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

IRON GUNS.

Mr. WHITE asked the Secretary of State for War
whether ho would have any objection to produce a copy of
the correspondence between the War Department and Mr.
Parsons from May, 1860, to the present time, relatiore to
the plan of that gentleman for strengthening cast iron
guns ?
The Marquis of HATaINGTON said ho had great ob-
jections to producing the correspondence which took place
between the War-offim and inventors, because it usually
resulted in the furnishing at the public expense a detailed
account of the invention. With respect to the second por-
tion of the question he had no objection to produce the re-
turns, so that the hon. gentleman perhaps would signify
whether he would accept that as sufficient for his purpose.
THE FENIAN RAID IN CANADA.

-Mr. DAWSON asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether, since the house rose on Friday, he had
received any further despatches from Canada conveying
information as to the suppression of the Fenian raid upon
British territory, or the means taken to effect that object ?
Mr. CARDWELL stated that he had received a despatch
from the Governor-General of Canada, dated June 4, stat-
ing
that a force of Fenians, about 800 strong, had made a
raid on Pert Erie, were attacked by Volunteers, who, being
outnumbered, retired. The Volunteers were on the march to
join the forces under the command of Gen. Peacock, and
mtheet the Penians on their way. The Fenians, after
retirement of • the volunteers, did twait
the arrival of Gen. Peocv,he,but recrossed n 9
the fron-
tier during the night
they were arrested
by the authorities of the United States. Not only on that
occasion, but on every
and most Other, the readiest effi-
cient assistance had been
profferedb3r
had
edueitedStates. (Hear, hear.) General Grant
placed
General Barry, an officer of the United States,
in command of certain important positions, and there were
now in Toronto Gaol about 65 prisoners. The loss on the
part of the British authorities was small.
ST. PANCRAS CHURCHYARD.
Mr M'EVOY asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether he was aware that the Midland
Railway Company, having obtained an act in 1363 far
passing a bridge over the additional burial-ground of St.
Pancras, had in excess of its powers taken a portion- of
the more ancient churchyard of St. Pancras for such
bridge, and was causing desecration thereby, the destruc-
tion of the tombs, and the removal of the dead.
Sir G. GREY said no further inquiry had been made
on this subject since it was last under the attention of the
house until he saw the question of the hon. gentleman on
. the paper. He had before sent Mr. Holland to inspect and
report the exact circumstances of the case.
THE FENIANS.

Mr. 'WATKINS, ;everting- to the Fenian raid, said he
-wished to know whether it was true that, after the raid,
the President of the 'United States had issued a proclama-
tion, and that Generals Sweeney and Roberts had been ar-
rested.

Mr. CARDWELL said he had stated the whole sub-
twice of the despatch he had received. He was, however,
possession of the circumstance that the President of the
nited States had issued a proclamati,on—(hear, hear)—
d as various other questions had been put to him (Mr.
ardwell) he here wished to say that the utmost loyalty
nad been displayed by all her Majesty's North American
subjects,
and that their exertions were in the highest de-
gree satisfactory. (Hear, hear.)
THE REFORM BILL.

The house then went into committee.
On clause 5 being read,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho in-
tended to make a statement, when—
Mr. DISRAELI objected to the right hon. gentleman
proceeding in the way he intended, it was against the ordi-
nary rule of the house, and he did not think it was desir-
able that a statement should be made which might contain
an answer by anticipation to the proposals of the hon. gen-
tlemen who had given notice of their intention to move
amendments to the clause.

After a short and somewhat angry discussion,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would persevere in the desire he had to address the
louse.
Lord DUNKELLIN then rose to move his amendment
to the clause, which was to substitute a rating for a rental
franchise in boipughs. He considered that the rating

franchise was much to be preferred, and such being his
opinion, it became his duty to make the proposal to the
house, although it might in some quarters be considered
that it was made simply to obstruct the passing of the bill.
Such was not his intention, because he was not respon-
sible for the figura that had been sel •ct.:+cl as the amount
of the borough franchise ; and with that figure he did
not interfere. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He
therefore moved the amendment of which he had given
notice, namely, that the words "clear yearly value" be left
out, and that instead there be inserted in the clause the
words "clear rateable value."
Mr. 0. CAVE seconded the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
received with cheers, said—The hcin. gentleman who has
last sat down has undisguisedly regarded the last part of
the speech for the amendment as an argument for the re-
striction of the suffrage. I wish to point out both to my
bon. friend and to the hon. gentlemen that in all they have
said bearing properly upon the merits of the motion—that
is in respect to the words proposed to be introduced—this
fallacy runs through their speeches, that they make a com-

parison between the rating-systemand the present system

of examination before a revising barrister: AU through

there was not a word that took -cognisance of the great

change introduced in the bill. lam not sure my noble
friend has examined the table by which the rating is

fixed, or whether he is aware of the system of estimat-
ing the gross rental. If he is award of the system of

fixing the gross estimated rental in the bill, I am
surprised he should not have drawn a comparison be-
tween it and that which he now professes. The Irish
system, I must say, is totally different to that proposed
to be introduced by my noble friend. It is different, be-
cause it is universal throughout the whole country—(hear,

hear)—and it is different, because it is administered by a
Government officer. (Hear, hear.) The Scotch system
does correspond almost entirely with the estimated rental,
and that system gives almost as much satisfaction in Scot-
land as the rating does in Ireland. These matters are,
however, only illustrations, and it is better I should pro-
ceed to the merits of the question. Now, sir, after hear-
ing my noble friend, I am conscious I might have saved
him a great. deal of trouble if it had been in nay power to
state the issue involved in this portion of the clause, be-
cause his speech has mingled together three or four ques-
tions entirely distinct and heterogeneous one to another.
The operation of that part of the clause on which my noble
friend proposes his amendment is political. It relates to the
amount of enfranchisement, the moderate amount of enfran-
chisement the Government proposes to effect—an amount
which I estimated at 144,000, an amount which would be
augmented by 60,000 by the abolition of ratepaying clauses
and by the new provisions introduced with regard to house-
holders. I cannot be misunderstood when I say that from
that moderate amount of enfranchisement we are not, under
any circumstances, prepared to recede. (Cheers.) By it we
intend to stand. (Cheers.) There are various provisions on
the notice paper of the house. The hon. member for Guild-
ford proposes an amendment which, from the 144,000,
would strike of 65,000. The £6 rating to be proposed by
the hon. member for Wenlock would give the franchise to
105,000. That is the most liberal of them all, falling short
only by 40,000 of the number we propose. The hon. gen-
tleman who has just sat down has made the least liberal
suggestion. He suggests a £7 rating, by which after 31
years from the Reform Bill, he would liberally admit a new
body of 45,000 to the constituencies. (Laughter.) That is
an increase of between 1,400 and 1,500 on the population
of this country. If the hon. member can establish such a
rate of enfranchisement as that, for the guidance of future
Hines, I think he will be pretty secure from error in the
way of excess. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But whether it
be 45,000, 67,000, or 105,000, it is not a number to which we
are prepared to accede. The political part of this motion is
one thing, and the practical part is another. With regard
to the political part, I will observe that though my noble
friend has not professed to fix a figure by his motion, yet
he has laid down principles in his speech which will strike
60,000 from the number we propose to enfranchise. We
propose to abolish the ratepaying clauses and to introduce
provisions which will enable compound householders to be
rated, although they are not rated individually ; but to both
of these the noble lord objects, and therefore he begins by
striking off 60,000 from the number we propose to enfran-
chise. Having spoken plainly on that portion of the ques-
tion, I come to the practical portion of the case, viz., the
argument made by my noble friend for the basis of rateable
value, in lieu of clear yearly value, as it is proposed by the
Government. There are four questions which in this matter
may be raised, and which is of vital consequence to sepa-
rate one from another, but-the whole of which has been
hopelessly-mingled in the speech of my noble friend. The
first is, shall the voter himself personally be rated as a con-
dition of his obtaining the franchise ? secondly, shall he
before registration have paid all rates which are at the
time due from him ? The second is totally and absolutely
distinct from the first. The third is, shall the franchise be
ruled as it is ruled in the bill—that is, upon clear annual
value explained by the column of gross estimated rental ; or
shall it be ruled by the column of rateable value ? That is
the third question, and that I take to be the proper object
of the motion of my noble friend ; but he has mixed it up
kith all the others. As he has treated his own motion as
gaining the other two objects also. (Cries of " No, no.")
Very well, if I ant Mistaken I. am very glad. But let it be
clearly understood, we have nothing to do now with deter-
mining whether a man shall be rated or not, or shall have
paid his rates - (hear)—that these two questions are re-
served for some future period. The question now is, whether
occupation value is to be calculated on the column of rate-
able valu_.. But there is a fourth question which my noble
friend has treated as if involved in his motion, viz., whether
the valuation made by local authorities shall be fixed, or
whether there shall be an appeal or judicial Process if voters
desire, before the revising barrister. The noble lord has in
his speech treated his motion as conclusive, ruling that there
is to bo no appeal to the revising barrister. I quite under-
stand that he propoies to leave the course of appeal as it
is fixed for the purposes of local taxation. (Hear.) If,
then, the third and fourth of these questions aro embraced
in the speech and in the object of my noble friend, I am
I bound to sty I believe it io be doubtful whether they are
both embraced in the legal effect of his motion. That his
motion would have the effect of fixing rateable value as
prima facie ground upon which the occyipation must bo
, considered and estimated is perfectly clear, but I don't
I know whether the noble lord has referred to the very
strong language in which the revising barrister is autho-
rised by the Reform Act to insert in such list (that is,
the list of voters) the name of every person who shall
be proved to his satisfaction to have, been entitled on the
last day of July next preceding. It is very doubtful
whether that might not be held to make the title of the
voter- still subject to review by the revising barrister.
But that I believe to arise only from the ambiguity of the
language of the noble lord's motion, and I will take the
motion as it is intended. (Hear, hear.) We are now
debating a motion which does these two things - first,
it fixes that the occupation giving the franchise is to
be estimated according to the column of rateable value ;
and secondly, the revising barrister is to be ousted alto-
gether, and the court of appeal is to be that provided for
the purposes of local taxation, and no other. I will there-
fore address myself to those two questions.
_First, with re:

Bard to the question of rateable value, which it is proposed
now for the first time in this country—(hear)—to make the
basis of the political franchise. We have argued—and no
ono has attempted to show the reverse —that rateable value
as a test is false in principle. Rateable value is intended
to establish the net value of the property. Rateable value
is the just, the obvious, the legitimate basis for all opera-
tions having reference to local taxation. The right hon.
gentleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)
spoke the ocher night as if the tenant really paid local
taxation. Local taxation is bOrne by property ; therefore
the test of rateable value, or the true net value, is of
course made the basis of local taxation, and we should be
as inconsistent and incongruous if we proposed to depart
from the basis of rateable value for the purpose of taxing
property as my hon. friend is in proposing to take rateable
value as the basis of the political franchise. (Hear, hear.)
The true basis of tho political occupation franchise is the
capacity of the voter to pay a £l4, a £5O, or any other
rent. (Hear, hear.) Whatever the rateable value set against
his occupation, that has nothing to do with it. That is
constructed for a different purpose. I come now to the
question of inequalities; these are of two descriptions,
namely, inequalities from caprice or carelessness,' and in-
equalities from necessity. It is not denied that they exist,
and the noble lord drew an ingenious comparison between
two sides of a street ; on one side of which the rent paid to
a grasping landlord is £lO a year, and on the other a more
liberal minded proprietor lets his houses at £7 ; and he
points to this as an instance of difference in the gross esti-
mated rental of houses of the same value. But is that a
proof in favour of
.rateable. voaludet? Why, precisely the same
ll exlnsttoinproeinatroutooneesaourecevoalfueer.rotVh
I inequalities
challenge awniy
gkinthdattheothermay come into tinheacolumfnomof
tghraotsscoelsutmimnatiendtoretnhtealeowlhumichn
would not pass onward
night in Bury St. Edmund's,
the
same value in two
of rateable value. I quotedr cases of
deduc-
tions made from houses of osfhotwhiisn
different unions were in one case one-tenth, and in another
case one-sixth. That is an additional source of error in the
rateable column. Nov the noble lord has ingenuously ad-
mitted that in the Irish system there s only one column.
Then don't let us argue on the Irish system, for it is for
a different purpose, and is practically
a very different
system to ours—(hear, hear)—and the noblelord has been
misled by a mere use of the word rating—(hear, hear)--in
supposing that the two systems are the same. As a proof
.
of the equality of deductions made on the same class of
houses the tight hon. gentleman quoted Oxford, where
the deductions varied from 20 to 331 per cent., and to
Liverpool, where in the city it was 10 per cent., and in
the suburbs 20 to 25 per cent. The proposal of the noble
lord goes to this, to establish a different political franchise
in the same town for men whose circumstances are in every
respect the same, who pay equal rents, but who are placed
at different sums in the rate books. Of these a portion
would be enfranchised, and a portionwould not, on account
of being placed in. different unions. It has been said, let
the unions make their rating more uniform. That is all
very well ; but that is not done, and you will not attain to
that equality without providing a central authority to fix
the basis on each union on which local rates is to b© paid.