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

quired whether this information was authentic.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR approved of the policy adopted by
the Government, and reminded the house that Austria had
been in possession of Venetia for only 70 years.
Lord ORANBORNE remarked that when Lord Russell

quitted the Foreign-office and Lord Clarendon took his
place he thought they had heard the last of despatches
calculated to stir up war. But the noble lord was irrepres-
sible, and when he could no longer kindle war by means of
despatches he tried to do it by private letters. The house
would observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not denied that Lord Russell, with his incurable habit of
meddling for evil in every foreign dispute, had given advice
which encouraged Italy in the dangerous course she was
now pursuing. _ _

Mr. LAYATRD said the advice which her Majesty's Go-
vernment had uniformly tendered to Italy was that she
should`consolidate herself, develop her resources, establish
good government, and not turn her attention to territorial
aggrandisement. Until Austria sent a large force into
Venetia not a step was taken by the Italian Government
to increase their armaments. With regard to the move-

meats of Garibaldi, no official information had reached the
Foreign Office upon the subject.
The debate was continued by Colonel P. Herbert, Mr.
C. Bentinck, Mr. Powell, Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. Wpe-
side, Sir J. Hanmer, Lord J.Manners, Sir H. Verney, SirJ.
Walsh, Mr. Hibbert (who protested against the course pur-
sued by the Opposition as intended to obstruct the debate
on Reform), Major Knox, and Mr. Earle. At five minutes
to ten o'clock the motion was withdrawn; and the Princess
Mary of Cambridge's Annuity Bill was read a second time.
THE REFORM BILL.
-

The house went into committee on this bill a few
minutes before ten o'clock.

On clause 4,

Mr. HUNT moved as an amendment that the following
words be added to paragraph 2, which was under discus-
sion : " Such clear yearly value to be the value of the pre-
mises as ascertained for the purpose of the poor-rate."
His right hon. friend the member for the University of
Cambridge had intended to follow up his amendment for a
£2O occupation franchise by a similar proposal, but the
rejection of his amendment rendered such a course im-
possible. In point of fact, therefore, the question whether

the county franchise should depend upon rental or rating
had never been brought under the notice of the house.
Supposing this amendment carried, its effect would be to
put the county franchise at a higher figure. [An HON.
MEMBER—How much higher?] 17 or 20 per cent. higher
than was set down in the interpretation clause of tLe bill.
And beyond that there remained the question whether
every person exercising the county franchise might not be
required to discharge the duties which fell upon the rate
payers. Under this bill he believed it would be perfectly
possible for a person to possess the county franchise, and
not to be on the rate book at all. A man might enter into
an agreement with his sub-tenant to pay the rates, while
he .himself might exercise the franchise. He was at a loss
to conceive why the principle of rental instead of rating
had been adopted. If they wished to have followed the
Irish plan, why not adopt a rating franchise? The hon.
member then contended at considerable length that the
plan of a rating franchise afforded great facilities for regis-

tration, and concluded by moving his amendment. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman has without notice brought forward an amend-
ment of very great importance. (Cries of " Oh,. oh," from
the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial side.) I am
merely stating a matter of fact. (Renewed cries of "Oh,
oh.") The hon. gentleman is too well informed to contra-
dict what 1 am saying.

Mr. HUNT—I sent private notice to the right hon. gen-
tleman. (Cries of " Chair, chair," and " Order," and cheers
from the Opposition.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman sent me this afternoon—(loud cheers from the
Oppositionund counter cheers from the Ministerial side.)
Mr. HUNT rose amid loud cries of "Explain," "Order,"
and "Chair," and endeavoured to obtain a hearing, but the
noise was so great that his remarks were inaudible. He
continued standing for some time, during which the various
cries increased to an uproar. Several times he essayed to
speak, but the noise preyented his being heard, and he ulti-
mately resumed his seat.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman, I have no doubt, so•far as he was concerned,
did everything he could to--
Mr. HUNT again rose to explain, and the uproar was
renewed with greater violence than before. After lasting
for some time, and showing no prospect of abatement, Mr.
Gladstone sat down amid triumphant cheers from the
Opposition.
Mr. HUNT—I rise to order. (Cries of "order," and
"chair.") When it is stated as a fact that which within
my own knowledge is not a fact—(loud cheers from the
Opposition)—am I not in order to correct that fact before
any argument is founded upon it ? (Renewed cheers from
the Opposition.)
Mr. DODSON—The rule is that when an bon. member
is speaking, if another hon. member rises to explain some-
thing, he is not at liberty to pursue his explanation unless
the member who is in possession of the house voluntarily
gives way. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial side.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The reason
why I did not give way to the hon. member was simply
this : When I said he had brought forward his amendment
without notice, I did not mean that I had suffered any in-
convenience. (Derisive cheers from the Opposition.) I

merely wished to state a matter of fact, that his amendment
embodied an important and complex proposition, and hAd
been brought forward without notice being given to the

house.

Mr. HUNT again rose, but ho was received with such a
storm of "chair" and "order" that he immediately resumed
his seat.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think it
would be really desirable to allow me to finish my sentence.
I say the hon. member has brought forward his amend-
ment without giving notice to the house in the regular way
by placing it upon the votes. I have not the least doubt
that he gave me the earliest notice that—
Mr. HUNT—I sent it this morning. (Opposition cheers
and cries of "order.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I refer to
the matter merely as exhibiting the difficulty we are placed
in by having to discuss a complex proposition without due
preparation. The proposition of my hon. friend involves
questionstwwow.hchhieeetuehttphhareeterrigohtanhered of groat importance. First, whether the
occupation is to be one by which the voter is rated ; second,
issxt
boti
.004 t
nibq,
aeeu
fifiar
alar
setfiet:cdtaihttuei
appearspor
neo ni
is
sr
na ttooe
tao
obbb rateable
euee
se
rvttahaii
in requiring
edw ;
tael nrs ovrethird,
thatt
Ih6
e.
thetre
loycfcourpei
jearnh.
tiomos ou
rl f
cosnhsetui
tludt
ibo en
arla theids.t
rT,.,htehsaet ftt ries
ismo
peons
sible to know where to lay hold of them. (Oh, oh, and
thate en f
ri na n oc
hr di
se
er d t o t
hkee el pe aus
ep
htohl ed
earms
(Hear,oi
au nbtoo of
hupegrahor p.
)ebr
hoar, hear.) The greatest charge against the Government
ty
'efrwnom that being considered an advantage, it iss,conu-
st
svhi:asdtfeearbriseed a most outrageous proposition.
If
this is so, it appears to me that when you talk about occu-
piers and proprietary voters, you use the words in a sense
of your own, being in view a distinction not known to the
old Constitution, and which cannot be recognised in the
same manner. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that in
1859 he supported a bill
Mr. HUNT—No, no.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—His Go-
vernment brought in a bill which on the one hand cut off
dthberoouwnghetrsthoef
occupation
mvalitvioend
ilaoob,ooroooupgrhops,riadryvotes, because
other hand nda
on the oth
down to £lO. (Cheers.) Ido not see myself anything to
be afraid of. As well as I make out the patter, there are