The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-07-03 00:00:00

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE

IT must have been a strong desire for notoriety
which prompted Major REED to move far a Bill to
extend the elective franchise to payers of Incanie-tax.

' If he had seriously intended to press his crotchet, it
would have been reasonable to have brought it forward
at an early period of the session, instead of leaving it
to the end of June ; but no doubt he felt convinced of
its utter impracticability, and, therefore, delayed it
until it could only serve the purpose of swelling the
printing bill of the House of Commons, and enhancing
the self-importance of the mover. There are several
members of the House of Commons who have parti-
cular crotchets, which they adhere to under every
discouragement with unwearied assiduity, because
they may serve to keep them, as they fancy, in the
public eye, and, perhaps, give them a certain degree of
consequence in the eyes of their constituents. Mr.
BERKELEY has the Ballot ; Sir WILLIAM CLAY, Church
Rates ; and some other members similar impossible
projects. Such questions give them an excuse for
making a speech; and, if time were of no object in legis-
lation, the amusement would be comparatively harm-
less. The project of Major REED, for making the
payment of Income-tax a qualification for the elective
franchise, appears at first sight very plausible, because
it is based on the assumption that taxation and repre-
sentation should go together. It is, however, a very
erroneous view of the question, inasmuch as the taxa-
tion which the Constitution recognises implies settled
residence, and the liability to perform certain duties.
If the mere payment of taxation were to be admitted
as a principle, it would be difficult to draw a line of
distinction ; and so far from its being a test of intelli-
gence, the greatest consumer of brandy, or other
heavily-taxed liquor, would be the best entitled to the
franchise. The man who drinks half-a-pint of brandy
a-day, contributes as much to the national revenue as
he who pays the tax on £3OO a-year ; but it will hardly
be contended that that fact would constitute him the
most eligible elector : and yet, if the principle claimed
be admitted, there is no good reason why his drinking
propensities should not be made the foundation of his
electoral rights---his claim being based on the certifi-
cate of the tavern-keeper who supplied him.
If, however, we were to admit the claim put forth
by Major REED for payers of income-tax to be enfran-
chised, its practical application would not be without
difficulty. The principle of representation is founded
not upon individual rights, but on those of communi-
ties distinguished as counties and boroughs,the amount
and kind of qualification differing in each description.
The inhabitant of Liverpool rated at £lO a-year is
entitled to a voice in the election of two representa-
tives, but an inhabitant of Birkenhead may pay five
times the amount in direct taxation and have no vote,
simply because his residence is not within a privileged
locality. The same discrepancy applies equally to the
payment of income-tax. If the payer reside within
the boundaries of a Parliamentary horough, he can
obtain the franchise irrespective of his income-tax,
and if he does not so reside he must be content as he
is, for any alteration such as proposed would seriously
interfere with the present system of representation.
It may be said that the counties offer a medium
through which such stray votes may enjoy the privi-
lege, but as they are especially for the representation
of owners and occupiers of land, such an interference
would not only be unjust, but fail of being any prac-
tical benefit to the parties proposed to be enfranchised.
The scheme is evidently a mere crotchet of the pro-
poser, and only entitled to consideration from its
apparent plausibility.