The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-08 00:00:00

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Mr. Dod•

son—Having been patiently heard in the beginning of the
evening, I shall only detain the committee for a very short
time ; but we are approaching a division of very great
importance, upon the issue of which, I do not conceal,
we look with great anxiety. The character of this measure,
which, in my judgment, is capable of being a satisfactory
settlement of a great constitutional question is involved to
a considerable degree in this division ; and I therefore take
the liberty of noticing one or two things with regard to the
course of this debate. So far as I followed the debate I
have not heard any one deny that the persons whom it is
proposed to enfranchise in virtue of the £l4 occupation in
counties are, taken as a body, fitted for the exercise of their
franchise. This being so, I beg to observe that it is a fact
of the most vital importance, The right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire, much to his credit, has
upon former occasions deprecated the nicely-calculated less
or more of this or that particular number, and has said
distinctly, "I look to the fitness of those you are going to
enfranchise." I beg the committee to observe the ac-
ceptance of this principle from this source of high autho-
rity. But the objections which have been taken are two,
and those who took them appear to be moved by distinct
and separate lines of action. There is the objection of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire,
who repeated, I do not mean in terms, but in concurrence
with most of those on his side who preceded him, that be-
fore you settle the franchise for the counties you must
clearly understand what the counties mean. Again, the
right hon. gentleman said, " We must know what the Go-
vernment propose to do with reference to the large unre-
presented towns." Well, what I say is, that if we are to go
on in this way we are in danger of arguing in a circle.
The demand of the right honourable gentleman would be
a perfectly fair one if the business of the redistribution of
seats was one which the Crown could settle by its own
prerogative. He might then require that we should lay down
in a complete manner our proposals. But when the right
hon. gentleman says he wants to know what we are going
to do, the meaning is, not what we are going to do, but what
the House of Commons is going to do after hearing our pro-
posals. I am surprised at the argument of the hon. member
for North Staffordshire, who argued that it was impossible
for him to say anything of the county franchise until he
I knew what was to be done about the boundaries of the
boroughs and unrepresented places. Thus the right hon.
member reverses his own course in 1859. (No, no.) Why
the right hon. gentleman then supported a bill which was to
deal with county franchise an!,erior to any settlement of the
borough boundaries ; and that which he would make a
mountain of now was then a molehill, and he then found
no difficulty in swallowing the camel though ho now can-
not swallow the gnat. (Cheers.) The house cannot legis-
late on all parts of this subject in one and the same man-
ner, and if everybody is to make an objection to every pro-
posal because every other proposal is not then settled, the
result will be that no progress can be made. (Cheers.) This
is the advantage of all the stages in a bill, that at one time
you examine its principle, at another you examine it in
detail. Upon this question of the county representation the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) departs from the old
rules of the constitution, and sets up instead the distinc-
tion between urban and rural districts, a purely modern in-
vention. This question divides itself into two particulars.
He says we have done nothing that is satisfactory. We
have sacrificed a constitutional principle, that is, the exten-
sion of the voting for counties in respect of freeholds in
boroughs to leaseholds. But the question of unrepresented
towns appears to me to be one of no very great magnitude.
If you make some extension of the number of towns to be
enfranchised—and I have :already intimated an opinion it
would be well that we should proceedfurther in this direc-
tion--but it would be absurd there should be any of those
wholesale representations of which the right hon. gentle-
man gave us some idea, by which there would be a town of

50,000, or 60,000, or 80,000, or 90,000 inhabitants with one
member. It is impossible for us to give the least coun-
tenance to an idea of this kind—(cheers)—but as regards
the representation of a number of large towns, that is a
question which we propose to consider. And let it not be
supposed that we have abandoned our intentions with regard
to the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. My right hon.
friend the member for Cambridge Universitywill understand
that I have not the slightest intention of imputing to him
any inaccuracy of quotation. I feel confident that the
words were as I stated, and that they did not contain any
compact. There was no mention of a compact, or under-
standing, or anything else, between the advanced party and
the Government ; we spoke of the engagement which the
Government made with Parliament and the public when we
took a certain course at a certain juncture. My right hon.
friend has not made any complaint against the £l4 county
franchise ; but he says he could not see anything in the na-
ture of it to make it a stopping place. Well, I answer that
in the first place the £2O will not be a stopping place any
more than £l4. He does not give us the jury franchise; that
in counties, as I understand, is not a rating franchise, but
one of £2O and £3O respectively—does ho propose that?
Mr. WALPOLE—The second part of my motion shows
a rating or assessed amount.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Does he
propose a rating franchise ? Let us be clear upon the point.
Mr. WALPOLE—I say the jury franchise, or a rating
upon which the person is assessed to the relief of the poor,
or to the inhabited house duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—My right
hon.friend is doubtless aware that he does not copy the exact
words of the Jury Act. I now understand him to say thathe
does give the jury franchise and a rating franchise. This it
should be understood is a proposition that will raise the
county occupation franchise from£l4 to bet ween£23 and.£24.
That is not a jury franchise at all if it is not a rating fran-
chise, for in no other point is it a jury franchise, and a worse
franchise than on the house duty I cannot imagine, for• the
duty itself is, as it were, a casual one, and why it should
stop at £2O it would puzzle any economist to understand.
The Government entirely decline to recognise the jury fran-
chise, for if adopted for the counties it must be recognised
in the boroughs, and the result will be to land as in house-
hold suffrage, because household qualification for jurors is
that adopted in boroughs having theirown quarter sessions.
The Government have proposed the £l4 franchise with the
earnest intention of making it a complete plan, and there
is reason for considering that the £l4 franchise will be a
stopping place, as it as nearly as possible describes thepoint
where it completes the enfranchisement of all the middle
classes ; and further, this figure substantially works well
in Ireland. But the clause before the house is a capital
member of the bill, and the proposal of my right hon.friend
essentially mars and maims the effect of the clause. On that
ground I earnestly entreat the house to negative this pro-
posal. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.")
_ _

Mr. HENLEY said he had listened with great attention to
all that had been said by the right hon. gentleman, and he
was the only one who gave anything like a reason for the
£l4 franchise. Every one seemed to think that what would
be done now would be a settlement of the question. It was
said the house had assented to a £lO franchise, but that was
not the case. What was the security they had that this
would be a permanent settlement from the advanced re-
formers ? Would they accept this £l4 as a settlement?
No. At all their meetings they distinctly stated that the
Government bill was only a step in the right direction and
an instalment, and one hon. member of the party had echoed
that sentiment in the debate, by saying he should prefer
£6 10s. to £l4. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re-
ferred to the £l2 rating in Ireland, but that was not the
same as £l4 occupation in England. The circumstances
of the two countries were quite different. Their position
as to money's worth was dissimilar, and the man rated
at £l2 in Ireland would belong to a superior class to
the one having a £l4 occupation in England. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman asked whether those holding
£l4 occupations ought not to have the franchise ? That
was not the question. The question was whether that
sum would not introduce so large a number of the occu-
pying voters as to outnumber and outweigh the property
qualification for the counties. (Cheers.) That was the
real question to be considered. The right hon. gentleman
said that it had been stated in the house that a £lO occu-
pier was a loyal man. He did not believe that they could
judge the loyalty of a man by the number of pounds he
had, as a man with no pounds at all was often more loyal
than one with a great many. What he looked at was this
—that three-sevenths of the county electors would be in-
troduced by the occupation franchise. That was a serious
matter, and too large a proportion, and would outweigh
the present qualification in counties. He would just say a
few words as to the amendment. As he understood the
amendment, it was this. The right hon. gentleman
thought that taxation of some sort or other ought to attach
to the franchise. Now, the Government was getting rid of
that principle. (Conservative cheers.) They were getting
rid of rating, which used to be the foundation of house-
hold suffrage in the towns—the old scot and lot franchise ;
all that meant payment ; and the franchise followed pay-
ment. His right hon. friend proposed two things. He
said a man who lived in a £2O house ought to have a
county vote, and he (Mr. Henley) agreed with him. The
next thing was the jury franchise. That was not based on
house alone ; it might consist of house and land. But it
was an occupation franchise, with rating to the poor to
the amount of £2O. This led to two parties who ought to
have the county. franchise ; and whether we took the jury
franchise or the gross estimated rental or rateable value, it
was an occupation franchise to the amount of £2O. Such
a franchise, he believed, would not extend the constituen-
cies more than 40,000. He thought that would give a fair
addition to the present occupation franchise for counties.
(Hear.) He should support most cordially the amendment
of his right hon. friend Mr. Walpole. (Cries of " Divide.")
The committee then divided on the question that the
word " fourteen" stand part of the question--
The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

... 297
••• ... 283
Majority
14
The announcement was received with loud Ministerial
cheers. The house presented a most exciting scene. Hon.
members were standing crowded together some way within
the bar, on the floor of the house, and the cries of " Bar,
bar," intermingled with " Adjourn," and " Report pro-
gress," prevented the Chairman from being heard for some
seconds. Amidst the confusion that prevailed,
Lord CRANBORNE, from the floor of the house, moved
that the Chairman report progress ; and Mr. BAGGEfrom
the side gallery moved the adjournment of the house.
The CHAIRMAN, however, put the question of report-
ing progress, which was received with loud cheers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
considering the hour, 25 minutes past twelve o'clock, ho
could not resist the motion. (Loud cries of " What day ?"
" When ?") but he proposed to resume the committee on
this day (Friday).
The announcement was received with loud Ministerial
cheers, and cries of " No, no ; on Monday," from the Op-
position side of the house.
The CHAIRMAN said what he had to do was to put the
motion for reporting progress. It was for the house to
decide to what day.

The motion for reporting progress was then agreed to,
and the house resumed.
The SPEAKER having again taken the chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved tho
resumption of the committee on this day (Friday), which
was met with loud cries of "No, no," and "On Monday."
The SPEAKER then put the question, amidst the-con-
fusion that prevailed, when

Lord ROYSTON moved the adjournment of the com-
mittee until Monday. (Loud cheers.)
The SPEAKER again put the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and
amidst the excitement that prevailed said that the Govern-
ment had not interfered with Tuesday of late, that being
the day devoted to private and independent members. But
this was a different case. The Government were responsible
for Fridays subject to certain rules of the house. Inde-
pendent members of the house,as was perfectly well known,
had a right to make their own motions on going into com-
mittee of supply, but when they were disposed of the Go-
vernment were responsible for the order of business. He
found from the paper of to-morrow that the notices of
/motion, which were given on going into committee of sup-
ply, were of a character not likely to occupy any length of
time. That being so, the Government were responsible for
the disposal of the rest of the evening, and it was not their
intention to waste any portion of time. (Loud cheers.) So
far as depended upon them, they would move the house to
employ their time in the progress of the Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) _ _ .

.
On the motion being put there were strong expressions
of dissent, when

Mr. DISRAELI said the proposition of the Government
did not in any way interfere with the privileges of private
members. There would be the motion that the house go
into committee of supply, when any gentleman might bring
on any motion upon the paper or any other motion ; but at
the same time he had no doubt they would confine them-
selves to those motions of which they had given notice.
The proposition of the Government did not at all interfere
with them, and it would be unreasonable to interfere
with the fair prerogative of the Government. (Hear, hear.)
He was quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not keep them to any very late hour.
The motion for the adjournment until to-night (Friday)
was then agreed to.
STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND