The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-15 00:00:00

BILL.

The house then went into committee on these bills.
The debate was resumed on clause 4, to which an amend-
ment had been moved to make the £l4 county franchise a
rating instead of a rental franchise.
Col. LINDSAY supported the amendment, as did also
Mr. Du am.

Mr. AYRTON protested against the course adopted by
the Opposition, the object of which was, he said, to talk
out the bill. The principle of the amendment was, in his
opinion, both erroneous and novel, for the house had never
adopted it, and no good reason for its adoption had been
given on the present occasion; and he argued that the
most convenient mode of ascertaining the status of a person
was the annual value of the house which he occupied. He
further condemned the amendment as aimed at the reversal
of the decision come to by the house on a former night, and
this, he declared, was neither a candid nor an honourable
course.

Sir B. KNIGHTLEY objected to approximating the
constituencies in boroughs and counties without increas-
ing the number of members for counties and establishing
electoral districts.
Mr. GOSCHEN pointed out that the statistics most lately
produced showed that the number of new voters who
would come in under the clause in its present shape would
be 70,000 less than Mr. Hunt had stated in proposing his
amendment. The mistake had arisen, ho presumed, from
the circumstance that the hon. gentleman had left out of
his calculation the fact that one-fifth of the entire number
were both occupiers and owners.

Mr. HENLEY reminded the house that tho Irish fran-
chise was based upon the rate-book, and the advantages of
the system, ho said, were that the value was fixed by in-
different persons without reference to political squabbles
and that it was as fair for one party as the other. The
Irish system also got rid of a considerable portion of the
expense incurred by the contests in the registration courts.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Sir P. BUR.RELL next
essayed to address the house, which was clamorous for its
dinner, and declined to give them a hearing.

A division was then taken, whelk the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against 2BO
Majority for Ministers 7

The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers by the Opposition, and counter cheers from the
Ministerial benches.

Mr. B. ST INHOPE next moved the omission of the
third section of the fourth clause, which provided that the
qualifying premises should consist of a house or other
building, which, either alone or with land held by the oc-
cupier, was of the value of £l4 a year, with the proviso
that where the premises consisted partly of a house or
other building, and partly of land, the building must either
be the dwelling-house of the occupier or must itself be of
the clear annual value of £6 or upwards. He proposed
this amendment on the ground that the clause altered the
county franchise so as to make it consist in the main of a
house instead of land alone.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he felt
himself to be in rather a peculiar position. From behind
there came a motion to make a restricted clause more re-
stricted, and from the opposite side one to abolish it alto-
gether. Her Majesty's Government had endeavoured tolook
at the matter without the slightest regard to the side of the
house from which suggestions or amendments came, or to
the consideration whether they were most favourable to
urban or rural constituencies. He and his colleagues had
been hitherto silent under charges similar to those which
had been made during the last 40 years, viz., that the po-
licy of the Liberal party was to effect the ruin of the land.
(Opposition cheers.) The land would have been ruined
long since had it not been for the Liberal party, and especi-
ally for the exertions of his right hon. friend near him (Mr.
Villiers), who came out first as a destroyer of the land, and
who had been a better friend of the land than any of the
gentlemen on the opposite side of the house. (No, no.)
But if they were silent under these reiterated accusations
it was not because they admitted their justice or were not
prepared with sufficient answers to assertions which, if
truly characterised, would admit of a very strong epithet.
(Cheers.) They had introduced this bill without any in-
tention of imposing restrictions except those which could
be shown to be absolutely necessary. The object of the
proviso then under MBOOBlOll was to meet a case analogous

PRICE. 4d.
STAMPED sd.

to that of the boroughs, In the latter the law was often
eluded by the knocking up of worthless buildings, and to
prevent similar frauds in counties he proposed that the
buildings should be of the clear annual value of £3 or
upwards. It appeared to him that if the operation of the
clause were not restricted by some such proviso, they must
take a proviso from the bill of 1859, restricting the persons
who could vote out of joint tenancy. He should wish to
know whether there was assent on the opposite side of the
house to the principle that joint tenancy should be restricted
by the proviso of the bill of 1859. Tho restriction was two
voters in each tenement, except in cases of marriage settle-
ments or partnership. His hon. friend spoke of the rigour
of government in committee; but the fact was that they
had given up a valuable principle, which was intended to
increase the number of votes,in deference to hon. members
opposite. Their (the Government's) desire had been to
conciliate those gentlemen, but he feared that there was but
little hope of success. With respect to this clause, he con-
tended that there never was a provision framed with greater
liberality as regarded the land, and for this reason that a
lower class of tenantry would come in under the £l4 fran-
chise. Having admitted that principle, they did so frankly,
but they protested against
recognig sin any distinction in
legislation between rural voters and town voters. (Hear,
hear.) As to the last member of the clause, which required
that the qualifying premises should be held under the same
landlord, the Government adopted in that the principle of
the Chandos clause : but if they clearly understood that
there was no indisposition to prsozeidlye againstsay that
hat thea s abuseciuot
quoting
joint tenancies—and he might
for his authority a clause in the bill of 1859—he should
than
r th a
no
fora
srt the
gardener,
landlordcla us e
nolotaarfe,elhietarn.e3cesNsaorythit4awdhoeurled tohe tehasatierp
'having a earnnum dependents about him,
gamekeeper, peer, and others, living in £6 houses, to
eke out those sums and bring them up to the £l4 if he
pleased. And if a landlord chose to cut up his property
in£l4 occupations, they had no right to interfere, but good
sense would probably prevent its being done. The Go-
providedt
ht he occupationthe
power of
wveaarnbmoneent
fade,
nobut
eywtishhto
f • d had
toaecmfnuthstrfererese
necessaryintroducingr e that anyamendment
object. m
a t hheoyn. mightfriend
think
shown that, with the object of having a voter of a cer-
tainto status, it was necessary, especially in regard
Scot-
land, to provide that the house should be of a certain
value, whether it was a dwelling-house or not, and
that
was the most important part of the whole case. It would
not be just or fair to the landowner to say that a small
farm of the value of £lO or £ll with a house of £3 or
£4 value, should not serve for a qualification, and con-
sequently the Government were prepared to give up that
part of the clause. He did not see any object in the
words sufficient to wake them persevere in doing that
which many hon. gentlemen seemed to think was a posi-
tive pleasure to them, but which was really eminently
disagreeable to them, namely, refusing demands for altera-
tions of the measure. If there was a disposition on the
part of hon. gentlemen bona fide and cheerfully to concur
with the Government in the prevention of abuses from
joint tenancies which might become the cover, to a great
extent, to the manufacture of fictitious votes, the Govern-
ment would readily concur in the wish expressed by the
hon. gentleman the member for Lincolnshire.
Mr. M'LAREN expressed his regret and surprise that
the Government should have given way to the Opposition,
and declared that the concession would give undue influ-
ence to the possessors of land.
Mr. WHITE indignantly condemned the concession,
and called on the advanced Liberals below the gangway
to divide against it.
Col. P. HERBERT remarked that the opposition did not
object to £l4 householders, per se, having votes, but they
were against conferring the county franchise on those who
were already represented in boroughs. The hon. and gal-
lant member, amidst loud cries of "divide," and " order,"
referred to statistics to show the disproportion between the
bill passed as it stood five-sixths at least of the electoral
county and borough representation, and said that if the
power of the country would be concentrated in the hands
of persons dwelling in towns.

Mr. B. OSBORNE said they had had a very remarkable
speech from the hon. and gallant gentleman who had just
sat down. It appeared that whilst the hon. and gallant
member for Shropshire was allowed to take the horse out
of the stable, the hon. member for Devonshire was not
even allowed to look over the hedge. (A. laugh.) The
contrast between the speeches of the two hon. gentlemen
was very remarkable. But what the statistics read by the
hon. and gallant gentleman had to do with the particular
section of clause 4, then under consideration, he and the
house would be very mach puzzhd to find out. The hon.
and gallant gentleman was evidently under an hallucina-
tion in making a speech that night that was evidently in--
tended for the third reading of the bill. It appeared to him
that the whole of this discussion might have been avoided,
inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, as he
understood, made a very proper and amiable concession.
(Ironical cheers.) Yes, if they were to carry this bill they
should proceed on the principle of give and take. (Hear.)
If the right hon. gentleman did concede, the house generally
ought to meet him in the same spirit, and hon. members
opposite ought not to flog a dead horse. (Laughter.)
Mr. H. BAILLIE—I rise to order. The hon. gentleman
is not speaking on the clause. (Hear.)

Mr. 13. OSBORNE thought he was speaking strictly on
the clause, but they were all liable to error, and none more
so than the hon. member for Inverness. (Laughter.) The
hon. gentleman opposite was probably not aware that this
question had been conceded by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. He did not apprehend that under this clause
there would be any manufacture of votes on the part of the
landowners, because he did not think they would ruin their
property by making faggot votes. They did not do so in
Ireland, where the inducement was much greater to make
such votes. The vote in Ireland was on a £l2 rental of
land, and there it was not necessary to have a house at all
to possess the qualification. Why, then, should it be ne-
cessary to have a house in this country? (Hear, hear.)
He thought the hon. gentlemen below the gangway would
be exceedingly wrong if they divided the house on this
question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised
to bring up a clause which he (Mr. Osborne) thought would
satisfy the house. If hon. members wished to carry the
bill that session they must not expect to carry all their
crotchets, but they must be:prepared to concede something
to their opponents. If the committee went to a division he
for one should support the concession made by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI desired to indicate the inconvenience of
the repeated appeals which were made to Lord Derby's
Reform Bill, because as the house did not read it a second
time, its provisions were probably not so deeply impressed
upon the minds of members as the Government seemed to
imagine. (Hear.) In the principle of preventing the crea-
tion of faggot votes, he should be glad to combine with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he might remind him
that the Irish Act, which appeared to have been used as
the model of this bill, contained no such checks as were
now proposed, and unless good reason was shown for their
insertion, he did not see why they should be introduced
into this bill.
Sir F. CROSSLEY said that after the explanation which
had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he
should not press for a division, and should advise his
friends to wait until they saw the amendment which the
right hon. gentleman proposed to introduce.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
say that the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
had weakened, but he certainly had not strengthened, the
understanding which was established by the speeches of
the noble lord and others, as to the propriety of introduc-
ing into this bill a provision to prevent the creation of
faggot votes. It had never been stated that the Irish Act
had been adopted as the model of this bill, but it, like the
bill of Lord Derby, and other measures upon this subject,
had been consulted for information, and had from time to
time been referred to for purposes of illustration.
Sir H. CAIRNS said that ho thought nothing could
have been more distinct than the statement of his right
hon. friend that in any measure for preventing the creation
of faggot votes he should be glad to unite with the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. BRIGHT regarded the change in the views of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject with some
suspicion, because he thought that in easps of this sort it
would be extremely difficult to prevent the making of
faggot votes. In Scotland, at !present, this practice ap-
peared to prevail to a great extent. After the last election
he received a letter from the unsuccessful candidate for
Selkirkshire, who informed him that he polled an absolute
majority of the electors who resided in the county, but he
was defeated by the faggot votes of a nobleman having
great property in that county, by persons who resided in
other parts of tho country who had no real interest in the
property in respect of which they voted, and who, accord-
ing to the real spirit of the law, had no right to be on the
register. Regard for the character of the electors which
hon. gentlemen pretended to have—(Cries of " Oh !")
Sir P. BURRELL rose to order. The hon. gentleman
had no right to impute motives to the members on that
side of the house. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. BRlGHT—Regard for the character of the consti-
tuency should lead hon. members to provide some security
that a voter should reside somewhere (laugh ter)—and
that it should be known where ho lived. He hoped the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring up the section of
which he spoke, and that it would carry out the view which
ho had just expressed.
Mr. BOUVERIE was at a loss to understand how the
Government could have yielded, and predicted that the
country would be surprised and dissatisfied when informed
of it. The great bulk of the Liberal party would, he
thought, rather not have the county franchise changed at
all than see it altered in the manner proposed.
After some desultory debate, in the course of which save-

~~ L ~/ ` l u/~~

ral members below the gangway expressed themselves
dissatisfied at the proposed withdrawal of the clause, the
committee divided on the question that the third section
of the clause be omitted, and it Was negatived by 361 to 74.
Mr. Bright and some of his Mends quitted the house to
avoid voting.

Mr. WAR-D-Hurr and Sir S. NORTHOOTE subsequently
withdrew other amendments of which they had gives
notice, and clause 4 was put from the chair and agreed to

nem. con.

Progress was then reported, and the chairman obtained
leave to sit again on Monday.

The Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Bill passed
through committee.

The other business was disposed, and the house ad-
journed at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock.

PARLISaIENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMNIONS-JuNE 14,

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Clause 4. —Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 40,
at the end of the second paragraph, to add the words
"such clear yearly value being the rateable value of the
premises as ascertained forthe purposes of the poor-rate :"
—(Mr. Hunt).—Question put, " That those words
be there added :" —The committee divided—Ayes, 273 ;
Noes, 280.