MR. BRIGHTI beg, Sir, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly he may object that I have not given him notice of it. If therefore he cannot answer it to-night, perhaps he will reply to it on Thursday, though I hope he will be able to give an answer at once. The reason I put the question is because it may affect the views and course of a good many Gentlemen on this side of the House on Monday evening next. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, after the expression of opinion last night with regard to an important portion of his proposition—I mean what is called the dual voting—he intends to adhere to that proposal of the Bill, and whether he considers it an important and essential portion of his measure?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I have no objection whatever to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question at present, and I do not wish him to put it off till Thursday. The Bill which I asked leave to introduce yesterday is only just in the possession of hon. Members. I wish them to consider it; and I think, when we discuss it on the second reading, when every important part of it has been fairly considered by both sides of the House, that is the legitimate occasion on which to express an opinion on a point so important.
MR. GLADSTONEI have several Questions, Sir, to put to the Government with reference to this Bill; and they differ from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), inasmuch as they do not touch any matter of policy, but only ask for information. The right hon. Gentleman having truly said that the Bill was in our hands only this morning, I have not been able to give him notice of my Questions; but I shall be most happy to place them on the votes in case he finds it inconvenient to answer them on my reading them over to him. My Questions, Sir, are these—
Firstly, Whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by 125 the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £l0; or, if not, in what respect they differ?
Secondly, Whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling houses exclusively?
Thirdly, Whether the total number of male occupiers stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on Monday consisted exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling houses?
Fourthly, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table their estimates of the numbers of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill, together with the data, so far as they think fit, upon which such estimates are framed?
And lastly, Whether an occupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, it is impossible for me to give an answer to those Questions at once. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better lay them on the table, so that I May see them in print before I reply to them.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERYes, for to-morrow.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhat of the same nature as that which was addressed to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham. That hon. Gentleman desired to know whether the Government regarded the principle of dual voting as an essential part of their scheme of Reform; and whether, if that proposal were negatived by the House, it would be regarded by them as fatal to the principle of their Bill. Now, he hoped the Government—["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is quite in order in addressing a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but not in entering into any discussion on the subject.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEThe Question he wished to put was, Whether or not the last Government, in dealing with Reform, having refused to answer any inquiry as to the course they would take in the event of certain parts of their Bill being rejected, the present Government would not best consult their own honour—["Order, order!"]
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think, Sir, the proper mode of dealing with these Questions is to give the explanation which may be deemed necessary in fair discussion, when my Colleagues and myself have an opportunity of generally reviewing the whole subject. I cannot help being of opinion that by answering those Questions now, when such an opportunity does not present itself, we may give a very false impression as to the motives by which we are actuated and the object which we desire to attain. It is only when we can avail ourselves of such opportunities as that to which I have referred that the Government will be able clearly to indicate the policy upon which they mean to proceed.