374 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



actments prohibits overcrowding on canal- 

 boats, and provides for the education of the 

 boatmen's children. Others limit summary ju- 

 risdiction in England, and, as regards infant 

 offenders in Ireland, enable public corporations 

 to execute trust deeds in respect to public 

 libraries and museums, give building societies 

 and their members access to courts for adjudi- 

 cation of disputes with the society respecting 

 mortgages and contracts, lengthening the period 

 of naval service by two years, and restricting 

 the powers of naval courts-martial. 



The Debate on the Franchise Bill. The repre- 

 sentation of the people bill was introduced in 

 the House of Commons by the Prime Minister 

 on February 28. Declaring that the enfran- 

 chisement of capable citizens was an addition 

 to the strength of the state, he recounted the 

 pledges given by the Liberal party, and de- 

 scribed the prevailing sentiment of the coun- 

 try in favor of the extension of suffrage. The 

 ministerial measure left the existing rights of 

 franchise in the main untouched. Though there 

 was a provision to check the creation of " fagot 

 votes," i. e., votes conferred by the possession 

 of real estate of insignificant value acquired for 

 the purpose, yet the simple property qualifica- 

 tion was not assailed, the condition of resi- 

 dence was not insisted upon, nor was any at- 

 tempt made to carry out the doctrine, widely 

 held among Liberals, of " one man, one vote." 

 Tinder the existing system many property- 

 holders have ten or a dozen votes in different 

 boroughs, and some as many as twenty. The 

 bill proposed to enlarge the 10 occupation 

 franchise in boroughs, so as to make it include 

 land without buildings, and to create a service 

 franchise that would confer votes on house- 

 holders that occupy tenements in virtue of 

 some office or appointment and do not pay 

 rent. The chief feature of the measure was 

 the extension of the borough franchise, or the 

 household and lodger franchises, and the fran- 

 chise derived from property, with the 10 

 limitation thus enlarged, to the counties. This 

 is the most important enlargement of the fran- 

 chise since the reform act, increasing the elect- 

 orate of the United Kingdom from 3,000,000 

 to 5,000,000. The act of 1832 added only 

 500,000 to the voting population, while the act 

 of 1867 increased the electorate from 1,136,000 

 to 2,488,000. Mr. Gladstane refused to deal 

 with redistribution in the same measure, on the 

 ground that it was impossible for Parliament 

 to get through with the whole question, as 

 applied to the entire kingdom, in a single ses- 

 sion. He insisted upon the extension of the 

 franchise being granted in Ireland as well as 

 in England and Scotland. He indicated the 

 general features of the measure for the redis- 

 tribution of seats, which was to be the first 

 order of business in 1885. The distinction 

 between borough and county districts would 

 be preserved, and the reapportionment would 

 stop short of equal electoral districts. The 

 representation of Scotland would be enlarged 



and that of Ireland not decreased, because those 

 portions of the United Kingdom needed a rela- 

 tively larger representation to secure attention 

 to their wants. The Conservatives assailed 

 neither the principle nor the scope of the pro- 

 posed enfranchisement, but opposed the meas- 

 ure because it was not accompanied with 

 a redistribution bill. Lord John Maimers's 

 amendment condemning the measure as im- 

 perfect, and refusing to go on with it until 

 the Government disclosed their scheme of re- 

 distribution, was rejected by a majority of 340 

 to 210, and the bill was read a second time 

 April 7. The inclusion of women, moved by 

 Mr. Woodall, was supported not only by North- 

 cote and Manners, who battled by the side of 

 Disraeli for woman suffrage, but by Conserva- 

 tives that were formerly opponents of the 

 principle, while many Liberals, including even 

 members of the Government, abstained from 

 voting in disregard of a peremptory whip. 

 Mr. Gladstone said that it involved a new 

 question, which, as affecting the political status 

 of half a million persons, ought to go before 

 the country. On the third reading, June 26, 

 Mr. Gladstone uttered an impassioned warning 

 of the crisis that the Opposition would produce 

 if they carried out their avowed intention of 

 throwing out the bill in the upper house. The 

 Opposition, after asserting that the Lords would 

 be justified in demanding the presentation of a 

 complete scheme, left the House and allowed 

 the bill to pass nem. con., as was recorded in 

 the journals on Mr. Gladstone's suggestion. 



The franchise bill was read a first time in the 

 Lords, June 27. Lord Cairns gave notice of 

 an amendment to the effect that the House, 

 while prepared to discuss any well-considered 

 and complete scheme for the extension of the 

 franchise, could not assent to a measure with- 

 out provision for redistribution or any secu- 

 rity that the enfranchisement would not go 

 into operation before redistribution became 

 law. Some of the Conservative peers objected 

 to this course as reckless and unnecessary, 

 but the Duke of Richmond and the main body 

 of the party supported the amendment, and 

 the Marquis of Salisbury insisted on again pre- 

 cipitating a conflict between the two houses, 

 intimating that the Lords would only bow to 

 the will of the country as manifested in a fresh 

 general election. The amendment was carried 

 on the second reading by 205 to 146 votes. 

 To show that the question at issue between 

 the two parties was one of procedure and not 

 of principle, the House of Lords recorded a 

 resolution expressing its assent to the prin- 

 ciples of representation contained in the bill. 

 Though in form the Cairns amendment was 

 not a rejection of the measure, it was thus 

 intended and accepted. The ministry at once 

 decreed a " massacre of the innocents," which 

 embraced nearly the whole legislative work of 

 the year, in order to prorogue Parliament and 

 arrange for an autumn session. 



Before the division on the second meeting 



