The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-19 00:00:00

TfiE SON, LOINDo.N, TUESDAY EVENINO, JUNE 19, 1866.

But that could not be worked out except after a long time,
and even then you would not get rid of the:second portion
of the inequalities, which, while they are inequalities just
as objectionable with reference to the political franchise,
are inequalities which, for the purposes of local taxation,

you are bound to maintain. If a house in one case requires
repairs at the rate of -5 per cent., and in another case re-

guiles repairsat the rate of 20 per cent., the effect of taking
rateable value as your basis would be that of two menpay-
ing equal rates you would enfranchise one and disfranchise
the other. The right hon. gentleman went on to showthat

even, fixing an equal rate of deduction would be a gross
injustice with reference to the purposes of local taxation;
that any errors in the gross estimated rental system went

forward in an aggravated forln in the rateable value column,
in which were errors peculiar to itself. He called atten-
tion to the fact that there was property in this country not

rated at all, which the proposal of the noble lord would die -
franchise. He pointed out that the scot and lot system, so

tir from being in favour of the noble lord's proposal, had

nothing to do with rating value, as it had nothing to do
with any amount. The old precedent of scot and lot was
in favour of household suffrage—'(hear) - for the fact of
being rated, no matter what the amount, conferred the suf-
frage. (Hear.) A man paying 6d. scot was just as good a

voter as a man who paid £6. Coming to the proposal to

oust the revising barrister, the right hon. gentleman re-

gretted that such a proposal should be raised incidentally
by mixing it up with a subject which was complex enough
in itself. I confess, he went on to say, that that is a ques-
tion of very great difficulty, and it appears to be desirable
. _

_ .
xo raise and discuss that question by itself. I admit it would
- -

be a benefit to get rid of the cost of registration courts—
(hear, hear)—but you would lose the benefit of that object
if you were to introduce the very same class of questions,
to be decided by bodies less judicial and less competent.
The effect of that would be that although you change the
tribunal you increase the litigation. It is a most serious
matter. I am not aware what precedent is alleged from
Parliamentary history to say that you are to commit the
political rights of those whom you deem worthy to be en-
franchised to be decided in relation to the question of amount
by local government and local authority. (Hear, hear.)
nut, again, a large:majority of the small boroughs of this

country are boroughs where town parishes are united for
poor law purposes with a great number of rural parishes in
the neighbourhood, and every parish is represented at the
_ _

board by a separate guardian, the result being that boards
of guardians are composed of an overwhelming proportion
of rural guardians, and the proposal is in effect that those
rural guardians shall have the power of fixing the franchise
in boroughs. (Cheers.)
Mr. HUNT—The assessment committee of the unions,
and not the boards of guardians, acts in the matter. (Op-
position cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That is

in effect the board of guardians. (Cheers.)
Mr. HUNT—The boards of guardians have to appoint
them. They appoint a certain number of magistrates and
a certain number of ratepayers. (Opposition cheers.) It
is not likely the rural parishes would override the town
parishes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That does
not mend the matter much, because there will be an over-
whelming number of guardians of the rural parishes.
Sir H. CAIRNS—Let the right hon. gentleman read the
whole clause.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The clause
of the Act of 1862 provides that the boards of guardians
shall every year appoint from among themselves not less
than six and not more than twelve to be an assistant com-
mittee, such committee to be composed of not less than
one-third ex-officio guardians.
Sir H. CAIRNS—The town council have the power of
appointing an equal number.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes,
where the union and the borough have the same limits.
(Cheers.) Does the hon. and learned gentleman think I
would take the statement from his assurance ? (Opposition
cries of " Oh, oh!") If I did, what a pretty predicament
I would find myself in—(cheers and laughter)—from his
most' erroneous assurance—erroneous, not from intention,
but inadvertence. With respect to the transfer of this
authority for fixing the political franchise for local pur-
poses from the revising barrister to persons who are mixed
up in politics, and not restrained as he is by judicial habits
and judicial knowledge, I will take the case of a small
borough, in which I will suppose the assessment com-
mittee, with a view to politics, underrate 100 voters—a
number generally sufficient to turn the scale in small con-
stituencies. Suppose that instead of £8 they rate the
houses at £6 15s. ; the difference of this would be only
£125, which would not be thought too much to pay for
political influence and for disfranchising 100 persons.
(Hear, hear.) Suppose there is here and there a man who

is by no means a rogue, but an unscrupulous partisan
either of one side or the other, who would take a, liberal
view of the value of a certain set of houses, and make a
liberal deduction to the landlord on account of what he
calls necessary repairs. Am I to be told that the party
can appeal to have the rate raised ? As I understand
the question, no, such right of appeal exists. I will
also suppose a case in which the assessment committee
rate a number of houses too high—say at £7. That
can be done cheaper still, for at £7 the difference
upon 100 houses would be so small as to afford an induce-
ment to raise the rating for political purposes. No doubt
they would be entitled to appeal if the rating were too
high, but the assessment _would take care not to overrate
except in cases where parties were willing to be overrated.
You would by this be introducing into the electoral system
a number of elements that are apparently of considerable
danger. , Whether it maybe possible now or hereafter to
control these elements so that wo may run the risk I will
not undertake to say. I admit the great value we would
derive if we could establish such a test as would enable us

to get rid of the great bulk of questions that are raised be-
fore the revising barrister. But that is the very thing we
contend we are doing. We contend not that the local au-
thority is untrustworthy, but that it requires to be kept
under check. We say, look for the best and most certain
test, and that I have shown not to be the rateable value,
but the gross estimated rental. I ask, What are the errors
to be found in the latter that are not carried forward and
aggravated in the former ? and I have shown that errors
exist in the rateable column which are not to be found in
the column of gross estimated rental. The bill adheres to
the phraseology of the Reform At. It provides that the
occupation franchise shall be founded on the clear yearly
value, so that we go as straight to the rate book as
My noble friend, with this difference, that we go to the
right part of it, and he goes to the wrong. Every object
my noble friend seeks to gain by going to the column of
rateable value can be gained in a much better way
under the column of gross estimated rental. If my noble
friend, desires to oust the revising barrister, the proper
way to do so would bo to make the column of gross esti-
mated rental final, that being the column we can fix upon
with the smallest amount of risk, and which contains the
fewest errors. Such are the grounds on which I hope the
committee will reject the motion of my noble friend. I
am not surprised at the smallness of the majority for the
proposition of the Government the other night, because
everybody knows how difficult it must be in complicated
questions of this kind to bring hon. gentlemen to a close
and accurate knowledge of the facts. For twenty years
past there has been a growing sense of the evils connected
with registration. (Hear, hear.) We share in that con-
viction, and are ready to take any steps towards diminish-
ing it. There has been a great desire to set up an external
standard, but until the last three years there was no ex-
ternal standard which possessed any approach to accuracy.
But the President of the Poor-law Board introduced and
carried through the last Parliament an act by which that
.question was to a great extent adjUsted, and that was by
the column of gross estimated rental, which furnished a
safe and secure basis, and one which we can now adopt for
the franchise. I say, then, that every advantage pointed
out by my noble friend can be obtained by our proposition.
If my noble friend be right in saying that tab decisions of
the local authorities ought to be made final, then those de-
cisions should be based not upon the inferior basis of the
rateable value, but upon the surer and better basis of gross,
estimated rental. (Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, because the
rateable value could always be ascertained and the rental
could be concealed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
admitted that for every other purpose the rateable value
was the best test, but for the electoral franchise ho said it
was not practicable. In his (Mr. Henley's) idea it was
absurd to say that any person would allow his house to be
rated at a higher value than the rent he paid. _
The debate was continued by Sir F. GOLDSMID on the
Government side, and Mr. GOLDNEY for the amendment.

Mr. POULETT SCROPE went fully into parochial
matters, with an endeavour to show that the less local
officials had to do with preparing the list of burgesses the
better, and that the rateable franchise would create much
jealousy and suspicion, which the rental would not.
Government.
to
The
moderate latter
bill they Sir W. JOLLIFFE and Mr. GREEN followed on the part of
thee
amendment, and Mr. HrBBERT and Mr. TORRENS for
th
remarkedey
wouldthat if
havet toaccept
a house
refused pass
a much more liberal
one in a very short period.
After *a few words from Mr. PowELL in favour of the
amendment,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL argued in favour of the
rental over the rateable value.
Lord R. MONT AGU supported
in the latter part of his speechthe amendment, and
said
present stood was a stepping-stone to universal that this bill as it at
and it was framed with the belief that the
suffrage,
Government
its means would annihilate the Conservative by
members.
But if the truth were told there were members of the so-
called Liberal party who were averse to this measure; and
ho should charge them with cowardice if they voted in
favour of it.
Mr. FORSTER asked what it was they were legislating
for. Was it not to produce as good a Reform Bill as pos-
sible ? And he believed there were members on the other
side of the house who were willing to support a measure
which would settle the vexed question of Reform. He
argued that from all the statistics they could obtain the
rental franchise would give less trouble in its arrangement,
would admit more deserving persons, and would lead to
less disputes than a rateable ono.
Sir R. PEEL took the committee entirely by surprise,
first by casting ridicule on Mr. Forster's speech, then at-

tacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose manner

he characterised as irritative, saying that his case was

either extremely bad, or a spirit of enthusiasm had carried
him beyond ordinary tactics. He thought the amendment
of the noble lord was put in a very able and efficient man-

ner, and did not deserve the rebukes passed upon him.
It was his opinion that the rateable franchise was desirable

in boroughs, as the parish books were drawn up with the
greatest care, and each one looking to his own interest
and watching the officials lest he was charged too much.
He spoke as a supporter of the Government, but he

found that outside the house there was a growing
dislike for this Reform Bill. Referring to the Govern-
ment, he said it was a Palmerston Ministry without Pal-
merston, and the want of his wisdom and judgment was
now felt by the Government leaders. He must, therefore,
support the amendment, and he did so because he did not
wish to bolster up a scheme which he thought was not

palatable to any one within the house or without it.

Mr. BRIGHT said the committee would agree with him
when he expressed a hope that the hon. member for Tam-
worth felt himself happier and greatly relieved after the
opportunity ho had had for pouring out the history of his
personal grievances. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) He began
by charging the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a man-
ner unfriendly and irritating. (Hear, hoar, by the Oppo-
sition.) He ventured to' say that if the noble lord had
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer irritating at all,
the thought had not entered his mind until it was pointed

out by the right hon. baronet. He undertook to say
nothing could be more fair—(oh, oh)—nothing could be
more generous—(oh, oh) —than the views which the right
hon. gentleman took of the speech of the noble lord the
member for Galway—because he gave him full credit for
sincerity in wishing to amend this bill, shutting out alto-
gether and entirely any suspicion he•might have that the
object was to limit the franchise. The question as between
rating and rental or value, as a matter of practical advan-
tage,had been discussed almost as much as it could be with
any great advantage to the committee. The real object
of the amendment, and the cause why hon. gentlemen
opposite were so unanimous in its support, was that it
proposed to meet the Government proposition of a £7
household franchise in boroughs by a proposition which
would raise that limit to £9. It Was true that in the
Reform Bill he (31r.Bright) had prepared he proposed that
the rate book should be the basis of the register ; but
then he proposed that every one whose name was on
the rate book should be placed upon the register.
If the rate book and any particular figure was chosen,
the franchise might bo limited very much beyond
what it would be if that figure were taken as clear annual
value. If the noble lord intended that the franchise
should remain as extensive after the amendment were car-
ried, as it would be by the proposition of the Government
being sustained by the house, he would have told the
house that if his amendment were carried, he proposed to
substitute £5 for £7 in the clauses of the bill. The figure
£6, as suggested by the hon. member for Wenlock, would
not be so extensive as the £7 in the bill. The real ques-
tion before the house was whether they world agree to £7
of clear annual value, or to a £7 rateable value, which was
substantially if not exactly £9 of annual value. If the
amendment were carried, the great object of the bill would
be entirely defeated, and the claim of the working men
would be in effect rejected. Referring to the position of
the working men who are the managers of the Rochdale
co-operative societies, the hon. member showed that 17 of
these men lived within the borough, of whom the Govern-
ment 17 proposition would enfranchise 11. If the £7
franchise were changed to £B, only two out of the 17
would be enfranchised, and if the rating proposition of the
noble lord were adopted and the figure £7 remained, not a
single man out of that 17 would be enfranchised. (Hear,
hear.) He .asked whether they were prepared to extend
the franchise to 11 of those 17 select working men to whom
he had referred, or only to two of them, according to the
proposition of the hon. and learned member for Guild-
ford, or were they prepared to deny it to every
one of them according to the amendment of the noble
lord, if the word £7 remained in the clause ? Now, these
were what might bo called select men, of whom any coun-
try might be proud, and yet it was proposed to shut the
door of that house in their faces, and deny them an en-
trance there, not in their own proper persons, but in the
persons of any representatives. It was to his mind one
of the most lamentable things that the great body of the
working classes should be divorced from the political in-
terests and institutions of the country. Sinn those dis-
cussions commenced, a gentleman showed him a letter
from a gentleman with whom he was himself well ac-
quainted, in which he stated that he regretted to see among
his workmen a stronger interest in American politics than
in the politics of their own country. He happened to meet
the writer of the letter some time after, and he asked him

whether what he stated was the fact ; and his answer was
that in his own mill there wore as many American news-
papers as there were newspapers published in this country.
Hon. gentlemen might think this had nothing to do with
the question, but he would tell them that such a state of
things among the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire
was not a healthy state of things, and demanded the
attention of the house. (Hear, hear.) All of those who
employed labour looked to the passing of the bill as a means
of increasing the desire for education, stimulating self-
resp3ct, and improving all the social relations of the people.
The noble lord the member for Huntingdonsiiire spoke of
the state of .things in Europe, a state of things calculated
to fill all their minds with grief, and argued that because
of that state of things the bill could not be wisely pro-
ceeded with. He should argue from it precisely the reverse.

(Cheers.) The war in. Europe might end differently from
the idea of kings and persons looking on. It might end in
a fever of revolution in Germany—might end in the pro-
mulgatiOn of opinions not favourable to settled order—
(hear, hear)—and no one knew to what extent those
opinions might spread. He was not speaking now in the
interests of the working-men, but he regretted from the
bottom of• his heart to see the constant endeavour that
was made to create a gulf of eternal separation between
the great body of the working classes and the middle
class. (Cheers and counter cheers.) They might rely
upon it that the setting up of a barrier of that kind was
bad in every way, but it was especially perilous when
advocated by a great and powerful party in that house.
Between 400 and 500 public meetings had been held in
favour of this bill, and especially of the clause
now under consideration; but, so far as he was aware,
there was not one meeting held to condemn the
bill as dangerous to the institutions of the country, or
even calculated to extinguish the Conservative party. If
they carried the amendment, if they rejected the bill,
and overturned the Government, this question would still
remain. (Cheers.) Don't let them imagine that the right
hon. member for Bucks would come there to defy the whole
Liberal party of England, and tell them that the measure
of their political franchise was full. Depend upon it the
right hon. gentleman would not do that. Therefore, this
question would remain—to break up a Government, it
might be—to weaken every Government that sat upon that
(the Treasury) bench, and to create excitement everywhere
throughout the country, and afford opportunity for the
discussion of fundamental principles at every public meet-
ing. (Cheers.) All that they were about to bring about-
because the noble lord had imported into this country a
proposition from the county of Galway—(loud cries of "Oh,
oh") —which was wholly foreign.—(cries of " No, no ") - to
anything that had ever existed in England and Wales on
this question, and for which there could be no foundation
found in the kingdom of Scotland. He would ask hon.
gentlemen whether it was worth their while to take a
course which might land them in many difficulties, and
whether it would not be better frankly to accept this
measure— (oh, oh)—and to give to the people of England
a manifestation of their confidence in them, and of their
great generosity to the people. From what he knew of
the people of England, ho would undertake to say that if
they treated them with generosity and justice now, they
would make an ample return in obedience to the law and
loyalty to the Crown. (Loud cheers.)
Sir H. CAIRNS said, after the rebuke which had been
administered to the noble lord the member for Galway by
the hon. member for Birmingham some apology was due,
perhaps, that he, an Irish member—(Opposition cheers)—
should presume to take part in the discussion of an Eng-
lish Bill. (Renewed cheers.) He might, however, ask
the hon. member for Birmingham whether, if none but
English members had voted on and discussed the bill'
they should to-night have been in committee. (Loud
Opposition cheers.) It was not his intention to contend
whether the manner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was fair, generous, and courteous to his opponents—(a
laugh)—whicli was, after all, a matter of opinion.
He confessed his inability to understand the principle ad-
vocated by Government of making a deduction with re-
gard to local rates, and refusing to do so with regard to
repairs. If the argument for the deduction was applicable
in the one case, it was equally so in the other. With re-
gard to the gross estimated rental system of which the
Government were so enamoured, he pointed out that it
worked most unsatisfactorily. In some places he found
that there was a deduction of five, and in others of ten, per
cont. made from the rental before the gross estimated rental
was arrived at. In the case of London the surveyors
valued the premises for rateable value, and the clerks in
the counting-house added 10, 15, or 20 per cent., as the
case might be, to the ascertained value, with the view of
attaining to the result so much desired by Government.
The hon. gentleman proceeded to refer to the Irish bill, in
which he maintained the rateable formula was obtained in
exactly the same way as in England. With respect to the
revising barristers, he submitted that they were no judges
at all of the value of a house. Yet that was the appeal
which the Government proposed on every question of law.
In conclusion, the right hon. gentleman protested against
the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing that he
would not recede from the position taken up by the Go-
vernment, because it reduced the discussion of the com-
mittee to a matter of mere form.
Mr: OSBORNE, while expressing the opinion that an
Irish county member had as good a right to bring for-
ward the amendment as an English member, pointed out
that the Irish system, though admirable for that country,
was totally inapplicable to England, because no English
borough would submit to Government valuation. -or Go-
vernment interference of any kind in local affairs. After
pointing out the extreme variation between rateable value
and gross estimated rental, which,
on the authority of a

revising barrister, he gave as from 5 to 40 per cent., the

hon. gentleman denounced the policy of those who sup-
ported the amendment as being avowedly intended to de-
lay the bill of the Government. (Hear, hear.) It was
patent to every one both in and out of the house that the
motion was nothing more nor less than another specious
pretext, by discussing a rateable clause, to get rid of the bill
and of the Government. The course taken by the Opposi-
tion was forcing many moderate men to the conviction
that if the bill was thrown out and they had a rating suf-
rage, it would be accompanied by household suffrage.
(Hear, bear.)
Mr. M'EVOY could not be accused of being opposed to
Reform, but he considered a rating franchise was the right
basis to rest upon. He would not support the amendment,
however, unless the proposer of it and those who sup-
ported him would agree to one uniform valuation through-
out the country, such as was practised in Ireland.
Mr. VILLIERS pointed to the defective state of our pre-
sent system of assessment, and stated that the Government
plan of a valuation rental would be far mere honest than
any rateable franchise.
Lord DUNKEL LIN could not accede to Mr. WEvoy's
additional words to his amendment, but would promise
that whenever an equalised assessment was brought for-
ward he would support it, and he hoped that would be
sufficient to obtain that hon. gentleman's vote. After re-
plying generally to personal remarks made during the de-
bate by several members, he left his amendment for the
committee to decide.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied to
some personal remarks made and commented upon during
the debate, and concluded by reiterating the statement he
had made in the former part of the evening, viz., that the
amendment was introduced for no other purpose than to
raise the franchise in boroughs, and he could accept it only
as fatal to the bill.

The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against 304
Majority against the Government ---11

There was another of those excited scenes which have
been so frequent during these reform discussions. When
the clerk at the table handed the division paper to Lord
Dunkellin, shouts arose from the Opposition which were
repeated for some minutes. After the noble lord had read
the numbers, these were repeated with renewed en-'

thusiasm.
Mr. AYRTON said that after the announcement which
had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Committee had no alternative but to report progress. The
hon. gentleman accordingly made a motion to that effect.
This having been agreed to, there was a loud cry of
" Till when ?"

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—TiII this
day at six. A morning sitting having been appointed, I
apprehend it cannot be rescinded ; but no Government bill
will be taken. (Loud cheers.)
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

The Defeat of the Government.
(From the Times.)

The respective advantages of " rateable" and

" clear annual value" were debated at length in
committee last night ; and at the end the " rating"
test was adopted by a majority of 11 in a house of
619 members. The Government thus met with its
first serious check, for it was a check rather than a
defeat. The result can be a matter of surprise to
no one. On the one hand the weight of argument,
whether from convenience, from constitutional pre-
cedents, or from authority, was in favour of making
rating—the modern equivalent to the old payment
of scot and lot—the basis of enfranchisement. On
the other, all the weight of the Government was
thrown into the scale in favour of the test of clear
annual value. It was a contest between reason and
authority, and, not for the first time in history, rea-
son won the victory. The battle was fairly fought
and fairly decided. The fate of the Ministry ought
to be completely dissevered from the fate of the re-
form bill. It has been, on the whole, an advantage
to the cause of reform that it should be so, and there
can be no question that it is beneficial to the na-

tional interests. We can discuss the amendment of
the constitution without perpetually thinking of the
effect of a decision upon the position of the Minis-
try. The vote of last night is a practical instance
of this truth. It was a distinct repudiation of a
Ministerial proposal ; but, unless the Ministers are
resolved to sacrifice themselves to a feeling of
wounded self-love, it cannot be construed into a
withdrawal of confidence and support. They may
think it advisable on other grounds to suspend the
further progress of-the bill, but it is not a neces-
sary consequence of yesterday's vote, and we are
satisfied that their abdication of office would be re-
pugnant to the wish of the House of Commons and
the country.