{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/aug/22", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/aug/22/local-government-scotland-bill-no-337", "section": "local-government-scotland-bill-no-337", "cue_text": "Cries of \"No, no!\"", "preceding_text": "t the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and reinstate this sub-section in the Bill? From good information he believed what would happen would be simply this: The Amendment would be sent back to another place; they could hardly believe that the Lords would accept it, and a Division would be challenged; if, upon a Division being challenged, there were not 30 Peers pre- 297 sent the Bill would simply drop —"}
{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/aug/22", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/aug/22/local-government-scotland-bill-no-337", "section": "local-government-scotland-bill-no-337", "cue_text": "Cries of \"No!\"", "preceding_text": "lding Leases Committee that even in the bald assertion of the principle there are really more methods and machinery laid down than exists in the Bill as at present. MR. SEYMOUR KEAY I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but as this seems to reflect upon me for having carried an Amendment and not coming forward to provide the proper machinery to carry it out, I desire to remind him——"}
{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/may/03", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/may/03/second-reading-adjourned-debate", "section": "second-reading-adjourned-debate", "cue_text": "Cries of \"No!\"", "preceding_text": "isfranchise him in that constituency, and the justice, right, and policy of such disfranchisement should be established before a procedure of that kind is adopted. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) dissents very much from that view. Let mo suggest to him that if he happened to be walking through the streets of London with two watches, and a gentleman of acquiring habits—"}
{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/may/03", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/may/03/second-reading-adjourned-debate", "section": "second-reading-adjourned-debate", "cue_text": "Cries of \"oh!\"", "preceding_text": "he subject since 1888, but the figures are not very much changed, and the Return for that year shows that in the counties there were 2,061,000 occupying voters, and of these only 10,770 were non-resident; while in the boroughs there wore 1,807,000 occupying voters, and of these the non-resident occupiers in the whole of the boroughs of England and Wales are stated in that Return to number 56,630. "}
{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/may/03", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/may/03/second-reading-adjourned-debate", "section": "second-reading-adjourned-debate", "cue_text": "An hon. MEMBER: The rates.", "preceding_text": "t of any other description of property? Lot us assume a case in Manchester. A man has a place of business or manufactory in Manchester, and has his residence at Bowden or Altrincham. My right hon. and learned Friend says that he ought to 283 have two votes. But why should not a man who has £100,000 Stock in the Manchester Ship Canal have another vote? He has quite as large a stake in the country. "}
{"kind": "bracketed_cue_html", "date": "commons/1804/may/03", "house": "commons", "url": "https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1804/may/03/second-reading-adjourned-debate", "section": "second-reading-adjourned-debate", "cue_text": "Cries of \"No!\"", "preceding_text": "the known world, ought to be disfranchised also. The property owners were to be disfranchised because they were not intelligent, and the Universities because they were too intelligent. The right hon. Baronet also went on to tell them of another anomaly. Irish electors might have plenty of intelligence, but in knowledge of political affairs they were certainly behind the electors of Great Britain. "}