said so as one who had frankly maintained for very many years past the principle of a vote for every householder, whether living in town or county. He desired the insertion of this clause, not because he distrusted those who were only householders, but because he desired to give to dwellers in the county, as well as in the borough, exactly that fair representation of the interests of property which the Bill proposed to give to residents in the boroughs only. There were very substantial reasons in favour of adopting that course. It would, in the first place, give their just influence to a very large class of capable citizens—a class who, under circumstances of the greatest possible difficulty, had succeeded in becoming owners of property. It would affect scarcely at all the wealthier classes, who had votes, perhaps, in half-a-dozen counties, and were sure to be represented. It was the working man residing in a county who, by the savings of a lifetime, had acquired rateable property at or near his home, to whom this clause would give the right to exercise the one property vote he possessed, dear to him in proportion to the labour and self-denial it had cost, and by this Bill most cruelly and unjustly withheld from him. Therefore, it 1911 was a question which specially affected the very best class of working men. He had no desire to obtrude his own experience upon the House; but he had taken a deep interest for many years in this class of persons. He had earnestly tried to persuade men, who were grey-haired now, to save money in their youth; and he knew, to some little extent, he had been successful. And he contended that to deprive such persons, if they happened to live outside the limits of a borough, of a property vote, which was given to those in exactly the same position who happened to live within the borough, would be a grave discouragement to them in the practice of that steadfast industry and self-denial which had distinguished them from their fellow working men. His clause was not open to the charge of giving a disproportionate representation to property. It simply provided that every possessor of rateable property, whether resident in county or borough, and whether such property was worth £5 or £20,000 a-year, should have a second vote in right of that property, and should exercise it in the constituency in which he lived. His proposition was not made with a view to protect the interests of the wealthy classes against the poor, but to maintain a wholesome and necessary distinction between the improvident, the careless, and the irresponsible, and those who were provident and responsible; and, in his opinion, that was a distinction which it behoved the country to maintain. But it was not merely a question of recognizing the provident and industrious, and of conferring special political power and distinction upon thorn, but also of enabling them to safeguard their most material interests. There was a great difference between the two sections of the labouring population—those possessing fixed and rateable property, and those who had none—a difference as important to poor men who had property to guard as to the richest men in the country. The Committee must bear in mind that one of the most alarming facts of recent times in the eyes of the thrifty and careful among the working classes was the great increase of local taxation levied on rateable property. A good deal of that increase had been brought about by the action of Parliament, which had compelled the local 1912 authorities to incur vast expenditure. He did not dispute the useful purpose of that expenditure; but it necessarily increased the local burdens, and the debt which was incurred became a permanent charge upon all fixed property. They had heard, and he thought it would be in the remembrance of the Committee, the remarkable speech delivered in that House some time ago by the hen. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), in which the hon. Member declared, quite plainly, that he did not wish for a reduction in local expenditure; but that, on the contrary, he desired to see in future an increase in local expenditure for the common benefit of nil the inhabitants. That was to say, that the hon. Member was anxious for an increase in the expenditure on gratuitous education, upon public parks and gardens, oil public museums and libraries, and on many other objects which, no doubt, were excellent in themselves, but which, when paid for out of the rates, were purchased for the advantage and pleasure of those who had not saved out of the savings of those who had. What must be the feelings of a working man who, for 30 years, had been habitually denying himself those indulgences which his improvident neighbour had enjoyed, when he saw these enjoyments and benefits provided for that improvident neighbour by the taxation of his own savings? These were very serious questions. They were questions which were largely exercising the minds of the thrifty portion of the labouring classes, and especially of those who-had become the owners of rateable property—questions much more interesting to them than any mere abstractions about the extension of the franchise, such as were now put in the forefront, and made to occupy the attention of the House to the exclusion of matters of vital import to the people. No one would pretend that the possession of rateable properly was a perfect test of a man's character or worth as a citizen; but it was the best and only practical test that could be applied. The more respectable among those who, through misfortune, did not happen to be the possessors of property, so far from looking with jealousy upon such a distinction as this, would themselves be the first to value and enforce it. There would be no feeling of injury, and no desire to 1913 complain, on the part of that unfortunate and deserving class, in being excluded from the second vote which was given to those who were more fortunate than themselves; because the respectable and provident had always the hope of becoming members of that more fortunate class; and if they were unable to obtain that position themselves, they had strong hopes that their children, by means of good education and good conduct, would some day win it.He had felt bound to speak at some length of this practical distinction between the provident and the improvident; and he felt that it was just as important to maintain it outside the borough asinside. Those who had any experience of the rural population would fully endorse his opinion. He rejoiced to see an agricultural labourer in possession of his own cottage and garden, and he believed that one of the most direct ways of enabling that class to reach such a position was to maintain a wholesome political distinction between the holders of fixed property and those who did not possess it. Why should they be so anxious to create a dead level of absolutely uniform Democracy amongst the county population any more than the borough population? Why should they restrict the county population to one vote, depending on occupation, while they allowed the dwellers within the boroughs largely to influence the county representation by their votes? He believed that the true solution of the difficulty was that which h e had now proposed. Of course, after the language already used by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, he had not the faintest hope that the Government would accept the clause; but he thought the Committee were bound to discuss it fully and freely. He believed that this solution was, upon every ground, a wise and prudent one; that it would be incomparably better and safer than the establishment of any fancy franchise. He believed it would do far more to maintain the solidity and character of that House than any direct provision for the representation of minorities. He did not, for one moment, disparage the consideration of that question; but he contended that in this proposal they had a more legitimate, a more universal, and a more complete means of assigning to those who had given 1914 proof of their responsibility as citizens a somewhat fuller representation than to those who had given no such proof. He could not help feeling that whilst any fancy franchise—any specific or positive arrangement for the representation of minorities—might prove short-lived, and might soon be swept away by some popular impulse, the extension of that just and fair representation of property which, under the Bill, was given to the dwellers in towns, to dwellers in the county districts also, would be the safest, the most truly Conservative, the most unobjectionable, and therefore the only permanent settlement. He was exceedingly obliged to the Committee for the patience and kindness with which they had been pleased to listen to his arguments. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that he (Mr. Ecroyd) was not one of those who had had the faintest desire at any time to obstruct a measure for the extension of the franchise to the county population. He believed that the adoption of such a proposal as this would smooth the path of such a measure, by making it more acceptable to the Conservative Party, and certainly more acceptable to the working classes. He could not help thinking that so far from proving a hindrance to the progress of that measure of Reform, which the Prime Minister told them was designed to settle the question of the franchise for a long time to come, it might, on the contrary, be the means of greatly promoting it, and of effecting a reasonable, satisfactory, and permanent settlement.
Clause (Provision, in respect of county and borough voters,)—(Mr. Ecroyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEI shall certainly not take any objection to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ecroyd) on the ground that it refers to a matter of small importance and extent. On the contrary, the hon. Member, in his speech, has referred to matters of great extent; and certainly the words of the clause refer to matters of even much greater importance than the Committee could have inferred from the speech of 1915 the hon. Gentleman. The speech, of the hon. Gentleman has consisted of complaints against the present Bill, because he says it gives to the voters in boroughs a disproportionate share of voting power, compared with the voters in counties. But the present Bill does nothing of the kind. The present Bill does nothing to increase any disproportion which now exists between the voters in counties and boroughs on that score. The old system of voting in these constituencies has always recognized the fact that boroughs are parts of counties; but counties have never been made parts of boroughs. The borough has a connection with a county, according to our Parliamentary system, which a county does not possess with a borough. The Government, in looking at the question of the property franchise, has come to the conclusion—and I think the House has approved of that conclusion—that the best and proper course is to leave things as they are, and with them that inequality which the hon. Gentleman so much complains of, and which, he says, excites so much bitter feeling throughout the country. Now, in the course of a long life, the speech of the hon. Gentleman is the very first indication I have ever heard of any painful sentiment on account of that inequality, if it be an inequality, existing in the minds of any portion of the community. The hon. Gentleman does not keep this point in view—that the borough is part of the county; and if the borough is part of the county, the hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in proving that this power of voting, which has so long existed, is an anomaly. It follows from the fact that the borough is part of the county that some portion of the voters residing in the boroughs should possess county votes. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, if it were carried, it would excite a strong feeling of indignation throughout the boroughs of the country, that county voters, altogether cut off from the cities and boroughs, should have a borough vote. Such a feeling of indignation would be raised that I do not believe any borough Member who voted in favour of the hon. Member's proposal would stand the slightest chance of being again returned to represent it. [Mr. WASTON: Oh !] I do not say that that would be the fate of the hon. and learned Gentleman who says "Oh!". He may 1916 have such strong faith in his own charms and blandishments and power as to believe they would secure his return for any place in which he happened to present himself. But what I say is, that the chance of any hon. Member, who voted in favour of the hon. Member's proposal, of being returned for a borough, would, in the event of that proposal being carried, be very much diminished and impaired indeed. Of course, the Government cannot assent to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, even on the comparatively modest footing upon which he puts it, of the creation of a supposed anomaly between the county and borough, which anomaly, if it exists at all, flows out of the natural fact that the borough is part of the county. Even 011 that ground, we could not accept the proposal, because we cannot assent to make this Bill a vehicle for the augmentation of the principle of property qualification. The clause of the hon. Gentleman is the complete establishment of what is known as the double vote. Am I right in that? [Mr. ECROYD assented.] I am very glad to find that I am. Well, then, what is the history of the double vote? It is a double vote for the man who has an occupation qualification and a property qualification. He is to have a vote for each in the place where his qualification lies. Very well; and the hon. Gentleman proposes this on behalf of the working classes. [Mr. ECROYD: Hear, hear!] Yes; on behalf of the working-classes. But I would like to undress that proposal; so that we may gee it in its natural lineaments, and not as it has been clothed by the speech of the hon. Gentleman. Let me look for a moment at the history of the proposal of a double vote which we have now got as the simple description of this clause. Never to my knowledge, except once, was the double vote offered in the shape of a serious proposal. In the year 1867 there were three different efforts made by the Conservative Government of that day to settle the question of Parliamentary Reform. In one of those three proposals, but I think it was the most short-lived of them all, and that it never came even under a regular discussion-— in one of those three proposals, there was included a plan for a double vote; or a proposition, at any rate, declaring that a double vote ought to be given. Why, Sir, the mere exposure to the open air of 1917 that proposal froze and killed it in a moment; and the most firm Conservative Member in the House at that time—Mr. Henley, the Member for Oxfordshire— rose in his place, and said, in regard to the proposal of the double vote, that it was a proposal more unmixedly for evil, without compensating good, than any proposal he had ever heard. Under such circumstances, I doubt whether the Committee will feel inclined to entertain the proposal now made. And now let me say a word in regard to the reference made by the hon. Gentleman to the working classes. I have no doubt that the interest of the working classes has presented itself prominently to the mind of the hon. Gentleman in regard to this double vote. But, speaking of the working classes generally, the number of persons who, having an occupation qualification, have also a property qualification, would be infinitesimally small; but I gather from what the hon. Member has said, and as I read the clause, that supposing a man to have acquired a house under a building society, and at the same time to occupy that house, he would have under this clause an occupation vote, and would likewise be entitled to a property vote for the same house.
§ MR. ECROYDNo; I did not say that.
MR. GLADSTONEThat is a most important point; because I beg to submit to the hon. Gentleman that, if that is to be the operation of the clause, it would, undoubtedly, in certain parts of the country, give a large enfranchisement to the working classes, because a large number of them will be found inhabiting their own houses. But that I understand not to be within the view of the hon. Gentleman, and not to be within the words of the clause.
§ MR. ECROYDI should very much like to make that my proposal; but I have not ventured to go so far as that.
MR. GLADSTONEVery good. Then let me take the hon. Gentleman's proposition to be this. He does not propose to enfranchise a working man who is an occupier in respect of the property he holds, and which he has acquired by his industry, and to whom all the touching remarks of the hon. Gentleman respecting the virtuous character of this class are applicable, and who really are a worthy class of themselves, and cer- 1918 tainly, in some districts, a very numerous class. Those persons the hon. Gentleman does not propose to enfranchise. If that be so, then I must say that the objection to the plan of the hon. Gentleman is very much greater than I had supposed it to be; because, while I supposed it to be an arrangement for the enfranchisement of the working-classes, it excludes the vast majority of those who, belonging to the working class, have got both an occupation and a property qualification, that qualification being the house in which he resides; and the scheme, in point of fact, being an undisguised plan in its operation for giving a double vote on behalf of all the possessors of property in towns. It is a proposition to generalize that influence which has been allowed under our Parliamentary Constitution, subject to certain limitations and conditions. Subject to those limitations and conditions, it is still open to a great deal of argument. We leave that property qualification untouched; but it is really too, much, when the hon. Gentleman comes down to the House with a portentous innovation, and, in the name of the working classes, proposes to invest every man with a double vote for the property he owns, as well as for the house he occupies in the constituency in which he lives, and, at the same time, he so frames his proposition as to exclude the vast number of the working classes who occupy their own houses. I am afraid, moreover, that very few indeed of the working classes are the owners of any houses of their own. How, then, would this proposition operate in the rural districts? It would be to double the power of every man who has property against that of the householder. The proposal is one which it is quite impossible for the Government to accept.
§ MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he was glad to hear one observation which had fallen from the Prime Minister— namely, one vote to each Member of a constituency in every constituency that returns Members to Parliament—which meant that each elector should be confined to a single vote. He had a proposition to that effect upon the Paper; and when the new clause he intended to propose came up for consideration, after what he had heard from the Prime Minister, he hoped to receive the support 1919 of the right hon. Gentleman in adding the clause to the Bill. They were now discussing, not the clause exactly as it stood, but whether the clause should be read a second time; because, if the clause were read a second time, it would then be capable of being amended or extended; and, of course, the fact that the Committee consented to read it a second time did not shut out the widening the application of it. he was prepared, therefore, to give his vote in favour of the clause being read a second time, although he went much further than the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd); because he thought that a man who occupied his own cottage in a town ought to be equally entitled to have a dual vote as if he himself lived in one house and his tenant occupied the house next door to him. He know that, under the present law, a man inside a borough might occupy a house worth £100 a-year and own it and have no vote; whereas the owner of a small cottage of 1s. a-week, who did not occupy it, had one vote for the borough and one for the county. That was a state of things which, he thought, ought to be rectified; and he was satisfied that the hon. Member for Preston would consent, if the clause were read a second time, to extend the scope of it, by abolishing the restriction placed in 1832 upon the votes of owners inside represented towns, which took away from them a power which belonged to every other owner of property in such towns. No doubt, this was a dual vote, and as such it had his support. It was an indirect way of giving to the more thrifty among the working classes a second vote. They would have one vote in right of their occupation; and if they had bought a cottage, or an allotment garden, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Geerge Russell) was anxious to give them, they would enfranchise the peasant proprietor and give him a second vote. He had not himself that faith which some hon. Members had in what was called the educating effect of giving men votes. He did not think that, as a rule, men were inclined to become thrifty from a desire to increase their political power. He did not believe that people cared very much about the vote. The general opinion of the ordinary elector was that both political Parties, whether Blue or Yellow, were equally bad, and behaved 1920 equally disgracefully, when they obtained a seat in that House. That was the popular notion among the constituents. But this proposal, as far as it went, seemed to him to be an admirable proposal. The Prime Minister said that when a similar proposal was made some years ago, it was received with the most withering sarcasm by the late Mr. Henley. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Thomas Collins) did not mean that that right hon. Gentleman was not now alive; he hoped that he was, and in the enjoyment of excellent health; but, in referring to the right hon. Gentleman as the late Mr. Henley, he merely alluded to the fact that he had given up the seat which he formerly occupied in that House. Now, Mr. Henley, with all his shrewdness and sagacity, was about the biggest Radical who ever sat on either side of the House, and he was the author of many famous expressions — among others, of the "ugly rush." The country was also indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for household franchise. Therefore, to claim Mr. Henley as an exponent of Tory principles and the Representative of property was to presume on the ignorance of the Members of the House who had not the honour of a seat in it when that extremely shrewd and capable Gentleman was a Member. He believed that Mr. Henley was a North-countryman, and North - countrymen were proverbial for their shrewdness. Looking at the clause in a proper light, he was quite prepared to give a double vote for occupation and ownership, whether a man's property was inside or outside a borough, or inside or outside a county. When they were altering everything, why should they sweep away 99 out of the 100 distinctions which existed between the boroughs and the counties and leave one still remaining? At present the voter residing inside the borough had a privilege which the voter outside the borough did not possess. He had a dual vote, and was able to put his ballot paper into two different urns — one for the county in which the borough was situated, and the other for the borough in which he resided. The borough voter had a dual vote already; and all the Committee were asked was to extend the principle, and to put on the same level the man who owned and occupied property, whether that property was within the limits of a borough or 1921 not. He thought the clause had been brought in for the purpose of carding out the principle of the dual vote in a proper and legitimate manner; and on that point, if the hon Member for Preston pressed it to a Division, he should give to the clause his warm support.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he could not say that he entirely agreed with the remarks which had been made by the Prime Minister. In his argument the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the character of the county franchise would be altered by the Bill. The whole object of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was to show that, for a considerable number of years, he had never heard it suggested that there was any inequality between the county and the borough voter, in consequence of persons living in the borough being also entitled to votes for the county. That being so, it was strange that, at that late hour of the day, the matter should be first suggested by one who professed to speak on behalf of the working classes. As he (Mr. Grantham) had said, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government entirely forgot that by this Bill he was altogether altering the character of the county franchise; and, that being so, the question of the freeholder living in the borough became a matter of importance, because the Bill, as it stood, would give him an advantage which a freeholder in a county would not possess. That was what his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) objected to, and what other hon. Members desired to correct in the new clauses which they had placed on the Paper. But it was an objection which had been touched upon by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely ignored the fact that, by this Bill, the different qualifications which now existed in the borough and the county would be assimilated, and that, in future, there would be uniform household franchise, both in the boroughs and counties. That being so, the position of the county voter and of persons living in the counties would be entirely different from what it was before. Up to the present time, a voter living in a county had a quid pro quo for not possessing the same power of voting as a person residing in. a borough, because the county constituencies were limited to the representation of property—not 1922 land, but property; and therefore the vote of the county voter, whatever it was, had been looked upon as being worth more than the vote of a person living in a borough, because in a borough it was only persons and population that were represented, whereas in the county the property a man possessed was always understood to be represented. In the discussion which, took place upon the Reform Bill of 1832, the Leaders of the Liberal Party made it their boast that the county franchise would still continue to represent the land of the county. In the discussion which took place upon the Reform Bill introduced in 1858 and 1859, exactly the same principle was adopted. In 1867, the same principle was actually carried out; and it was because Parliament desired to maintain the distinction between the county and borough vote that a reduction of the franchise was made to £12 in the counties, instead of making it a mere household franchise, as in the case of the boroughs. Therefore, he submitted that there had always been this broad distinction between the counties and boroughs—that the voter in the county was a man of a higher class, and that his vote, by comparison, was worth more. He thought that was equivalent to his not having the dual vote which persons residing in boroughs had. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed astounded that the hon. Member for Preston should seek to establish the principle of the dual vote in counties; but the principle of the dual vote had certainly existed ever since the Reform Bill of 1832; and if hon. Members would read the speeches of Liberal statesmen in the discussion which took place in 1859—the speeches of Mr. Bright, Lord John Russell, and others —it would be found that they all defended the absolute right of the dual vote to everyone who lived in a borough.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)But not for the same constituency.
§ MR. GRANTHAMNo; not for the same constituency; but it was not a matter of importance whether it was for the same constituency or not. The principle was whether a man was entitled to vote, and to enjoy the same privileges, whether he lived inside or outside of a borough. He (Mr. Grantham) would go even further than his hon. Friend, and would say 1923 that if a man had property he was entitled to have that property represented, as well as the house which he might occupy. If they could not get as far as that, he would certainly do his utmost, by the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, to limit the vote to people having property in the borough. He thought that was unanswerable. The Bill assimilated the county qualification to that which existed in the borough; and, as a borough voter would be entitled to vote for property he possessed in the county, it was impossible to argue that persons residing in the county, and having property in the borough, should not enjoy the same privilege. His contention was that as they were now reducing the qualification, in the counties they ought to give to the counties the same right of voting as was given to the boroughs. Why was it that the Bill did not carry out this principle; find why was it that he and other hon. Members were doing their utmost to secure an alteration? It was for this reason. By the Bill they were entirely altering the whole system of the representation of the country. The argument during the last 50 years in reference to the representation of the people was that it was desirable, in reducing the franchise as it was reduced by the Act of 1832, and again by the Act of 1867, to maintain a distinction between the qualification for the borough and the county. It was always considered that there was a make-weight in the character of the county franchise, because the great majority of the people voting in the counties were voting for their own property. That was the ground upon which persons who lived in the boroughs and owned property outside the boroughs were given county votes. There had never been the slightest objection to that principle; because, so long as the county representation was that of property, and so long as the borough formed part of the county, it was quite right that the borough voter should have a county vote; but when they assimilated the franchise in the borough and in the county, there could be no excuse for saying that, because a borough was included nominally in the county— persons residing in the boroughs had a right to vote in the counties as well as the boroughs. It was well known that with regard to questions of rating, ma- 1924 gisterial jurisdiction, and the business of quarter sessions, the county had a distinct autonomy of its own; and, that being so, the- boroughs had no right, abstractedly, to interfere in county arrangements. Under the Bill as it stood, the following case of hardship would occur. Take two partners carrying on business in a borough, but having property partly in the borough and partly in the county. The one who lived on the premises in the borough, and who might probably not be so well to do as his partner living in a better house in the county, would have two votes, one for the house he occupied and one in respect of the partnership property in the county. Whereas the other partner, who was much better off than himself, and able to live in a much better house, really got only one vote for the property in the county, being unable to vote for the borough unless he occupied premises there. That was an example of the anomalies existing at the present time, which the supporters of the clause wished to get rid of. In regard to the effect the Bill would have in altering the representation of the county, and in doing away with the distinction which now existed by which the county voter was of a higher class than the voter in the borough, he would point to the fact that there were at present 3,000,000 of electors, of whom something like 2,000,000 represented borough voters who voted in respect of occupation, and 1,000,000 who represented the owners of property and enjoyed county votes in respect of that property. Therefore, at the present time, the proportion of voting power enjoyed in respect of occupation compared with the voting power enjoyed on the ground of properly and ownership was as 2 to 1. But this Bill would add 2,000,000 at once to the electorate, the whole of whom were to be added for occupation; and, therefore, the proportion in future would be 4 to 1 instead of 2 to 1. He contended that a change so great and sweeping, altering as it did the entire representation, should be accompanied by the provision proposed by his hon. Friend for the purpose of creating, in some way, a counterpoise. He believed they would only find three countries in the whole of Europe which had adopted the principle of household suffrage—namely, France. Greece, and 1925 Italy. If they went to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, or Norway, they would find that some other qualification was required— either the payment of direct taxes, or some higher qualification than that which was required in France. Greece, or Italy. He thought he had shown the Committee why it was that, up to the present time, an objection had not been taken to the dual vote in the boroughs, which the filtered circumstances of the case now justified them in making. It was to be hoped that that anomaly would now be redressed. The Prime Minister, in 1869, speaking as to the necessity of freeholders being represented, made use of the strongest language in describing the great value and importance to our system of representation of this class being represented, and. said that they would complain most seriously if anything were done to destroy the right which they previously held. In his speech that afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the effect which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston would have upon the borough voters, and he described their indignation as being probably so great that any borough Members who voted for it would never be returned to represent their present constituencies again in Parliament. But there was no reason for supposing that such would be the result, because the borough electors would not lose their votes, or be, in any way, prejudiced; whereas, on the other hand, there was this strong argument in favour of the Amendment—that those who bad votes for the county would be practically swamped by the votes of the occupiers who were to be introduced. They had heard a great deal lately of the inducements held out to the working classes to become more thrifty in the future than in the past; about their spending less money upon beer; and about their investing their savings in Government and other securities. But if that were so, surely there could be nothing more likely to induce them to adopt provident habits, and gradually to purchase houses for themselves, than to give them the vote in boroughs in respect of their property. The possession of it would at once raise them to a higher social position. Therefore, he thought that that argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd) was most 1926 important and valuable with reference to the proposed franchise. With regard to the general question as to the way in which the future constituencies would be affected, he might, in concluding the few observations he had to make upon this subject, refer to his own constituency. There were something like 3,000 or 4,000 freeholders who voted in his county. He was glad to see them; but he wanted to know why it was that 4,000 freeholders living in Norwood, Streatham, and adjacent places should not have the same right to vote as the occupiers in boroughs? The anomaly was, in his opinion, too great to be allowed to continue; and he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment upon the Government as much as possible.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) would go to a Division on this very important question. If he did, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would support him. His hon. Friend had placed the matter so clearly before the Committee, especially with regard to the position of the working classes, that very few words were necessary on his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) part. But he would like to call the attention of the Committee to one or two remarks which had been made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had just argued that the county had nothing to do with the borough, but that the borough had very much to do with the county. But they occasionally heard another argument from him. It was asked how they could refuse to extend the borough vote to the counties, when, in many instances, boroughs were made up of considerable portions of counties? It was difficult to reconcile these conflicting arguments on the part of those who advocated the Bill and condemned the Amendment; and he should be glad to know, if the latter argument was correct, whether the counties had not also a very large interest in the boroughs? If the borough was in the county, then, as he understood it the county must have a large interest in the borough. Then, why was the property vote not to be given to men who had property in the counties? For his own part, he was ready to go further than his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, and take up the suggestion of the Prime 1927 Minister—that a man who had acquired a house under a building society, and was, at the same time, occupying that house, should have both an occupation vote and a property vote. It would seem, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he would not object, under the circumstances described, to the individual having a double vote; but then came in the bugbear that property must not have any increased power. The right hon. Gentleman said if they were going to give a double vote to property, the newly-enfranchised classes would be out-voted by the property class; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said that that would be by no means the case; and, moreover, that if they gave a double vote in the circumstances proposed, it would be an additional encouragement to perseverance on the part of the thrifty. They had heard much of the one-side-of-the-street argument. Why, then, when a man living on one side of the street had two votes, should not the man living on the other side of the street, so to speak, have two votes also? He could see no injustice in such an arrangement; audit was upon that ground, and also upon the belief that it would be an incentive to thrift and an encouragement to the best class of working men in the country, that he should give bis vote in support of the Amendment of bis hon. Friend.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, this was an Amendment evidently intended to extend the system of dual voting. He had learnt, in the course of discussion, with considerable surprise, that there was in England a system of dual voting, but of which nothing was known in Scotland. He was informed that if a man had property inside a borough in this country he was entitled to have a vote for the county; and, therefore, there was no sharp line drawn in England as between boroughs and counties. He said that that was a very absurd anomaly, and he would like to do away with it by taking one of the votes away from the man who had two. In Scotland, a man who had a property in a Parliamentary borough could not, in respect of that property, have a vote in the county. Under the existing law in England, a man might have property situated in Finsbury, for instance; and in respect of that property, which was within a Parliamentary borough, he 1928 might have a vote in the county of Middlesex. He repeated that that was a great anomaly, and one which ought to be done away with; and, as he had said before, they had nothing of that kind in Scotland. In Glasgow, the borough, he had the honour to represent, he would not have a vote in Lanarkshire, which was the county containing that borough, in respect of property held in the borough. The Scottish arrangement appeared to him to be the better of the two; and if the hon. Member for Preston would put his Amendment into such a form that it would abolish the dual vote which existed in England and put it upon the Scotch system, it would be a great improvement, and he should be inclined to support it, which in its present form he was of course unable to do, inasmuch as it would work a great extension of the system of dual voting.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had stated that the dual vote was a great anomaly, and yet that he was going to vote for it. [Mr. ANDERSON: No, no!] The hon. Member described dual voting as an anomaly. If that was so, why not do something to cure or diminish it? The Prime Minister said this was an anomaly which had always existed; and, therefore, as it was proposed to disfranchise nobody, it was necessary to maintain it. But what had the Committee been doing during the greater part of yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman told them that they were defending the property qualifications which had hitherto existed; but the fact was, they had been destroying some of the oldest property qualifications. When the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he must maintain all the property qualifications as they existed, he was for maintaining that which, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, was a most absurd and anomalous qualification; and he (Lord John Manners) ventured to say that the argument had been used in total forgetfulness of what he had been doing during the greater part of yesterday. This Bill, when it was introduced, was recommended to the House principally on the ground that it was to terminate a system of anomalies; the principal anomaly to be abolished by it being that of the working man, who was a householder living inside the boundary of a borough, 1929 finding himself in possession of a vote; whereas his fellow working man outside the borough was not in possession of one. That was understood to be the anomaly which it was the intention of the Bill to get rid of; and his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) now turned to the Government, and said—"If you pass the Bill as it stands, you will be perpetuating an anomaly which my Amendment proposes to get rid of." What harm would be done by the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had not pointed out anything in the nature of an inconvenience that would result; he simply said with his usual dexterity—" You are going to give the double vote to the working man who is the owner of the cottage in which he lives outside the borough." He believed his hon. Friend might be right in the interpretation of his own clause; but, as he (Lord John Manners) read it, he thought that the man living in his own cottage outside the borough would be able to obtain two votes, and he thought it a good thing that he should have them. Therefore, if the clause was read a second time, he should support the Prime Minister by formulating a clause which would undoubtedly give the franchise to men of the deserving class referred to. But what the Prime Minister really wished to do was to maintain every anomaly in the existing system which could operate against property, while he was indifferent to the representation of property, whether it was held by a working man of industry and intelligence, or by a large-acre'd squire. The property qualification was evidently a disqualification in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government; and so this Bill would go from the House with all its sins of omission and commission upon its head, and yet not in a form which would remove the anomalies which at present characterized our electoral system.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he thought that the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) must have satisfied every Member of the Committee that the Bill was not likely to be acceptable to the people of Scotland. But if he understood the hon. Member correctly, whilst he objected to the freeholder in the borough having two votes, he did not object to his having 1930 one—he understood him to say that freeholders in the Scottish boroughs voted for those boroughs. Now, he asked the Government, seeing that they resisted the very reasonable Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), whether they would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and allow those freeholders who were not occupiers to vote for the borough?
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was one point which had been almost disregarded throughout these discussions, and that was how the country was best to be represented? They had had an argument that he thought went beyond those which had hitherto been put forward by hon. Members in support of this Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Anderson) said that he was in favour of the one-vote principle; but such a principle would never obtain acceptance on that side of the House. A House of Commons elected on such a basis could not fairly and properly represent the interests of the country. He had been told by several Englishmen who visited the United States last year that responsible and influential people in all par's of the United States deplored the fact that numbers alone formed the basis of representation in that country; and said that it would be worth a great deal to devise some kind of representation which did not depend entirely upon numbers. If they laid down the principle that every householder was entitled to be represented as an occupier, they ought, at the same time, to adopt the corresponding principle that every man who had property should have a vote in right of his property. He believed that by amending the Bill in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Preston, they would be doing something to post-pone the arrival of the day when numbers alone would overwhelm the Representatives of all other interests in the country.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, he was advised that his Amendment, as it stood, would really give a double vote to the man who was the owner of a house in which he lived. And he entirely and gladly adopted that principle, because it must be evident to all who had heard his previous remarks that it would more effectually realize what he had at heart than the more limited effect of the Amend- 1931 ment as he had understood it. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) spoke of the abolition of an invidious anomaly; but he would like to point out that what the hon. Member proposed was to abolish an invidious anomaly, as he called it, by sweeping away absolutely the broad distinction which existed between provident and improvident persons. That would he to go against the view taken by most intelligent men in this country, and in those foreign countries which had, unfortunately for themselves, tried the experiment. It happened to him, since he had the honour of a seat in that House, to meet a distinguished American Judge, who said, in conversation upon a matter germane to the present question—"Abolish, if you will, all distinction between rich and poor in your political system; but never abolish the distinction between the provident and improvident classes." He felt bound to go to a Division upon the clause, which he believed to be in the interest of a large and important and most worthy class of working men. He could not for one moment agree with the assertion of the Prime Minister, that it would have a very small effect even had it given no ownership vote to a man in right of a house occupied by himself, because he had always observed that when a man became owner of one house, he almost always went on saving money and became the owner of more than one.
§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). The argument he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had used throughout the discussion on this Bill, to which he greatly objected, was that, if possible, they ought to extend the influence of property in such a manner that the great addition to the electorate in counties under the Bill should be in some measure corrected. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was a proposal to transfer the property qualification from the county to the borough. It proposed that a man who was an occupier in a borough and who was also an occupier in the county should have a double vote for the borough and lose his vote for the county. Now, he could not consent to a proposal by which the influence of the county in which he had an interest would be in any way diminished. They were likely to be 1932 overwhelmed in counties by an enormous addition of household suffrage votes; and, therefore, he held that they were bound to see that the influence of property was in every way protected. The Amendment of his hon Friend would tend to weaken the county influence; and, therefore, he regretted to be compelled to withhold his support from that Amendment, which his hon. Friend, no doubt, brought forward with the very best motives.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 122; Noes 236: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No 115.)
THE CHAIRMANI have considered the next clause, which is in the name of the hon. Member fur Penryn (Mr. Brett), and which proposes that a degree at a University shall not confer a vote. There is no graduate of a University who votes by reason of a degree except for his own University; and therefore the effect of this clause would be to disfranchise the University. The clause is, in my opinion, clearly out of place here, and would more properly find its place in a measure for the redistribution of seats. The next clause stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson); and it proposes that a constituency shall have a claim on the services of the Member elected, and that such Member, if absent for three months, may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one mouth more a new Writ may be issued. It seems to me that that Amendment has no reference whatever to the question of franchise, and is therefore out of Order. The next new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) would repeal the Ballot Act, and that is also out of Order.
§ MR. BRYCE, in moving, as an Amendment, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause: —
(Term of residence to be six months.)In sub-section two of section three, and in sub-sections two and three of section four, and in sub-section two of section six of 'The Representation of the People Act, 1867,' and in section twenty-seven of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five, and in sub-section two of section three, and in sub-sections two and three of section four, and in sub-section two of sub-section six of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,' and in section eleven of the Act of the 1933 Session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-five, and in sub-sections two and three of section four of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' and in sections one and five of the Act of the Session of the thirteeth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, the words 'six months,' shall be substituted for the words 'twelve months,'said, it did not require many words of explanation. It proposed that the term of residence necessary to give an electoral qualification should be reduced from 12 to six months. This restriction was imposed by many statutes; but, without going through them, he would ask the Committee to take it from him that in all those Acts the term of 12 months was fixed as the term during which premises must be occupied in order to give a man the franchise. He wished to ask the Committee what was gained by having that term of 12 months? It rendered the acquirement of the franchise much more difficult than a term of six months would; it raised a number of difficult questions, and it gave rise to great dissatisfaction. It served no useful purpose; it did not operate to keep off the Register any incapable citizens. It merely took away, so to speak, at random, from certain persons political rights they would otherwise enjoy; and he could not find that, in the various discussions that had taken place on the subject, it had ever been alleged that any principle was involved in the period of 12 months. Then it had the further disadvantage of making the time required for gaining the franchise much more than 12 months. Practically, in most cases, it made the time two or two and a-half years. Suppose a man entered into the occupation of premises as a householder or lodger in this present June, he would not be entitled to be put on the Register until July, 1885, and would not be entitled to vote at any election held before January, 1886. Therefore he would be a year and a-half on the premises before he could exercise the franchise. That was putting the case in the most favourable way; but if, instead of entering the premises in June, he entered in August, he would not be able to vote until January, 1887, and therefore he would have to wait two years and six months before he could vote. He submitted that there was no reason for requiring such a 1934 long term of residence. The period must be a year and a-half, and might be two years and six months, and nothing was gained by requiring such a long period. Then, again, that provision, while it applied equally to householders and lodgers, imposed a greater hardship on lodgers than on householders, because they were under other disadvantages from which householders were exempt. A lodger had to make a fresh claim every year; but the householder had not; hence there were very few lodgers on the Register compared with the number which should be on. Speaking for his own constituency, in which there were 43,000 voters, there were only about 300 lodgers on the Register, instead of, as there would be with a self-acting Register and a six months' residence, some 4,000 or 5,000. In Glasgow he was informed that there were, out of 68,000 voters, only 1,300 lodgers; and in Edinburgh, out of 20,000 voters, only 52 were lodgers. The same thing, he believed, would be found true of nearly all the large towns. In fact, the lodger franchise was a delusion at present, and there must be a totally different machinery for putting lodgers on the franchise if that franchise was to be a reality. He submitted the clause to the Committee on these grounds, and finally on that of the inconvenience the present system caused to county voters; because in the counties the tenancies frequently commenced early in August, and the effect of that was that the county voters could not come on the Register for two and a-half years. This formed a special reason for dealing with the matter in the present Bill. It might be contended that this was a matter belonging to registration; but the Committee would observe that all the Acts in which 12 months' residence was required were not Registration Acts, but Acts of the class to which this Bill belonged. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would raise no objection, because they had so often professed themselves during these debates to be in favour of extending the franchise. At the same time, although he felt bound to urge this Amendment in the interests of a large constituency in which this evil was keenly felt, he should not be surprised to find that in the view of the Government the matter had better be left to be dealt with as part of a Registration Bill. But he hoped, at any 1935 rate, to get some explicit declaration from the Government as to the present system, and some admission that they would recognize it to be their duty, on the first possible occasion, to deal not only with this question, but with the other difficulties connected with registration, so as to make registration, if possible, self-acting, and to extend the franchise really, as well as nominally, to a large class of Her Majesty's subjects.Clause (Term, of residence to be six months,)—(Mr. Bryce.)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has said there is a determination on the part of the Government not to accept any Amendments from the other side of the House. Considering, however, that the Government yesterday accepted Amendments from the hon. and learned Member himself, and from the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), I felt that that was a cruel and cutting remark coming from that hon. and learned Member. What he seems to desire is, that we should make good our consistency by refusing some Amendment from this side of the House; and that is what I am about to do. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce) has shown, unanswerably, I think, that the lodger franchise is inefficient, owing to the provisions of the law; and he proposes to mitigate the case by reducing the term of residence from 12 to six months. I think my hon. and learned Friend has indicated that, in his own mind, he is not prepared to argue very strongly that this question is one for a Franchise Bill, so much as for a Registration Bill. I hold that it is a question for registration. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend —and I am prepared to go even somewhat further than he does, and to say it is very difficult to justify so long a term as 12 months, even with regard to the ordinary voter. Therefore, this is a very proper question to be considered when we come to consider registration. I am told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who has considered this question very much, that 1936 he conceives that it can be shown that the average term of provisional qualification to get on the Register is two years and one month over a whole constituency. It is clear, therefore, that the apprenticeship must be a very long one before voters are allowed to proceed to the discharge of the duties for which we have chosen them. All that is most proper matter for consideration when we come to deal with the subject of registration; but my hon. and learned Friend will not, I hope, press us on the-present occasion. We adhere to the view we have laid before the Committee, and we are most reluctant to overcharge the Bill with extraneous matter; and both on that ground, and because we are able to offer no grudging or churlish reception to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member, and also because we hope registration will soon offer an opportunity for dealing with the subject of his proposal, I hope he will not press the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was quite true the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had kept his word to the letter as to what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had urged, and had not accepted this Amendment; but, after all, what did he say? He had given a shadow to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, and the substance to the hon. arid learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce); and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should like to know exactly where they now stood. They, on that side of the House, had always contended that they ought to know the whole scheme of the Government, and that the whole matter practically lay in the redistribution of seats. Now he saw why it was, when, at the commencement of this Bill, the Prime Minister, in answer to an Amendment he had proposed, said he would introduce no registration into this Bill; but that that must be a matter for consideration at some other time. Now he could see why Registration Clauses were not introduced. It was because they would have revealed the new extension which the Government contemplated, and something of which the House had no notion when the Bill was introduced. No one had the slightest notion that the Prime Minister contemplated not only an extension of the franchise, but also a reduction 1937 of the term of residence. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had opened out a new view altogether. It had totally changed the aspect in which the Bill had stood before the Committee; and the speech of the Prime Minister would, he ventured to say, be read with great astonishment by the country tomorrow morning. If one might judge by the cheers with which the speech was received by hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side, it appeared that they, too, were unprepared for the announcement of the Prime Minister. They were cheers of surprise, as well as gladness, at finding that the Prime Minister contemplated anything of the kind. Probably, before they had done with the Bill, the Committee would find that eventually they were to come to manhood suffrage, because they would be told that the numbers of voters on the Register would be so enormously increased that it would not be worth while to stop short of manhood suffrage. But there was one question of fact he should like to ask the Prime Minister. They were told, when the Bill was introduced, that it would enfranchise 2,000,000 of people. He would like to know whether, in making that calculation, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took into consideration the reduction in the term of residence, or whether, by the reduction of the term of residence, from 12 to six months the 2,000,000 was to be increased by another 1,000,000? That was a question to which the Committee had a right to demand an answer.
§ MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he did not think it made much difference whether, when they were going to enfranchise 2,000,000 of people, they enfranchised persons after six months, or one, two, or three years' residence. The proposed reduction of the term of residence would not add more than 10 or 15 per cent to any constituency in the Kingdom. He was not in favour of the Bill; but he thought that, when they had degraded all the constituencies of the country by having adopted so low a suffrage as household suffrage, it would be like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel if they were to make much ado of this proposal. He remembered that, in the Bill of 1867, one of the so-called security clauses was that providing for a two years' residence. That bubble, 1938 however, had since burst. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that this was not the time or the place to consider this very important question, because it ought to be considered with a much larger question — the question of the municipal suffrage. At present, there was the same suffrage for both Parliamentary and municipal purposes— a man was required to be of 12 months' residence before he could vote at either a Parliamentary or municipal election; and, therefore, it was at once seen that a large question was involved, which ought to be kept totally distinct from a Bill of this kind.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in discussing this Amendment, was very careful to abstain from saying whether he approved or disapproved of an extension of the lodger franchise. He (Mr. Anderson) would like to hear what was the opinion of the Conservative Party upon this question. Were they prepared to say that the lodger franchise was now in an unsatisfactory state; were they prepared to say that the large mass of the lodgers of this, country were not a class who ought to be enfranchised? In his opinion, and he believed in that of his constituents, they were a class eminently deserving of the franchise. A very large number of them were young men, from 21 to 30 or 35 years of age, the very men who would be the backbone of the constituencies in a few years' time. At present, the law placed a great many difficulties in the way of lodgers enjoying the franchise; and, therefore, it ought to be amended. He was quite satisfied with the views of the Prime Minister on this question; the right hon. Gentleman was all right upon it; he wished they knew that the Conservative Party held the same views. Seeing, however, that it had been decided by the Government that the question was not a suitable one to discuss on the present occasion, as it might dangerously load the Bill, he thought his hon. aad learned Friend (Mr. Bryce) would do well to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had scarcely done justice to his subject. Assuming that, at the present time, men were dis- 1939 franchised for the time they had to wait until they got on the Register, the hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten that when once on the Register, although they might have left their qualification, they were entitled to vote for a considerable time. According to the Act of 1867, if a man was entitled to be put on the Register, and was put on the Register, he was entitled to vote during the whole of the next term, though directly after he was registered he might have given up his residence and gone to live hundreds of miles away. The only question put to him when he presented himself to vote was—"Are you A. B., whose name appears on the Register as entitled to vote for such and such a place?" An occupier could vote in respect of his old residence during the time that he was kept off the Register in respect of his new residence. If the Amendment were accepted in the Registration Bill, it would make little difference, so that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South- West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) were, to a certain extent, groundless.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he was quite aware of the fact pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Grantham). Having regard to the general sense of the Committee, and especially to what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury, he thought he would best consult the wishes of the Committee if he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. He desired, at the same time, to express his satisfaction at the declaration of the Government, which would be received with pleasure in many large boroughs as a pledge on their part to reduce the present terra of residence at the earliest possible moment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause negatived.
THE CHAIRMANThe next two new clauses stand in the names of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Coleridge Kennard) and the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver), and they propose to enfranchise constables. Now, the matters which are involved in these clauses are matters of public policy; and they cannot, in my opinion, be properly dealt with in Committee on this Bill, which is a Bill for the assimilation of the borough and county franchise, unless the Committee were instructed by 1940 the House to deal with them. I am confirmed in this opinion by the consideration that the Acts of Parliament which these clauses, or rather the clause of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver) proposes to repeal, are not Acts of Parliament which relate at all to the representation of the people. I would, however, remind both hon. Members that they will have an opportunity of bringing up these clauses on Report.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI think you stated, Mr. Chairman, that this Bill is a Bill for the assimilation of the county and borough franchise. I beg to draw your attention to the title of the Bill, which, is, "Representation of the People Bill." It is quite clear that persons holding office under the Crown, whether they be constables or Ministers of the Crown, are a portion of the people of the United Kingdom.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSOn the same point of Order, may I point out that not only is the Bill called the "Representation of the People Bill," but it is entitled "a Bill to amend the law relating to the representation of the people of the United Kingdom." There is no Preamble.
THE CHAIRMANThe noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) have correctly stated what is the title of the Bill. But under the present Rule we have to consider the subject-matter of the Bill, and not the title only; and that subject-matter is the assimilation of the county and borough franchise. I have carefully considered this matter, and it is needless to assure the Committee that I have had the advantage of advice upon it. I am of opinion that this question ought to be raised on Report rather than in Committee.
§ MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDMay I express the disappointment which will be felt—
§ MR. THOMAS COLLINSUpon the point of Order, may I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether the House would not have the power, when the Speaker returns to the Chair, to ask him to pronounce au opinion on this question—to say whether these clauses were not 1941 within the province of the Committee to consider?
THE CHAIRMANAs far as I am informed, the Speaker would not undertake the duty of differing from the decision I have felt it my duty to give.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLYou have said, Sir, that these clauses deal with a matter of public policy, and that the subject-matter of the Bill is merely the assimilation of the county and borough franchise. On those grounds you would not allow questions affecting the representation of the police force to be brought into the Bill. I ask you, Sir, whether, under your ruling, it is not absolutely impossible for the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) to move his new clause, because it is quite clear that that clause deals with one of the most grievous matters of public policy that can be imagined. It is not in the least involved in the assimilation of the county and borough franchise; and, therefore, I submit that, according to your ruling, the hon. Gentleman cannot move his clause.
§ MR. WOODALLOn the point of Order raised by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), perhaps I may be permitted to say that I took the opportunity of consulting Mr. Speaker on this question, and he informed me that it was not necessary to instruct the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANI am of opinion that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) will be in Order in moving the clause which stands in his name. I would point out to the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that there is a great difference between the clause of the hon. Member for Stoke and the clauses suggested by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver) and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Coleridge Kennard). They propose to deal with the disqualification which the State has imposed on certain persons; but the hon. Member for Stoke proposes, on the contrary, a clause for the enfranchisement of a large number of persons.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMay I point out to you that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) proposes also to deal with the disqualification which, at present, attaches to a certain class of persons?
MR. GLADSTONEThe decision of the Speaker has been distinctly given 1942 on this question. The Speaker has been asked by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) whether he should bring his Motion forward as an Instruction to the Committee, and my hon. Friend was told that he need not bring his Motion forward as an Instruction, because it was competent for him to propose it in Committee.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI should not have raised the objection at all had it not been for the ruling of the Chairman.
THE CHAIRMANThe disqualifications under which the persons contemplated by the clauses of the hon. Members for Plymouth and Salisbury (Mr. Stewart Macliver and Mr. Coleridge Kennard) labour are disqualifications imposed by a series of statutes. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) proposes a clause to confer the franchise on a large number of persons. I am of opinion, therefore, he is in Order.
§ MR. WOODALL, in rising to move the following clause:—
(Extension of suffrage to women.)For all purposes connected with, and having reference to, the right to vote at Parliamentary elections, words in the Representation of the People Acts importing the masculine gender include women.said: I have to ask the indulgence of the Committee while I submit the clause of which I have given Notice, though I do not think it will be necessary to trespass long upon that indulgence. I feel I need the indulgence of the Committee, because, while I am very strongly impressed with the justice of the case I am about to urge, I am aware I have to submit it to the Committee under peculiar and exceptional difficulties, which are attributable to the reluctance of many of those who, for many years, have earnestly supported the proposal, to do anything opposed to the strong desire of the Government to pass the Franchise Bill as originally brought in. I do not think that any of us can reasonably find fault with the Government for not having incorporated in their own Bill the proposal which I am about to submit. They are very properly the best judges of tactics and procedure; but, on the other hand, I feel that those who take an earnest interest in this subject have no alternative before them but to bring it under the notice of Parliament at the present moment. Foes and friends alike 1943 would reproach them if, upon an occasion like this, they failed to assert that which they believed to be perfectly consistent with the fundamental principle of this Bill. The supporters of this question have made that belief very clear for some time past. Twelve months ago 110 habitual supporters of the Government signed a Memorial, in which they stated that no Bill of this kind would be complete which did not recognize the rights of female as well as male householders. It is perfectly true that in the Division taken upon the abstract Resolution submitted to the House shortly afterwards a majority of the House voted against the Resolution. That majority, however, it must be remembered, was a very small one—namely, 16; while, in the previous Division on the same question, there was a hostile majority of 116. May I refer also to the fact that the Conference of Liberal Associations held at Leeds, under the presidency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), a Conference which has been repeatedly referred to in the course of these debates as being peculiarly influential and representative, and a Conference whose decisions have been in the main adopted by the Government, passed a resolution strongly in support of the Motion I am now submitting to the Committee. Under these and other circumstances with which I need not trouble the Committee, as I have said, there has been in the minds of those who feel strongly upon this question no alternative but to press it as earnestly and as zealously as they can, in spite of the discouragement with which they have been confronted. This question has really boon before the country for a comparatively short period. I suppose its Parliamentary history may be said to date no further back than the discussion on the last Reform Bill, when that distinguished man, Mr. John Stuart Mill, submitted Resolutions which, if adopted, would have had the effect that I now desire to bring about. No one who has watched the course of public opinion on this subject will hesitate to say that there has been a remarkable and very strong growth of public opinion in its favour. The time has long since gone by when the proposal to enfranchise women was received with derision. There is no longer any necessity for me to trouble the House with abstract 1944 or philosophical reasons in favour of the proposal. We have heard from the very highest authority in the House that it is within the scope of this Bill— that it is not extraneous to the proposals before the House—and I was particularly gratified to hear that that was the case, and to find that there was no necessity for troubling the House with a Motion by way of an Instruction to the Committee, or of taking any action during the progress of the clauses for winch the Government themselves are directly responsible, since that might have seemed, in some degree, hostile to the Bill itself. I rejoice, as do all those with whom I am in the habit of acting, and all those who are earnestly anxious to see the franchise extended, at the progress made last night, and that we to-day are free to make suggestions without being open to the charge of wishing, in the slightest degree, to impede the conduct of the Bill in the hands of the Government. Indeed, everyone who has followed the arguments by which this large scheme of enfranchisement has been commended to the House must have felt that those arguments were, all of them, equally applicable to women as to the men whom it is proposed to enfranchise. Every axiom that has been quoted has had, at least, equal force in that direction; and the very terms in which the Bill was specially commended to the House in that remarkable speech in which the Prime Minister introduced it has strengthened, as it appears to me, the case in favour of my Motion. The Prime Minister reminded us that the principle and central idea of the Bill was to give to every householder the franchise. He said —"The householder is just as much a householder, and has just as much the responsibility of a householder, whether"—and I wish he had gone on to say—"whether male or female." It will be my duty this afternoon to urge some considerations which I hope will have the effect of persuading the Committee that female householders are essentially "capable citizens," satisfying the conditions which have been so clearly laid down in the definitions of this Bill. In those important debates on this subject which preceded the passing of the Act of 1867, I think in the: debate on the Motion of Sir Edward Baines in 1865, the right hon. Gentle- 1945 man the Prime Minister declared that the onus of proof rested oil those who were opposed to enfranchisement; and I think I must, particularly on this occasion, plead that to be strictly the case. But I am endeavouring to address myself to the objections which have been raised. The objections raised to this enfranchisement are, on examination, found not to be numerous, or, if I may respectfully say so, in my judgment not very forcible. We are told that women should be kept to the domestic sphere; that they are impressionable and emotional, and that they are not to be trusted, therefore, to form a deliberate judgment upon public affairs. There is another objection that has been raised, and which I should not venture to give so much significance to, but that it was very forcibly stated in that very eloquent address with which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General closed the debate on this Motion last year—that address which will be remembered as singularly forcible and eloquent, but which also conveyed to the House a very strong sense of the earnestness with which the hon. and learned Gentleman was actuated. He told us that women could not be soldiers; that they could not serve in the defence of their country, or of public order, in cases of emergency. Well, Sir, I think it would not be difficult to find cases in which women have, in cases of great emergency, shown heroism even in the art and practice of war. I suppose Boadicea, and Joan of Arc, and the Maid of Saragossa, may be mentioned as amongst these. But I should like to know how the principle of the Government with regard to this Bill being a measure of enfranchisement and not of disfranchisement would apply, if they were to require the test of physical fitness for military service to qualify for the exercise of a vote? If that test were applied to many hon. Gentlemen sitting near me, they would be disfranchised. I am perfectly certain of this— that if, in framing the Register, any such test were to be applied, it would be a very large measure of disfranchisement indeed. But, Sir, the irony of the argument appears to me to be that those who are qualified for military service are just those who are not enfranchised. The soldier and the sailor find that a grateful country recognizes their ser- 1946 vices in various ways, but never by giving them the opportunity, as soldiers and sailors, of voting. On the other hand, the clergy, who are not expected to fight, are commonly and generally enabled to vote. I think, therefore, we may dismiss that consideration of physical unfitness as not worthy of serious argument. Is it not true that, in everything relating to war and defence of the country, women equally with men have their sphere? They pay their share of the taxes, out of which the military service is found. More than that, they play a very important part in wars as non-combatants —in nursing the sick and wounded, and in various other ways peculiarly consistent with their sex, but which, none the less, are valuable and serviceable to the cause. Well, I feel there is great force in all that has been said with regard to the proper position of women in contributing to the comforts and charms and attractiveness of home life; but I think a serious consideration of this branch of the subject will show that that argument may be pressed too far. Women have been too long made to regard marriage as their solitary vocation. [Laughter.] I must confess I do not understand the amusement which has taken possession of the Committee. I say women have been too long required to regard marriage as their one vocation, and to neglect that training which would enable them to bear their part in life, when left—as so large a proportion of women are—to fight the battle of life without the aid of a companion. Sir, I am happy to think that this theory, which has led to very many of our most serious social difficulties, is being abandoned. I am glad to think that, in face of the remarkable figures which were included in the Census of 1871, this theory is less popular. If I am right in my information, the Census of 1871 set forth that nearly 3,000,000 of unmarried women in England alone are gaining their livelihood by their own exertions, and managing their own affairs; while 800,000 married women, with their husbands alive, are engaged in occupations by which they earn money. I am sorry that the manner in which the Census of 1881 has been prepared does not give me an opportunity of giving comparative figures bearing upon this; but that Census is remarkable, as it shows how, 1947 in many occupations, the number of women earning a separate livelihood has largely increased. The army of female teachers, for instance, has increased in 10 years from 94,000 to 123,000. The number of milliners and dressmakers has increased from 290,000 to 357,000; and, without troubling the Committee with further figures, perhaps the Committee will accept my word that similar statistics might be quoted with regard to a great many occupations, including many of a comparatively novel kind. The Committee must bear in mind that all women engaged in this praiseworthy effort to earn an independent livelihood are seriously handicapped in their competition with men. They are rarely able in the same class of work, or by the same amount of work, to earn anything like the same amount of wages that are given to men. They are generally, of course, physically, or from various other reasons, unfit, or not qualified, to earn as much as men, or do the same amount of work; but where their work is of a comparatively equal quality, they are not able to earn the same wages, and yet they are bound to bear the same local and national burdens without any difference. They are handicapped in earnings with, at least, equal responsibilities. I think it would not be difficult to show the Committee that these women are law-abiding and law-supporting citizens; but, so far, they have no part in the Constitutional theory of our Government in making the laws which they thus so loyally obey. Surely, then, it does not need many more words to show that these women are eminently "capable citizens," and worthy of recognition by the Committee. I have said that 17 years have not been a long time for a question of this importance to have been in progress; but I ask the Committee look, what a remarkable progress it has been. Women have now secured, very much by their own exertions, a better recognition of the necessity of elementary teaching of education in every grade, and they have recently obtained the very highest certificate of recognition from the Universities. May I not, also, in passing, speak of the large number of women who are engaged, in literature, and whose writings display a remarkable knowledge of the world, and many of whom, contribute largely indeed to our knowledge and to our study of political 1948 questions? The House has recently been engaged in the consideration of a very important subject bearing upon the social condition and industrial dwellings of the poor. Lord Shaftesbury has stated that within his own experience the condition of our poorer fellow-subjects, bad as it is to-day, has been enormously improved; and he has stilted that, in his judgment, it would have been impossible for that improvement to have been brought about without the active help and the intelligent co-operation of women workers who have given themselves up to it. The mention of the name of Miss Octavia Hill in connection with this subject relieves me of the necessity of saying anything further to the Members of this House, many of whom know that she has secured the services of an army of workers, many of them women of the highest rank, and all of them of refined and cultivated natures. An equally important subject, perhaps, but one not very attractive, is that with regard to nursing, and the sanitary state of our hospitals and of our Army. Miss Florence Nightingale, surely, has rendered services which entitle her to be regarded as a "capable citizen" in this regard. A still less attractive subject is that of the discipline of our prisons and the reformatory agencies, directed to those who have formed habits of crime, with which the name of Mary Carpenter has been identified. Perhaps I may be permitted, in the presence of many hon. Members who feel deeply on the temperance question, to refer to the active work of a woman—Miss Robinson—in promoting temperance among soldiers. I only mention these things, not as being in themselves novel, as they must naturally suggest themselves to those who give attention to the subject; but I want to show the Committee how utterly impossible and impracticable any of these reforms would have been if the ideal of "domesticity" had been accepted by the women who have worked so well, and if there was any truth in the saying that a perfect woman is born to "suckle fools and chronicle small beer." If this ideal of "cloistered seclusion," which is fatal to all public work, were to prevail, not only would there be a loss of "capable citizens," but the general commonwealth would have seriously suffered. It is said—"Why bring 1949 women of this kind into the vortex of Party politics?" Well, I think it-would not be difficult to show that the addition of the leaven of such "capable citizens" as these would dignify and elevate political life. It may be true, and it is oftsn said, that women are indifferent to this proposal, or are hostile to it. I admit the truth of that, especially amongst women of easy circumstances—of whose opinions Members of this House are most likely to be familiar. But, I should like to ask, how many women in any social position are aware of the operation of laws prejudicial to their sex until they are actually touched themselves, or by some near relatives, by experience of them? How many happy women, for instance, revelling in the pleasures of their comfortable homes, know that they are not entitled to the custody of their own children? How many such women know that, even after the death of their husbands, the control of their children may be taken away from them? I venture to think that when the attention of women is called to some of these subjects, they will reconsider their hostility in regard to their power of determining legislation affecting their own sex. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), speaking on the second reading of this Bill, referred to the actual disadvantage which the agricultural labourers and the poorer population have suffered from the fact of their not having had any voice in the election of Members of Parliament. He spoke of the manner in which common lands, and lands bordering on the public highways, have been filched from them; and he spoke of the diversion of educational and other charities to aims other than those to which they should have been devoted. I will not enter into a consideration of the policy of recent educational schemes bearing upon old endowments. I should not, perhaps, altogether agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman; but I think it will be at least equally easily recognized, by the Committee that women hare suffered in regard to those old educational charities most shamefully and most conspicuously. In regard to the ancient educational charities of the country, to which boys and girls were equally entitled, the girls have been pushed aside. I do not know whether 1950 there has been any change in the policy of the management of Christ's Hospital; but, so far back as 1867, Mr. Mill quoted it as showing a case where boys and girls had equal rights, and yet where 1,100 boys had received a liberal education, and only 26 girls had received an education, which has been acknowledged to be not liberal. With regard to the employment of women under the various Acts relating to factories and workshops, something has been said in reference to the manner in which they have been prejudiced by that legislation. I am not quite clear that such has been the case; I am perfectly willing to admit that it was not the intention of this House that it should be so. Upon another question, which the House has unfortunately had to consider, and with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) has been associated, and with respect to such measures as those now under the consideration of the other House for the protection of young girls, however much we may differ from the prevailing opinion attributed to women, surely the Committee must feel these are eminently questions on which women have a right to express their opinions, and upon which their opinions must be of peculiar value. Having said so much, the Committee, I think, may congratulate itself on having a certain advantage in approaching the discussion of this question now, as compared with its position 17 years ago. The case I am about to submit has been constantly strengthening. I am no longer under the necessity of submitting an hypothesis in regard to the manner in which the franchise will be used by women. In a very interesting speech made on this subject last year, the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) spoke of women being legally eligible for the office of churchwarden, overseer, sheriff, and certain other functions of a similar character; but he added—I think these offices were allowed them in the past as much for the opportunity of extorting fines from them as for anything else; and if we find, as a matter of fact, that they never do hold such offices, what are we to think?"—(3 Hansard, [281] 688.)But I find that even within the past few months—within the present year—a lady has been appointed to the office of overseer in the parish of Counthorpe, in 1951 Lincolnshire; while another lady, Mrs. Gosset—a name well known and honoured in this House—has been elected churchwarden in a parish in Wales. In 1869 an Act was passed, which removed some existing anomalies, and confirmed, in the main, the partial usage which had anciently prevailed. The Act was extended to Scotland, through the action of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but no such, provision has yet been, applied to Ireland. Under a clause in the Act of 1869, couched in terms practically identical with those I am now submitting to the Committee, women householders, spinsters, and widows, vote exactly as men. There can be no use in my troubling the Committee with evidence as to how that vote has been used. Hon. Members, in the course of the debate, can give their own experience. For my own part, I can only say that I have been a candidate for a School Board, and a candidate for a Town Council; and I frankly state to the Committee that there has been no difference coming within my observation between women householders, as a class, and men householders, as regards the manner in which they have used the vote. The women electors have been actuated very much by the same views and the game prejudices, if you will, as the men electors of their own rank. But the Committee may be spared the time and trouble of any vindication of the women householders in that respect, because I find it most amply and sufficiently afforded in the Bill lately submitted to the House by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), for the constitution of a Metropolitan Parliament in which will sit the representatives of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of people—a nation in themselves—and in the election of which women householders will vote as well as men. I am told also that women may be Councillors, and that we may possibly live to see a woman Lord Mayor. So much for Town Councils and their ever-extending responsibilities—for the Committee will bear in mind how constantly the duties of Municipal Councils have been enlarged, and how they will probably be further enlarged by modern legislation. No less important than the experience we have had under the Act of 1869 is the experience we have had under the Educa- 1952 tion Act of 1870, which, as everyone knows, gave not only the right of voting to women, but gave them the right to be elected and to sit as members of school boards. Again, no more difficult matter, as it appears to me, requires the careful attention and thought of those who are called upon to act as the representatives of the ratepayers than the administration of the Poor Law. It is full, as we all must know, of the most dangerous and delicate problems. If, then, women are the shallow and hysterical creatures the opponents of my proposal are fond of describing them, surely their position on Boards of Guardians would be most perilous and detrimental. But what is the fact? It is found that their natural benevolence is so much tempered by sagacity and prudence, that they are not only elected from time to time to those offices; but the Local Government Board, on its own responsibility, nominates such qualified women, in some places, to bear their part in guiding and advising and acting with the elected members of Boards of Guardians? Women have always voted for members of Board of Guardians. They can be elected on them, and they have acted, when elected, in. the way I have described. What more does the Committee want to show that women are "capable citizens?" I know there are some who have said that, even conceding the right of women to vote and bear a part in the conduct of local affairs, the Parliamentary franchise remains distinct, and is a totally different matter. Now, I may perhaps, instance, for the benefit of the Committee, some cases where the Constitution has given to women the right of political voting. In some of the territories of the United States, women have possessed and exercised the political franchise. There is, of course, the usual conflicting testimony as to the manner in which they have used it; but, having carefully examined the evidence on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, woman suffrage in the United States has worked eminently satisfactorily. The Queen has signified her gracious Assent to a measure which has given women freeholders in the Isle of Man this right—a right which, I am told, they have, so far, exercised satisfactorily. But we are not accustomed to take our materials from, foreign places. I place my reliance much more confi- 1953 dently on the experience we have had in every department of local life. One difficulty which existed when this question was discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), in 1871, has been happily removed. Something was said about the turmoil of public elections; and the Prime Minister on that occasion, in a remarkable speech, spoke very confidently of the change which would come in regard to determining the question of the right and expediency of female voting if secret voting were adopted. Secret voting has been adopted—I imagine to the satisfaction of all those who formerly advocated it. ["No, no!"] Notwithstanding that contradiction, I have not yet heard that anyone who advocated the Ballot is now prepared, after experience of its working, to change his belief. Hon. Gentlemen who contradict me probably never were advocates of the Ballot. Then, we are told this concession is not wanted by those to whom it is proposed to give it. Well, I invite the Committee to say what evidence will satisfy them on such a subject? We have had a very considerable number of perfectly spontaneous and very influential Petitions presented in favour of this proposal. Public meeting have been held throughout the country in its support—meetings equal in number and in the interest they have excited to the meetings held on behalf of any similar movement.. Indeed, strongly as I am in favour of giving the vote to the agricultural labourers, and much as I appreciate the zeal and energy with which their agitation has been conducted, I am bound to say that I think the meetings that have been held in favour of woman suffrage have been generally larger and more influential than those held on behalf of the agricultural labourers. Then, you have had resolutions from Municipal Corporations and public bodies of different kinds, and from Liberal Associations. I was told in the Lobby, last night, that a very influential Member of the Government had received Memorials from Associations of both political Parties in the borough he represents, requesting him to support the proposal I am submitting. But these things are small in importance compared with the actual experience of woman suffrage in the Municipalities, and the manner in which it is exercised. Under the 1954 Ballot Act, as hon. Members know, we are not now able to give an analysis of such voting;. but an analysis made just before that Act was passed went to confirm the view that women vote very much in the same way as men. We heard a great deal in 1867—and remarks of a similar kind have been frequently echoing since—about "an invading army;" but those on whose behalf we are asking for this right are really our own flesh and blood, our mothers and sisters—not to speak of our cousins and our aunts. In the main, they are governed by the same considerations as ourselves. We are told that women are subject to such an extent to clerical influence that they are not to be trusted with the responsibility of a vote. I can bear my testimony to the great influence exercised by the Church of England on the highest and the lowest of society. I also know that there is a rugged and robust kind of life, for which the Nonconformists are responsible, which may be looked to to checkmate, if the occasion should arise, the undue exercise of influence by the Church; but I have lately had an opportunity of seeing something of women who are associated together in conventual institutions; and, surely, in the convents of the Church of Rome, we might expect to find women more docile, and more subject to clerical influence, than in any other part of society. They may be so when no serious occupation is given to them; but if anyone will acquaint himself with the constitution and action of women who have undertaken important work, such as the management of reformatory schools, and industrial schools, and penitentiaries, he will find that these orders of women are Republican in their organization; and, while they recognize the authority of the clergy in their proper functions, they will not allow either the clergy themselves, or the Bishops, to intrude on the conduct of the work for which they are responsible. [Mr. NEWDEGATE dissented.] The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) naturally shakes his head at that; but I look him straight in the face, and repeat what I have said, and I believe it will bear the test of investigation. I think I have shown the Committee that all these fears and apprehensions as to women, and their admission to the fran- 1955 chise are chimeras, which, like the ghosts of old, only require to be faced by the actual experience of life to be banished as so many delusions. I believe that, in a not far distant time, there will be incredulity that such a proposal as this which I have submitted should have made some hon. Members rage, and the Attorney General imagine the vain things to which he has given expression. Liberals have not been accustomed to ask in these matters how votes will be given. Our line has always been, as it was in the Bill of 1867, and in the Ballot Act, and as it is in this measure, to consider the simple question whether the right is well founded, and whether it is generally expedient for the good government and social order of the country that people should have this vote. Who in this House can answer for the agricultural labourer as to how he will use his vote? Who in this House can express himself confidently satisfied that the Irish voter, who will be brought within the Constitution, will exercise his vote in a manner altogether satisfactory. But we contend none the less earnestly for the enfranchisement of both, and experience has strengthened our confidence and belief that the growth of education and political intelligence will band these people together in intelligent support of every measure for the well-being of the country. I am pleading, to-day, not for people like those to whom I have referred—I am speaking for influential landowners, of whom, according to the Doomsday Book, one-seventh are women. I am pleading for tenant farmers, who, notwithstanding the disadvantages under which women in such a position labour, number 20,000—for those who are large employers of labour, who are influential in many ways, and who will now have to stand by if my Motion is rejected—as I hope it will not be— whilst their humblest dependents are enfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government made an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the House generally to put their trust in the people. Surely I may ask the House to trust the women. Speaking in 1871, the right hon. Gentleman, for whom, as my Leader, I have so loyal a regard, and whose words I accept with the greatest sincerity, said—If it should hereafter be found possible to arrive at a safe and well-adjusted alteration of 1956 the law as to political power, the man who shall attain that object, and who shall see his purpose carried onwards to its legitimate consequences in a more just arrangement of the provisions of our laws bearing upon the condition and welfare of women, will in my opinion be a real benefactor to his country."—(3 Hansard, [207] 95.)I shall be still more gratified if the achievement of this great object should be the means of placing another leaf in the Liberal laurels, and of adding to the well-earned trophies to which the Prime Minister himself has been so justly entitled. I am reproached by some of my hon. Friends with the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite, on this occasion, are likely to give me considerable support. I think that, although this measure is an eminently Liberal proposal, consistent with and inseparable from the Liberal programme, there may be considerations which, at this time, may specially commend it to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Short as my experience has been, I have often seen Members who sit beside me out-voted by Tory aid, called in by the Government; and I think, perhaps, our Leaders will not reproach us, on this occasion, if we find ourselves supported, to some extent, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then we are told that, by the passing of this Amendment, we shall imperil the Bill. Imperilling the Bill is a very serious charge to bring against us who have so long worked for it, and who are sincerely and earnestly anxious to see it pass; but we have no information given us as to where lies the peril. If, as I hope it may be, it be true that we are to receive considerable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I cannot imagine peril there. If it is sent to the other House, I require some further information that this Amendment will make the Bill unpalatable to noble Lords. I have endeavoured to show that the Bill is just and expedient, and it is always opportune, to quote again the words of the President of the Board of Trade, "to do the right." One word with regard to the clause itself. That' clause is framed, as nearly as possible, in the language of a similar operative clause in the Municipal Corporations Act. I am told that under that clause women householders have alone the right to vote. It is quite true that it may be open to question as to the legal operation of the clause; but all I ask the 1957 House is that, in voting for the second reading of this clause, they shall assert the general principle that no disability shall attach to those who fulfil all other qualifications and conditions by the mere fact of sex; but in Committee I shall be perfectly willing to make the point clear to those who are sceptical upon it, as to lodgers and married women. The usage has always been to accept the principle, and then to consider modifications. I very cordially thank the Committee for its indulgent attention. I have endeavoured to show that the claim I urge is right and just, I believe the concession will be wise and expedient; and I hope the House will accord its approval to my Amendment.Clause (Extension of suffrage to women,)—(Mr. Woodall, —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEI have listened with very great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend. He has made an eloquent and able speech in favour of the enfranchisement of women, and he has opened a very wide field of discussion. He has told us himself, towards the close of his speech, that he has not made up his mind as to the final form of legislation he proposes. What he wants is that the Committee shall now consent, by assenting to the second reading of this clause, to accept what he has termed the principle of the clause; but this is a different case from a case in which the House is invited to accept the principle of a Bill. When the House accepts the principle of a Bill it has the Bill before it, and is aware of its provisions. My hon. Friend invites us to accept the principle of his clause, telling us, at the same time, that he leaves it open to us to introduce Amendments and alterations in the terms of the clause, which might most materially, even vitally, affect its application. I am not stating this by way of objection to my hon. Friend's proceeding upon its merits; I am only stating it to show that he has invited us to enter upon a new and wide field of separate legislation. There are two questions which must occur, at least to my mind, on this occasion, and which I think the Committee will agree it is our duty to entertain. One of these is 1958 the question whether women should be enfranchised; the other is the question whether that enfranchisement should be effected by a clause introduced in Committee on the present Bill. Now, on the first of these questions I have no opinion to give on the present occasion. I shall not follow my hon. Friend through the various arguments which he has made, which may, no doubt, be supported by a great deal of material urged in their favour, and which are equally open to be controverted from the opposite point of view. My hon. Friend has referred to a speech of mine. I have not recently referred to it; but, so far as my memory serves me, I am not aware of having departed from the general sentiments it embraced; and my own opinions on this subject, if I am to describe them in a very rude outline, are that this is a question of immense difficulty; that it is a question upon which nothing hasty should be done—a question which requires to be absolutely sifted to the bottom; a question which ought to be dissociated from every notion of Party, and every element of political consideration, and upon which the House can only by strict adherence to its Rules arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. Now, the second question of the two I have named is that upon which I am now about to dwell. Not holding myself the most extreme views as to the first, I certainly entertain myself, and I have to declare on the part of my Colleagues, the strongest conviction that it is not fit, but unfitting, in every sense of the word, to attempt to effect this enfranchisement by the introduction of a clause in Committee on the present Bill. We have been obliged to consider the question in what way we can best serve the cause we have undertaken. My hon. Friend says that he has had no notice that the Bill would be endangered by the mode of proceeding he has adopted. I thought I had given him very distinct notice on the subject by a letter I addressed to him to-day, in answer to one I received from him this morning. Possibly it has not reached him, and I am sorry if it has not.
§ MR. WOODALLI said it had not been indicated in what way the Bill would be endangered.
MR. GLADSTONEThe expression I used on the part of the Government was that the view they entertained, and 1959 the estimate they had formed, of their position, and of the difficulties by which they were surrounded, and the best means by which they may hope to attain their important end, was that it would be a breach of duty on their part to assent in any manner to the introduction of the clause of the hon. Gentleman. At the outset of the discussion on this subject, I pointed out to the House that we had a great purpose in view; but if there is one duty more than another which belongs to the Government, which it is bound to take into its own hands, and for which it is bound to assert its own responsibility—because, in fact, no one can effectually relieve it of that responsibility—that duty is to consider and determine, to the best of its power, by what means, by what arrangement of enactments, by what division of the subject, by what steps in the arrangement of the Business of the House, with what regard to the action of Parties in the country it can attain the end it professes to have in view; and if the Government, professing to desire the enfranchisement of the great mass of the people, surrenders to others the consideration and decision of all the conditions with which the enfranchisement is to be loaded, the Government betrays its duty to the country. I have said first for myself, and I have said on the part of my Colleagues, that we deprecate the introduction of new matter into this Bill. The cargo which the vessel carries is, in our opinion, a cargo as large as she can carry safely. No measure of this importance ever had one-tenth part of the difficulties and dangers to apprehend which this measure has had to apprehend from its indirect and even un-avowed foes. It has been our duty to take into consideration all these propositions; and we have determined in our own mind that to reduce our proposal to a form of strict simplicity, intelligible to the country, not mixed up with a multitude of detailed proposals, not opening up new fields of discussion, which involve the introduction of motives and considerations totally new, was the mode in which we could best, and in which we could alone discharge the serious obligation that is undertaken by any Government that proposes a measure to admit 2,000,000 of persons to the franchise. On that account we have been obliged to adopt a tone which may have appeared 1960 to the House almost pedantic in its strictness, and to use every means in our power for the purpose of putting aside proposals, some of which might be meritorious on the whole, some of which might, at any rate, be entitled to full consideration. Is it possible for us to make an exception in favour of the proposal of my right hon. Friend? If we do that, we are bound to enter into a large discussion of the subject he has opened. It is no light matter. It is a very weighty matter; and if we enter into the discussion of that subject we must be prepared to go round the whole circle of topics connected with the franchise, and one by one to go through the whole details which a thorough examination of them would involve. Now, we have to consider one question above all others—the time at our disposal; and, next to that, the advantages that would be given to the avowed or unavowed opponents of this Bill by loading the proposal with regard to the extension of the franchise with matters of an extraneous character. We cannot undertake that responsibility. We will disclaim all responsibility for the measure if my hon. Friend carries the Motion he has in view. Now, at last, I hope we understand fully and clearly in what direction the danger we think lies. But this is no passionate conclusion. It is what I and my Colleagues have been driven to by the eagerness of the opposition of my hon. Friend. There are among us those who are positively friendly to the proposal of my hon. Friend in wishing it well—going, perhaps, as far as my hon. Friend in wishing it well; but it is strictly a judgment of prudence; and we have felt that if we were to maintain our ground, and to put this great proposal singly in such a way as to give it a fair chance of the judgment of Parliament, it was impossible for us to enter upon the multitude of questions which might fairly be raised in connection with the franchise, and, most certainly, it is impossible to make the proposal of my hon. Friend an exception to that. Why should we not make it an exception? In the first place, it is a very large proposal. My hon. Friend did not enter upon the consideration of the number of persons whom he proposes to enfranchise by his Amendment. I have referred to authorities upon the subject. It is impos- 1961 sible to arrive at anything resembling a close estimate; but it does not seem unreasonable to believe that the number of persons in the Three Kingdoms would be little short of 500,000. I am speaking of what I wish to be a moderate estimate. I will not say it will not go beyond that number; but I think I am stating it moderately when I put it at that number. Of course, if there be any truth in the argument, so persistently urged, with some limited amount of reason I admit, with regard to the disproportion of the constituencies which our large enfranchisement is going to create until accompanied by redistribution, the ground of that disproportion, which hon. Gentlemen opposite are treating as a thing totally destroying the value of the Bill, and converting it into a mischief until we have redistribution, all that disproportion would be immensely aggravated by this very large addition. I think it is not a disputable question, but is, in principle, a rule-of-three sum. But this question is one upon which my hon. Friend has exhibited a very strong feeling; and, in my opinion, it is honourable to him that he has exhibited that feeling. Every man who examines it must, I think, have a strong feeling as to the extension; but, then, it unfortunately happens that a large number of those who have examined it entertain a feeling quite as strong as that of nay hon. Friend, but in precisely the opposite direction. What is the position in which the hon. Member places the Government; in which he places—I was going to say myself, but that is too insignificant a question—the position in which he places Parliament, which has to deal with this great subject, and which is watched with intense interest by the country as to the manner in which it will deal with it—in fact, the position in which he places the country itself respecting the granting of the franchise; if, in the middle of June, amidst all our difficulties connected with Public Business, he requests us to introduce into this Bill a completely new subject, upon which it is admitted men will differ profoundly, and with regard to which there is only one thing which is clear— namely, that both on one side and on the other they would be entitled to require that it should receive a full and dispassionate discussion and investigation. 1962 It is not now practicable to give it that investigation. My hon. Friend has, no doubt, surveyed the position of domestic and foreign politics. He thinks there is not a sufficient burden upon our shoulders, and so he wishes to place this additional burden upon all the rest. It is extremely flattering that he should form such an estimate of our strength; but, for our part, our judgment is more modest. We think our engagements are quite as heavy as we can discharge; and it is on that account, and not at all because I wish, in any way, to disparage either the ability of my hon. Friend or the pleas he has been enabled to make, that I hope that the Committee will decline to entertain the Amendment. This is one of those questions to which, in my mind, a sort of sacredness attaches. This is also one of those questions which it would be intolerable to mix up with purely political and Party debates. If there be a subject in the whole compass of human life and experience that is sacred, beyond all other subjects, it is the character and position of women. It is idle to say, as decisive of the question, that you have given women votes in School Board elections and for Corporations, and that they have discharged their duties well. Nothing could be fairer than that my hon. Friend should use those arguments as far as they go, and he has made very legitimate use of them to-night; but they do not decide or dispose of the question. It is quite a different question from local matters. Women are well qualified, and they have shown that they are well qualified, without derogating from the high prerogatives of their sex, which carry them far above the region wherein our controversies lie for local duties; but it is one question whether these local duties which they discharge without detriment, and with great advantage, should be put upon them; and it is another question how far it is desirable that they should be invited to come upon the same footing with men on the stormy sea of politics. I do not attempt to rule the question; but I say it is the largest social question you can possibly have raised. It is the one which you are most bound to deal with, not in an off-hand manner, but in a manner thorough and workmanlike, and corresponding to the vast responsibilities which it carries with it. It is a question which, of all others, we 1963 ought not to mix up with, the political and Party issues involved in the fate of the Bill. It is not desirable that the claims of women should be denied, or that they should be adopted, because of the bearing which, at this moment, they cannot fail to have upon political and Party issues. Does my hon. Friend ask me to admit that this question deserves the fullest consideration? I give him the admission freely, and I assert strongly that it is a proper subject for consideration. Does he ask me if I wish to bind the Members of this Government, or my Colleagues in the Cabinet, with respect to the votes which they will give upon the question? Certainly not, provided only that you take the subject from the vortex of political contention. But these social considerations are considerations which cannot be trifled with; they must be dealt with carefully and solemnly, and they cannot be either too carefully or too solemnly dealt with; nor can the mass of details that the principle of this Resolution would involve be settled in a satisfactory manner in conjunction with this Bill. While, therefore, having always thought that this was a question eminently to be considered as an open question, and dealt with on its own merits; having belonged to Governments which have so treated it; belonging now to a Government which so treats it; and wishing it to be decided, When it is decided, by a free, impartial, and dispassionate judgment of Parliament, on its social and moral aspects, and not upon political considerations. I am bound to say, while thus free and open on the subject myself, that with regard to the proposal to introduce it into this Bill, I offer it the strongest opposition in my power, and I must disclaim and renounce all responsibility 1964 for the measure should my hon. Friend succeed in inducing the Committee to adopt his Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Lord John Manners,)—put, and agreed to,
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.