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

assumption that every man who was included in a composi-
tion would be entitled to vote under the Reform Bill. But
that measure would enfranchise only those tenants who oc-
cupied houses of a certain value, and who should not only
become liable to the payment of rates but should actually
pay them. He reminded the right hon. member for Droit-
wich that a return, dated the 10th of March, had been pro-
duced since the raturn to which the right hon. member had
adverted was laid on the table. From this return it ap-
peared that no less than 50 boroughs had scot and lot voters,
some very few, but a great proportion very many, and he
was inclined to think that the majority of the 44 boroughs
to which the right hon. baronet had referred were boroughs

containing scot and lot voters.
Mr. BENTINCK thought it impossible to overrate the
importance of this matter—(hear)—and he did not think
that any satisfactory information had been given to the
House by the Government. He had submitted the return
on the table to a good authority, who stated that, as the
franchise was to be fixed on a £6 rental, the return stopped
short at a point where it was most desirable it should be
continued on ; and the question was raised whether the
£6 rental franchise would not give the right of voting to a
large number who were not rated at £6, and perhaps not at
; so that it would be desirable to know how many were
rated between £4 and £6, and how many who inhabited

tenements of S 6 rental were entitled to vote under the new
Reform Bill. As far as he was able to understand the re-

turns presented to the house, he believed that the noble
lord the member for London was wrong in his calculation
about 100 per cent. (Hear.) It was indispensable that the
house, before coming to a decision on the Reform Bill,
should have in its possession reliable returns, so that the
house might know what it was doing, and not legislate in

the dark. (Hear.)
Sir G. LEWIS observed that it was perfectly certain tha:
the hon. gentleman's authority either did not understand
the subject of rating, or had not examined the return, inas-
much as his criticism was inapplicable to it. The Govern •
ment did not mean to take credit for doing what was their
manifest duty, but the return now on the table was an at-
tempt to lay before the house a complete statistical account
of the basis on which it was proposed to found the new ex-
tended franchise. The instructions for making this return
were very precise and detailed, and certainly the efforts
made by the Government to obtain accurate information
were unquestionably honest and sincere. The house would
hardly suppose that the Government had had any sinister ob-
ject in seeking for this information. (Hear.) The only in-
formation which it was possible for the Government to ob-
tain was an accurate abstract of the poor-rate books, and
such the present return was. He wished the house clearly
to understand what was the nature of that information, be-
cause it certainly was not understood by the correspondent
of the hon. gentleman. According to the existing law, the
rate-book contained two columns, one showing the gross
estimated rental. That column showed, or ought to show,
the rent really paid for the tenement ; and it was his belief
that in the great majority of instances it did fairly indicate
the real rental. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps the right hon.
baronet had confounded two different things. The second
column represented the rateable value upon which the rate
was actually assessed, that being subject to certain legal
deductions for repairs and insurance, so that it was con-
siderably reduced from the gross estimated rental ; and it
was also sometimes further reduced by improper deductions
made by overseers. The rateable value did not exhibit the
rental, but the first column did in the great majority of in-
stances. It had been said that the return did not go low
enough, and that the house did not know the total number
of persons whose rental was £6, because the rateable value
was lower than the rent ; but he thought that it would
turn out on investigation that the figures in this return in
respect of the gross estimated rental of £6 would accurately
represent, with the exception of tenants compounding for
their rate, the total number of occupiers to that amount to
be enfranchised under the Reform Bill, subject, of course,
to further deductions to be made for various causes con-
nected with the qualification. With respect to those cases
adverted to by the right hon. baronet, where the number of
persons on the register was greater than the number of £lO
householders as exhibited by the return, it would be found
in many instances that if the scot and lot voters were de-
ducted the discrepancy would be explained, and the excess
in other cases might be owing to the causes which had been
explained.
Lord STANLEY said that with respect to the borough
he represented the return gave an addition by the operation
of the new Reform Bill of 50 per cent. to the number of
electors, but the result of careful local inquiries made the
addition between 90 and 100 per cent. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS thought it quite evident that the returns
were made on a principle calculated to be very fallacious.
The hon. and learned member for Marylebone stated that
after careful examination the proposed bill would add 450,000
electors, instead of 220,000 to the borough constituencies.
His right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) had received letters
from various boroughs informing him that the number of
electors under the bill would be much larger than that stated
in the return ; and the noble lord (Lord Stanley) had de-
clared that, instead of 50 per cent., the number of electors
in his borough would be increased from 90 to 100 per cent.
When by the side of these statements it was remembered
that the Foreign Secretary had made a strong impression
on the house by affirming that his bill would only add
220,000 to the borough constituencies, he asked whether the
point now under discussion did not raise considerations of
the highest possible importance. (Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment were making an experiment upon the constitution
of the country which, as men of all parties acknowledged,
was fraught with the greatest peril. (No.) The hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham, and those who agreed with him, might
think that there was no danger in intrusting the representa-
tion to mere numbers, without regard to education or pro-
perty ; but it was impossible to go into society or to con-
verse with hon. members generally without finding a wide-
spread apprehension of the consequences which would follow
from the admission of such a horde of voters. (Hear, hear.)
If, then, there was danger in giving the franchise to 220,000
additional voters, what was the peril when they found
that the total num'rer enfranchised in boroughs would be
nearer 500,000? (Hear.) The Government had no doubt
acted with fairness in making these returns, but the fact
that it was the first attempt to obtain accurate information
on the subject afforded conclusive evidence that the returns
could not be depended upon. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the
house would not be induced to take this leap in the dark on
a subject in comparison with which all others that could
come before them sank into inshrnificance.
Mr. AYRTON thought that much of the difference of
opinion which had been expressed arose from confusing two
things which were really quite distinct. One question was
as to the number of persons in the towns of England who
occupied houses of £6 value. Now, in point of fact, every
working man in the least degree skilled in his calling paid
a rent of 2s. 6d. a week, or over £6 a year. Theoretically,
therefore, all these persons would be entitled to vote, but
in point of fact none of them would. Take the Tower Ham-
lets as an example. In that borough there were 84,000
houses, and theoretically there were now 60,000 persons en-
titled to vote, but in reality under 30,000 were on the re-
gister. This was owing to the difficulties which the bill of
1832 threw in the way of a vote, and which the present
measure perpetuated, the result being that while, if you
adopted the theoretical view of the case, you would find
500,000 or 600,000 persons entitled to vote in boroughs,
practically that number was restricted to one-fifth or one-
sixth. Under the existing law no man who lived in a corn •
pounded house could get a vote unless his landlord choose ;
and altogether a very large number of persons were and
would be unable to get the votes nominally conceded to
them by the Act of 1832 and the present measure.
Mr. BONHAM-CARTER believed, from inquiries he
had instituted, that the returns in question had been pre-
pared with greater care, and were distinguished by greater
which inn
roculudracoy, than any Before made on this question • ' but they
returnsydibffeereut
of
parishesth ensfiaersstsacriollyumvairiioefd the
mu erha,te-book,
accord-
ing to the construction of the person who levied the rate.
There was no doubt
gr aeadtiscrepancy in some of the returns,
but that arose in a
houses also occupying measurelanfrom persons who occu-
piedd. .
In
st
tsome
boroughsere
were 369
the differenceperspersona
on the
was striking. Thus
?inf
Wallingfordthe smaller
h
register, but only 357 occu-
piers of £lO houses. At Cricklhe reeh4o7p.Oe personshoped
N.
would
therele
andr sw. The.subject of
on the register, but only
compounding was an imp3oBrtsanltlCimrtZP,
oNneu thisld
receive full consideration.
Mr. J. LOCKE wished to know when a return p
subject which he had moved for some weeks sinceu v
be produced. It was most important that the house should
know the real number of persons occupying houses the rates
except that they had taken
h
for which were compounded for by the landlord. As re-
garded the borough of Southwark, the Government re-
turnse e g
i stewereaccurate
i d?, instead of the register of
the register
r oftolerablylBsB
a s
their gu
1859. The number of electors in 1858 was 10,600, but in
1859 it was upwards of 11,000. In the column showing the
number of houses rated at £lO and upwards, 16,000 was
inserted, leaving a difference of 6,000 between the number
of electors and the number of qualifying houses. The ex-
pected addition to the constituency by extending the fran-
chise to £6 occupiers was 3,000, so that the real addition to
the constituency might be about 9,000. Ho wished to
know whether the 200,000 increase spoken of by the noble
lord would arise only from the new SG voters, or whether
any calculation had been made of the number of those
who were entitled to be upon the register but were not
there. He thought the Government ought to take care
and provide a proper machinery for the working of a new
Reform Bill. There were several Corrupt Practices Bills
introduced by private members before a committee, and
it was absolutely necessary that a Reform Bill should
be accompanied by something of that kind to make
it work. (Hear, and a laugh.) It would be impossible to add
so many electors to the constituencies and leave them with
out any assistance to enable them to vote. In the Reform
Bill of the late Government there was a provision for addi-
tional polling places—(hear)—but in the present bill there
was nothing of the kind.
The SPEAKET, intimated that as the Corrupt Prac-
tices Bill and the Reform Bill were measures before the
house to be discussed upon a future occasion, thehon. mem-
ber
was irregular in commenting upon them at present.
Mr. LOC K E apologised for any unintentional irregularity
but
had only followed the example ofprevious speakers.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped that
ped that the house would not be
called on to discuss the Reform Bill after Easter without