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

LOCAL METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT.

Mr. TITE gave notice that he would move for leave to
bring in a bill to amend the management of the metropolis.

THE REFORM BILL.

Mr. STUART gave notice of a motion to the effect that
in any extension of the franchise it should include persons
possessed of intelligence and education, as well as those
paying a certain amount of rent.

OFFICE OF CORONER.

Mr. COBBETT- asked the Secretary of State for tho
Home Department whether it was his inten,tion to propose
to Parliament any measure to carry into effect the recom-
mendations of the Select Committee on the Office of
Coroner.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he was prepared to adopt
certain amendments recommended by the committee, t 6
which the bill on this subject had been referred, but he,
could not agree to the chief recommendation, namely, the
adoption of payment by salary to coroners.
TOLL GATES.

In reply to Mr. INGRAM,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the notice in question had
been duly given and could not form any subject for public
animadversion. He thought it desirable that some of the
tollgates near the metropolis should be abolished; but in
the state of public business he was not prepared to bring
in a bill on the subject this session.
TRADE IN COOLIES.

Mr. BUXTON asked the. Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs what steps the Government were taking to stop the
slave trade in coolies between China and Cuba ?'
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the trade alluded, to was
carried on with great secrecy; but stops were being taken
by the allied Powers to suppress such a nefarious traffic.
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 Nore near Thomas Town, county
Kilkenny, and, whether he was disposed to enforce the
adoption of the recpmmendation of the Government engi-
neer without delay.

Mr. M. GIBSON said that the Board of Trade had no
power tl enforce the recommendation of the Government
engineer ; but a communication had been received from the
company stating that they were ready to carry out the
suggestions of Captain Tyler.

KINNAIAD asked the S3cretary 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. Byer°,
Mr, N. 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 writtento by
the Treasury to know whether the act was practicable, and
having conferred with the Astronomer Royal, they returned
an answer in the affirmative. .The Board of Trade could
not give any legal explanation of the clauses of the act.

ASSESSMENT.TO,TIIE POOR,
Sir M. FARQUILAIt ashed the President cf 'the Poor
r
Law Board, whether, in obtainingeturnti of male persons
resident, within each Parliamentary city and borough in
England and S'Vales, or within seven miles thereof, assessed
fo the last poor-rate trade before the 7th Nov., 18i9, at
£6, .47, £B, £O, and 1:10 and over, instructions were not
issued for retnrns, and returns made, of male occupiers at
£5 and under £6 ;' and, if so, why such inforrhation was not
given in 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 many was a third lower Rh in the case of Windsor.
Mr, VILLIERS said that the instructions alludedlo had

been issued and extended to all cccupiers. 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 thong' t necessary
to bring • forward any information rel i ive to any
amount of rental besides that specifi 1. However,
it had been moved for and would be laid o a ihe 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 he 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. VILLIERS—Yes.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—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 effect
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-
fo-d, and that the Home Secretary was in error, in saying that
these returns represented the real value of rental. In some
cases the rental was described as £lO, 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 constituencies.
Mr. WALPOLE and Sir 5. 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 hid 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 parishes, 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 fremn want of intelli-
gence the parties to whom these instructions were entrusted
might not have been accurate in their returns. He 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 no hostile spirit to the Goyemment, and that
his sole object was to get information. (Hear.)
Mr. ItENDALL 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 cent. He believed that a Reform Bill
founded on the present returns would be a complete failure.