The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-28 00:00:00

BRIDGE OVER THE NORE.

Mr. SULLIVAN asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether his attention had been directed to the two
reports of Capt. Tyler as to the state of security of the
Lattice Bridge over the Noro near' Thomas Town, county
Killconny, and whether he was disposed to' enforce the
adoption of the recommendation of the Government engi-
neer without delay.

Mr. M. GIBSON acid that the Board of Trade had no
power t' enforce the i•ecornmendation of the Government
engineer ; but a communication had been received from the
company stating thai they were ready to carry out the
suggestions of Captain Tyler.

Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Smietary of State for India,
whether he had received any official notice of the origin
and causes of the late disturbances among the ryots in
Lower Bengal.
Sir C. WOOD said that he was not in a position to
afford any official information on the subject.

GAS.

In reply to Mr. l' Y:1
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the Board of Trade were not
responsible for the act on the subject of gas, which had been
passed by Parliament. All that the Board of Trade had to
do with the matter was that when they had been written to by
the Treasury to know whether the act was practicable, and
having conferred witlrthe Astronomer Royal, they returned
an answer in the affirmative. The Board of Trade could
not give any legal explanation et the clauses of the act.
ASSESSMENT TO TIIE POOR.
Sir M. FARQUHAR ashed the President of the Poor
Law Board, whether, in obtaining returns of male persons
resident within each Parliamentary city and borough in
England and Wales, 'or within seven miles thereof, assessed
tnthe last poor-rate r_-.ade before the 7th Nov,, 1859, at
£6, £7, £B, £9, arid f.elO and over, instructions were not
issued for returns, mid returns made, of malcoccupiers at
£5 and under £6 ;" and, if so, why such information was not
given hi the return of male Occupiers, No. 124, of the pre-
sent session. He contended that-the returns on which the
Reform Bill 'was based as regarded rating were not accu-
rate. The rated rental: did not .represent the actual rent,
which in;rnany was a third doter as in the case of Windsor.
Mr.tatlEßS said" thitt the instructions alluded to bid

been issued and exten•led to all occupiers. These returns
were not made to the house, but procured solely
for the information of the Government prior to
introducing the Reform Bill, and when Government
decided on a £6 franchise it was not thoug t necessary
to bring forward any information rel t ive to any
amount of rental besides that specifiel. However,

it had been moved for and would be laid o a the table. There
was not the slightest reason for alleging y inaccuracy in
the returns, and when they were impugned they had been
inquired into and found quite correct.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he did not deny the ac-
curacy of these returns, so far as being correct with the
rate books ; but ho complained that they made an erroneous
impression in the house. Did the hon. member (Mr. Vil-
liers) mean that these were merely correctly copied from
the rate-books ?
Mr. VILIAERS—Yes.
Sir J. FAKING TON—Then, a correct answer had not
been given to the question asked on the subject. He had re-
ceived ' communications from different parts of
the country corroborating his (Sir J. Pakington's)
statement. The writers said the returns afforded
no information whatever relative to the affect
on the franchise. He had also received a letter from a re-
vising barrister, which not being stated to be confidential,
he would communicate the contents to the house. The writer
said he revised three of the most important boroughs in Staf-
ford, and that the Home Secretary was in error, in. sayingthat
these returns represented the real value of rental. In some
eases the rental was described as 410, while it fell short of
£6.

After a few remarks from Lord STANLEY and Mr. HEN
LEY,

Mr. PAGET said that in reference to Nottingham in a
great. number of cases the gross estimated rental accurately
represented the real rental, and the effect of the £6 fran-
chise would be to increase the constituency of Nottingham
to the same extent that was described by the returns.
Mr. J. EWART also bore testimony to the correctness
of the returns, as giving a fair representation of the increase
that would result to constituenciee.

Mr. WALroLE and Sir S. ESTCOURT argued on the other

side.

Mr. BRIGHT said that he agreed with hon. members
who considered information should be afforded with respect
to those paying a rental of £5, which would show what
a vast amount would be excluded from the franchise by
the Reform Bill. (Laughter.) In the borough which
he represented he saw the instructions that had been
sent by the President of the Poor Law Board,
and he referred them to a gentleman better acquainted
with those matters, and he stated that nothing could
be devised in a more comprehensive spirit, or more
likely to realise a correct result. That borough contained
hundreds and thousands of parisbes, and he made similar
inquiries in reference to Birmingham, Manchester, and Sal-
ford, and his information was similar. He did not deny that
it was probable that in certain cases from want of intelli-
gence the parties to whom these instructions were entrusted
might not have been accurate in their returns. Ho contended
that hon. members opposite were not pursuing a fair course
towards the Government in this matter.
Sir M. FARQUHAR explained that he had asked the
question in ne hostile spirit to the Government, and that
his sole object was to get information. (Hear.)
Mr. KENDALL was informed that, in the borough of
Bodmin, which he had the honour to represent, the differ-
ence between the gross and actual rental of houses varied
from 30 to 35 per pent. He believed that a Reform Bill
founded on the present returns would be a complete failure.