[BILL 124.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 April 1886)

§ MR. MOULTON (Clapham)
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, which deals with matters which I am sure all Members of the House must have seen, during the recent elections, needed serious legislation. The anomalies of the Parliamentary franchise under our present laws are so great that, in the case of a very large number of people, especially of the poorer classes, we find that the provisions which purport to give to the voters a right to vote on an occupation of one year are perfectly illusory, and that it takes two or three years of continuous occupation of exactly the same tenement and in exactly the same character, before a man is able to exercise the privilege of the franchise. If we take the very simple case of the lodger franchise, we find it is impossible for anyone to get upon the Register until from one June to another June he has occupied lodgings in the same house in the same borough; and even then six months elapse before his right to vote becomes effective, and another year may pass before he is able to use it. Much the same state of things exists with regard to other franchises. Now, Sir, this practically means that the period for qualification is something like two or three years; and the anomaly of this is turned into a real injustice when you consider that if there is any change in the character of the qualification during that period, disfranchisement is complete. A very simple case of this kind occurred in the division which I have the honour to represent. It was the case of a person who, being a lodger for the greater portion of the 698 year at a rental which, would have entitled him to the franchise, married, and took a house. The consequence was he was disqualified, although the occupation of the house would have been sufficient to qualify him by itself, or the occupation of his lodgings would have been sufficient itself to give him the vote. Now, I am not going at this late hour (12.45) to detain the House with any lengthy speech upon this Bill. The Bill simply goes to the root of the matter so far as this kind of disfranchisement is concerned. It looks upon the possession of a qualification as granting to the man who possesses it a personal status which is not in the least altered by the fact that he changes the position of the house he occupies or the lodging he occupies. By this Bill, if a man has possessed a qualification during a sufficient period, no matter whether the qualification is in one borough or another, or what its nature may be, he is to have, as he ought to have, the right to vote in respect of it. I cannot imagine how any hon. Members who really believe that our qualifications for the franchise are righteous can think it is right to disfranchise a man because he has lived, say, on one side of Brixton Road during one part of the year and on the other side of the same road during the other part of the year. It seems to me that hon. Members who wish to keep up these artificial distinctions must wish to do so with some Party motive—possibly because they think that the classes of voters who support them are not subject to removal so frequently as the classes who oppose them. I, however, have great confidence that the general fairness of the Members of the House will admit that reform in this respect is necessary. Now, Sir, that is the great principle of the Bill. It takes the two main qualifications—the qualification of being a householder, and the qualification of occupying premises of the value of £10 a-year—and it says the possession of one of these qualifications during the required time, however frequently the nature of the qualification is changed, shall be sufficient to entitle a man to the vote. The qualifying period is fixed at six months. But the next question which every Bill of this kind must deal with is, where is the man to vote? The Bill provides that he is to vote, as I think most hon. Mem- 699 bers will agree he should vote, in the district in which he resides at the end of the qualifying period. Now, this has two effects, two most important effects. In the first place, it gets rid of the difficulty as to where a man is to vote; and, secondly, it takes away that multiplicity of votes which is most unfairly given to some persons by reason that the properties they occupy are distributed in different boroughs. It is, I submit, monstrous that a person who occupies five places in one borough should have but one vote, while, if the five places were situated in five different boroughs, he would have a multiplicity of votes. In this, the 19th century, and the latter part of the century, I trust there can be found no one who will support the principle of representation in proportion to wealth; and if this is not representation in proportion to wealth, it is something very much like it. Now, Sir, another very great and most important provision of the Bill is that it no longer respects those franchises which are simply bought. It is a crime to bribe a voter; but, according to the present state of the law, it is no crime whatever to buy for yourself a vote by the investment of something like £50 or £60 in every county division in England. The Bill proposes to entirely do away with that. It proposes to leave the franchise as it should be regarded, a purely personal right which cannot be acquired merely by the investment of a little money. And the last point to which I will call the attention of the House is that the Bill proposes to include all the laws which regulate the franchise in one short Bill. The laws which govern and define the civil rights of the people of England should, at all events, if possible, be intelligible to the people. Although we respect the franchise highly, and regard it as one of the civil rights most precious to the inhabitants of England, the laws which regulate and confer that franchise are contained in something like 60 Statutes. This Bill collects together the whole of the necessary provisions; and in one small Statute is included all those laws which in the future will confer the franchise on the people of the country. The Bill is simple and intelligible, and I trust the House will consider that that is in itself a very important point. To sum up, this Bill proposes to prevent any mere change of qualification from 700 disfranchising the voter; it proposes to take away those franchises which are merely bought; and it proposes to consolidate in one short Act the whole of the laws which regulate the possession of the franchise. As such, I trust it will command the support of the House, and I move its second reading.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)
I am not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) should say this is a very important measure. It is a very important measure indeed; and I hope that hon. Members, before they give their vote in favour of its second reading, will master its details. Sir, it is not very long since the late Parliament came to a very important decision in relation to the question of the franchise in this country. I will not say that any compromise was effected; but I will say that the moderation of the Franchise Act of 1884 commended itself not only to the then Parliament, but, I think, to the constituencies of the country generally. Now, Sir, this Bill is, in fact, an entire and total departure from the Franchise Act of 1884; and if it be true that such alterations as are proposed should be made, I think I am justified in asking that they shall not be made, by the inadvertent act of this Bill remaining on the Notice Paper, without attention being called to it, and without full opportunity being afforded hon. Members of the House of mastering the contents of the Bill. I am afraid that, in consequence of the events of this evening, many hon. Members of the House are not aware of the contents of the measure proposed by my hon. and learned Friend in the few words he has addressed to the House. The real truth is that, in the first place, this Bill entirely destroys the ownership vote, and it destroys the best class of the ownership voters—namely, the small freeholders of the country. I will not go into the question whether this ownership vote should exist at all; but if it is abolished, it can only be abolished after full discussion. If the small freeholders of the country are to be deprived of the franchise by a Liberal Member, the fact ought to be known, and full opportunity given for the discussion of so great a 701 principle. I may tell the House, for I presume that very few hon. Members can have the Bill in their hands, this is really a repeal in its terms of the Franchise Act of 1884 to this extent—that it puts the provisions of that great measure on one side, and re-enacts only those which my hon. and learned Friend thinks it right to agree with. We have also this important alteration proposed—that one month's residence is to give a man the vote. It may be right or wrong that this should be so; but surely such a change should only be made after full and mature consideration. There are a great many changes proposed by the Bill; but, at least, there is one striking change which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned—namely, that all borough elections throughout the country shall take place on the same day, and all county elections on the same day; and in order, I suppose, to make it more satisfactory and more convenient to all concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that elections shall always take place on a Saturday. I do not doubt that there may be a great deal to be said in favour of such propositions; but these propositions amount to radical changes, changes of the greatest moment to the citizens of the country. Has this Bill ever been mentioned in the country; has anyone ever heard of it? I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that if he wishes to obtain support for the great principles involved in this Bill, does he not think it right they should be open to fair discussion in the presence of a full House? Taking this view, and taking some little interest in the legislation of last Session, I do hope I may be permitted to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)
I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) who moved the second reading of the Bill will not object to the adjournment of the debate. It is quite clear that no one expected that a Bill of this importance would come on at 1 o'clock in the morning. I will not attempt to offer any opinion upon the details of the Bill—I must frankly con- 702 fess I am not sufficiently acquainted with them to do so—but say that there is no doubt that this Bill intends to make great changes in the settlement of the franchise question arrived at last year. That may or may not be a good thing to do; but, at all events, it should not be done by surprise. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) has had the advantage of stating his case to the House, and therefore I hope he will not object to the adjournment of the debate.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
; I should like to say that, while I entirely agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), it appears to me most extraordinary for a new Member, whatever his abilities and eminence in his profession may be, to bring in such a measure as this, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) has said, absolutely repeals the existing law governing the Parliamentary franchise of this country, and to press it on at 1 o'clock in the morning. Personally, I should like to vote against the second reading of the Bill.