The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 12, 1866.

not to be discussed now that war was overhanging Europe,
when, in God'S natne, was it to be disdussed ? It was rea-

sonable to he supposed that in the present state of Europe

questions would often be put on the momentous subject
whether peace would be maintained by the ministrations

and advice of her Majesty's Government. The right hon.
gentleman (the Chancellor of •the Exchequer) had not an-
swered the question of the hon. member for Bridgewater,
whether her Majesty's Government had given any expres-

sion of opinion, official or un-official, to Austria, to induce
her to cede Venetia to Italy. He quite concurred with the

hon. member for Bridgewater that the cession of the
- -

Quadrilateral to Italy, and consequently to France, would
be of the utmost importance as regarded the future inde-

pendence of Austria and of a great portion of Germany:

He should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what

traditions of the past could possibly give the Venetian States
to Italy ? He had risen merely to express the wish that her
Majesty's Government would not, for the future, decline to
give information to the house on a subject of infinitely
greater importance than any Reform Bill. (Conservative
cheers.) He did not wish the house to suppose that he was
in any way opposed to the Reform Rill ; but he be-
lieved it was of infinitely greater importance that the
power of. England as represented by the Government of
the day should place itself before Europe in a manner
to conciliate the sympathies and feelings of Europe. He

hoped that no opportunity would be lost by the Govern-
ment in endeavouring to divert the terrible calamity
which appeared to be impending over Europe. (Hear,
hear.) lie concurred with the statement that the sym-
pathies of this country were strongly marked as against
Prussia—(hear, hear)--because every one knew that it was
the overweening ambition of Prussia, under the influence,

he might almost say under the hoof, of a most unscrupulous
Minister, that had brought the present state of things
about.

Lord R. MONTAGU next addressed the house, and ex-
pressed his gratification that at all events there was to be
no conference, for in conferences this country, whatever
her successes in the field might have been, was generally
worsted.

Mr. LAING deprecated the continuance of the discus-
sion, and urged the Government to adhere to the resolu-
tion at which every sensible man must arrive that if war
unfortunately broke out this country would not be a party
to it.

Major WALKER called attention to the telegram pub.
. _ _

lished in the evening papers, that General Garibaldi had
left Caprera, landed at Genoa, and was about to proceed to
Como, the scene of his successes in 1859, tho headquarters
of one of the divisions of the Garibaldian Volunteers, and
in immediate proximity to the Austrian frontier, and in-

426,000 proprietary voters against 287,000 occupation voters.
If you can find more proprietary voters by all means get

them. We will withdraw the proposal in order, if pos-
sible, to conciliate you. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) If that
does not conciliate you we will persevere with the propo-
sal. Hon. gentlemen have drawn distinctions between

" rural and_ urban" interests. The Constitution knows
nothing of urban interests. The old constitutional fran-
chise is a proprietary franchise, whether it be in towns or
outside, and the Constitution knows nothing of " urban

and rural." I come now to the question which, I suppose,

after all, the hon. gentleman looks upon as the main part
of the amendment, that is to say, the object of establishing
a rating franchise. No doubt he looks upon occupation as
rather an incident of his motion than the object. (" Hear,
hear," from Mr. Hunt). Therefore let us considcr whether
the franchise ought to be a rating franchise. The hon-
gentleman says that from the form of the Government sta •
tistics it is perfectly obvious that tho Government origi-
nally contemplated a rating franchise. There is some truth
in that. (Hear, hear.) Before we were fully informed we
did not think of a rating franchise. It was on careful exa-
mination of the whole case that we found the advantage
of the rating franchise was outweighed by the great dis-
advantages. In the Irish system to which the hon. gentle-
man raferred the case is entirely different from ours. Here,
if there is an error in the rental, does the rating correct it?
No, there is not a. single error in the rental that is not car-
ried forward to the rating. We go further, and say the
rating is full of errors which are not in the rental ; and so
long as local government prevails in this country—and I
hope it will continue—you cannot divest the assessment
committee of power to fix its rateable conditions.
Mr. HUNT—Do as you do in Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEUQER —ln Ire-
land there are no union assessment committees. The
work there is done by a Government officer, and even
the Irish system is a little unequal. The English sys-
tem is full of inequalities. Taking the counties, you
might have two men paying the same rental, and one of
them would be enfranchised, and the other not. In

towns you would have the franchise absolutely different
in one to what it was in another. (" Hear, hear," by Mr.
Hunt.) Take Greenwich, for instance. In one parish the
reduction is 20 per cent., in another 25 per cent., and in a
third 30 per cent. Recollect, these are in parishes, and not

in classes of houses. Then, again, in Bury St. Ed-
mund's, though there is no very different class, yet in St.
James's the reduction is one-tenth, while in St. Mark's the
reduction is one-sixth. Take Exeter again. In every parish
in Exeter there would be a different franchise ; for in three
parishes there is a deduction of 33i per cent., in two a de-
duction of 35 per cent., in one a deduction from 20 to 50
per cent., in another a deduction of from 15 to 50 per cent.
The hon. member thinks that he makes a sufficient answer
by saying that different classes of houses require a different
class of deductions. That is perfectly true as a matter of
fact, but it does not help this proposition in the least. The
meaning of the law, when it says that a man at £7, or any
other number of pounds, shall be enfranchised is to take
the rent, subject to deductions of rates and taxes, as a test

of his capacity to pay. It may be that one man lives in a
house which is only kept habitable by an outlay of 25 per
cent., while on another man's an outlay of 5 per cent. only
is required, and the hon. gentleman thinks that justifies
his motion. I say it does not. The rateable value indicates
the value of the building to the landlord, with which we
have nothing to do. The true test which we have to do
with is the capability of a man to pay, and that we get
from the column of gross estimated rental. The rateable
value is a false test in principle, and it is further most un-
equal in its effect, because it would give a different fran-
chise according to the variations of these deductions,
which depend upon local opinion and local authority,
which we have no means of reducing to uniformity. Such

inequality would not only prevail in different parts of
the country, but in a multitude of instances, as I have
shown, it would be found to prevail in different
parts of the same town. These are strong and
practical reasons against the adoption of rateable
value, irrespective of any question of the amount of the
franchise. I object to altering the vote to which the house
has arrived on the subject of the franchise ; but, indepen-
dently of that, the rateable value basis is wrong and inac-
curate, while the net annual value which is adopted by the
Reform Act is the true and sound basis for the Parliamen-
tary franchise. (Hear, hear.)
After some observations in explanation from Mr. HUNT,
Mr. HENLEY gave reasons why ho thought the rateable.

value the best basis to be adopted. There was one thing
of which he was quite sure, that if there were inequalities
in the rating, the Court of Appeal would soon set them at
rest.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to set the right
hon. gentleman right with regard to the right of appeal, for
there was a provision in the bill granting an appeal on the
gross estimated rental to the revising barrister at quarter
sessions. He wished further to point out that the right
hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire objected
to a similar proposition of rating in 1859, upon the ground
that he saw insurmountable difficulties in the way of its
adoption. (Cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI admitted that he felt the difficulties to

be insurmountable, but it was in the year 1859. (Laughter.)
Since that time two Union Assessment Acts had been
passed, and the whole tendency of recent legislation was
towards equality of rating, and therefore the remarks of
the hon. and learned gentleman did not apply to the pre-
sent case. (Laughter.)

Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the hon. member
for Northamptonshire wished to apply the rating principle
to the £5O voters, or whether he wished that two princi-
ples should be is force.
Mr. HUNT did not propose to disfranchise anybody by
his amendment, and therefore those who were now upon

the register would not be affected by it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE denied that the gross estimated
rental was in accordance with the ancient principle of the

franchise.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE supported the principle of a rateable
value in preference to a gross rental value.
Mr. BEAUMONT opposed the amendment.
Colonel GILPIN moved that the chairman report pro-
gress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
bearing in mind how five and a half hours in the earlier
part of the evening had been spent, it would be the duty of
the Government to resist such a proposal to the utmost.
(Loud cheers.)
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For the motion 254
Against 303

Majority
The announcement was received with loud cheers from
the Ministerial side.
• Major KNOX moved that the chairman do now leave
the chair.
Sir L. PALK wished to know how many agricultural
labourers would be enfranchised by this clause ? He did
not believe one would be enfranchised. When Lord Derby
was in office they sacrificed themselves to his views.
(Laughter.) He meant they sank their individual opinions
for the good of the country. (Laughter.) They were now
prepared to contest this bill night after night—(hear, hear)
—but they would not be hurried.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he had had no opportunity of
examining the statistics, and it was not unreasonable to
ask at least another day for that purpose.
Col. EDWARDES backed this appeal, and announced
his readiness to throw every obstacle in his power in the
way of a measure which was opposed by every gentleman
on the Conservative side of the house, and by nine tenths
of hon. gentlemen on the other side. (Laughter.) The
object of this bill was to destroy the Conservative party
and raise the Radicals; but if the latter succeeded in their
object the time would come when they would have to go
down on their knees to the small remnants of the Conser-
vatives to save them from the consequences of their own
acts. (Laughter.)
Sir J. TROLLOPE thought the discussion was about
prematurely to close. He had had no means of expressing
his opinions. The hon. baronet proceeded to do so by show-
ing reasons why a rateable value for the county franchise
would in many respects be superior to a rental value. He
then appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an
adjournment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
committee were quite prepared to hear anything which
hon. gentlemen opposite might have to say on the subject.
He pointed out the necessity of making some progress with
the measure, and dwelt on the loss of time which had taken
place in the early part of the evening by the irregular dis-
cussion on foreign affairs.
Mr. DISRAELI appealed to the right hon. gentleman to
accord more time for the consideration of a matter of so
much interest to county members. He admitted that it was
vexatious toMinisters to have a question like this stopped,
yet when he considered that in an assembly like the House
of Commons business could not be carried on with the re-
gularity that one's clerk would conduct it, he thought that
more would be gained by reporting progress.
After some further discussion, in which Sir Geo. Grey,
Col. Gilpin, Mr. Bouverie, and others took part,
The committee divided on the motion that the Chair-
man leave the chair. The numbers were—
For the motion

-49

Against it ...., .................................. 254

Majority ---42
Mr. BAGGE then moved that the Chairman report
progress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not intend to resist the motion. (Opposition cheers.)
Government had taken the two divisions in order to mark
their sense of the character of the cpposition which they
had to encounter. He consented to the motion, but under
protest.
Mr. DISRAELI said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had commenced the evening by protesting 'against the de-
bate on foreign affairs, and ended by protesting against the
debate on the Reform Bill. (Laughter.)
The Chairman was ordered to report progress, and the
house resumed.
The Scotch and Irish Reform Bills were fixed for Thurs-
day week.

DOGS BILL.
Sir 0. 010GHLEN moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to make the owners of dogs

responsible for all injuries dono by them. The bill to apply
to England, Ireland, and Scotland.
The motion was agreed to.
CHURCH RATES.
Mr. BOVILL obtained leave to introduce a bill to amend
the law relating to church rates.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to two.