The bill was not permitted to pass without many alterations. Government, either influenced by a sincere desire for reform, or convinced that, as reform was at any rate . unavoidable, it was better that it should pass under their management than under the management of their opponents, were quite resolved that a bill should pass. They to the house whenever they well could, and when they could not, the threat of dissolution at once brought the house to reason. The result of the labors of the.session admits of being shortly stated.
The borough franchise remained substantially as first proposed. Much of the session was lost in devising clauses by which the rating principle could be applied to those tenants whose landlords compounded for their rates. The principle was, however, main tained; and an amendment introduced by Mr. Gladstone, with a view of fixing the hard and fast line of £5, was rejected. But by a new clause, the system of compounding was put an end to, so that the franchise was really given to all householders except those excused from rating on the score of poverty. The period of residence, on the motion of Mr. Ayrton, was reduced from two years to one. On the motion of Mr. McColl:1g], Torrens, an important addition was made in the shape of the lodger franchise. Mr. Disraeli's bill of 1839 had contained a provision of the kind, and something like it was again added. It gives votes to all lodgers who have occupied for a year lodgings which would let unfurnished for RIO, and who apply to be put on the roll.
The county- franchise was reduced from L'15 to £12 rating; and there was added (on lfr. Colville's motion) a reduction of the copyhohl and leasehold franchise, giving votes to all owners or life-renters of the free annual value of £5 in property other than freehold, which continues to yield a 40s. franchise.
The dual vote was early abandoned, and its abandonment involved that of the "fancy" franchises. These have now only interest as matters of history; but as the name appears often in the discussions, it should be mentioned that, in their last form, they proposed to give votes to all who paid £1 annually in direct taxes (not including licenses), who belonged to certain of the better educated professions, or who had £50 in a savings bank or in the funds. Mr. Mill's proposal to extend the franchise to women found 73 supporters. The vote by ballot was rejected, equally with the govern ment proposal to take the vote by means of voting-papers.
The comparatively restricted proposals of the government with regard to redis tribution of seats were considerably extended. On Mr. Laing's amendment, the limit at which boroughs then returning two members should hereafter return only one, was raised from 7.000 inhabitants to 10.000. This gave 38 seats to be distributed,* making, with the 7 seats forfeited for bribery by the boroughs of Lancaster, Yarmouth, Reigate, -and Totness, 45 in all. Of these, 25 were given to the larger counties, which were sev trolly divided into two or more districts for the purposed- To hornughs, 19 new mem begs were given-3 by way of additional members to boroughs already possessing mem and 11 to new boroughs.* To the university of London, one member was given. Mr. Laing's proposal to make the scheme of redistribution still more extensive, by apply ing to all boroughs having fewer than 5,000 inhabitants the system of grouping which prevails in Wales and Scotland, was rejected.
The only amendment of importance which the house of lords succeeded in making was the addition of the system of representation of minorities. By this system, persons voting in London, where four members are returned, cannot vote for more than three; and in the counties and boroughs which return three members, cannot vote for more than two. The object is to prevent a majority, which may possibly exceed the minority by only one man, from monopolizing the whole representation. The plan appeared first in lord John Russell's bill of 1854, and, having then been unpopular with both sides, does not appear to have been proposed since. Disraeli took occasion, in introduc ing his bill, to declare himself against it. Mr. Lowe proposed to add it in the commons; and his proposal was supported by such men as lord Cranborne among the conservatives, and Mr. Mill and Mr. Fawcett among the liberals. Mr. Bright joined the government in opposing it, and it was lost by a majority of 141. In the house of lords, its insertion was again proposed by lord Cairns, and carried by a very large majority, most of the conservatives voting for it against the government. When the'lords's amendments were considered in the commons, it was the only one of them which was agreed to. It is hardly necessary to say that a scheme such as that of Mr. Hare, for carrying out the principle in a rigorous and complete manner, was found to be far in advance of the day.