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

INDIA.

Lord STANLEY asked the Secretary of State for India
whether it was his intention to bring in a bill in the course
of the present session for the reconstruction of the Council
of the Governor-General of India, and whether he intended
to bring in a bill for the amendment of the laws relating to
the civil service in India?

Sir C. WOOD said the subjects alluded to had been
under the consideration of her Maje3ty's Government, and
it was his intention to bring in a bill relative to them after
Easter. In the state of public business it was not in his
power to do so at an earlier period of the session.

THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.-RE

FORM BILL STATISTICS.

Lord PALMERSTON roved that the house at its rising
should adjourn till Monday, the 16th inst., a motion to
which he imagined there would be no opposition. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.)

Sir J. PAKINGTON had no intention of dividing the
house upon the motion of the noble lord ; but he wished to
ask the President of the Poor Law Board in what manner
the numbers of houses at various amounts of " gross esti-
mated rental," in the cities and boroughs of England, as
given in the return upon the table of the house, were ascer-
tained. In the course of the debate upon the second reading
of the Reform Bill he stated his belief that this return was
delusive, and that the numbers shown in it were not the
number of houses actually let and rented at the amount
stated in the towns mentioned, but were founded upon a
statement of the number of houses which had in those dif-
ferent places been estimated by local valuers at the different
amounts for purposes of rating. The difference was very
material, because it was notorious that in all places the
valuation upon which premises were rated was less than the
amount for which they would actually let. In support of
his opinion he mentioned that in two places—Pontefract and
Newark—the number of £lO voters upon the register was
greater than the number of £lO houses included in this re-
turn. He was followed in the debate by the right hon. baronet
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who informed him
that he was mistaken, and attributed the discrepancy which
he had pointed out to the circumstance that the scot and
lot voters had been omitted from this return. This might be
so with regard to Pontefract and Newark, but the fact was
that there were no less than 44 boroughs in this return in
regard to which the same anomaly existed, and in many of
which there were no scot and lot voters. In Droitwich, for
instance, there were only a few freemen, and no scot and
lot voters. The number of £lO voters on the register for
that borough was 392, but this return showed only 327
£lO houses. He believed that he had suggested the real
cause of this discrepancy; and it must be evident to any one
That if such was the case the real addition to the constitu-
encies under the Reform Bill would be much larger than
that shown by this return. It had also been suggested to
him that in the case of persons compounding for the pay-
ment of the rates of a large number of houses the number
of compounders, and not the number of tenements com-
pounded for, had been inserted in this return. He should
be glad if the right hon. gentleman the President of the
Poor Law Board could inform the house upon both these
points. _

Mr. C. P. VILLIERS believed that he was in a position
to allay the alarm of the right hon. baronet, and to assure
him that this return was the most complete and accurate
one that had ever been laid before Parliament upon a sub-
ject such as that to which it referred. The discrepancy be-
tween the number of £lO voters upon the register and that
of £lO houses was one which was very likely to exist. In
many places the register had not been properly revised for
many years, and there would therefore remain upon it the
names of persons who were dead or disqualified. There
wouldci
ould also be upon it the names of others whose
ualifica-
ion was Made up partly of a house and partly of land ; and
there would be in addition in some places the scot and lot
voters. These three causes would, be believed, fullyac-
count for the discrepancy in the case of all the 44 boroughs
to which the right hon. baronet had referred. The right e
hon. baronet supposed that the returns represented
merely
the property and not the persons that would be en-
titled to vote. It was not so. A special circular was
sent to the clerk of every union, directing him to make
careful inquiries as to the persons who would be entitled to
vote under a particular qualification, and the returns were
framed upon that principle. Under the Reform Act the
overseer was the person directed to make out the electoral
list. He took it from that column in his book which showed
the gross estimated rental, and not from that which ex-
hibited the rateable value only. The returns, therefore,
were made from the very lists which were now submitted
to the /revising barristers, and upon which the House of
Commons was returned, but they were also drawn up, as he
had stated, with special reference to the persons who would
be entitled to vote. Great pains had been taken to get
return of all occupiers whose rates had been compounded
for by their landlords, and only in a few boroughs, including
some of the metropolitan boroughs, had it been found im-
possible to obtain a list. But additional returns were in
course of being prepared, and he had no doubt that when
the house resumed consideration of the Reform Bill it

would have in its possession full and accurate information
upon all points connected with the scope and effect of that
measure.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said the right hon. gentleman had
not given a distinct answer to his question. What he
wanted to know was, whether the returns represented the
tenements actually let at certain amounts, or the tenements
which appeared on the rate-books estimated according to
their rateable value.

Mr. VILLIERS thought he had already answered that
question. He had stated that the returns represented not
only the property entered on the books of the overseers, but
the persons who would be entitled to vote.
Mr. E. JAMES believed he was correct in saying that the
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when he stated
that his bill would not add more than 210,000 or 217,000
new electors to the existing constituences, underestimated
the probable increase by 200,000 or even 250,000. (Hear,
hear.) In Norwich alone there were no fewer than 12,162
tenements rated to the owners instead of the occupiers,
who, consequently, were not included in the returns. He
believed that in his own borough 5,000 or 6,000 persons
whose names did not appear on the rate-books would be
entitled to vote under a £6 franchise. In Finsbury the
number would be 8, 00•') or 10,000. One landlord might own
a whole street; each house might be subdivided into three
or four dwellings, and, if the landlord did not live in it,
the occupier of each ten etient would be entitled to a vote.
Every one of the 12,162 rev ements in Norwich might pro-
duce two votes, and the Cour t of Common Pleas had decided
that if a landlord paid the rate, s, the tenant was entitled to
vote. He was convinced that ;when the returns were nar-
rowly examined, it would be Round that a £6 franchise
would extend the right of voting .to between 200,000 and
300,000 persons in addition to the number stated by the
noble lord the Seemtau for Foreign _Affairs. (Hear.)
Sir G. GREY tho night the estimate of the hon. and learned
gentleman Was gre qtly exaggerated. Ult proceeded on the

assumption that every man who was included in a compos'i-
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 actual- ly
pay them. He reminded the right hon. member for Dro it-
wich that a return, dated the 10th of March, had been pro-
duced since the return 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 ha
was inclined to think that the majority of the 44 boroughs.
to which the right hon. baronet had referred were borough s
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
£5 ; so that it would be desirable to know how many were
rated between £4 and £6, and how many who inhabited
tenements of £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 that
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, bat 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 number 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 insionificance.
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 ever £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 com-
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
could
ha ciyn, only
d
had instituted, that the returns in question had been pre-
pared with greater care, and were distinguished by greater
a
akthanbff ee
rr
eae
nut returns beforena
sr
os parishes
et
sh me a
firstde o n
column thisv
ari
of
f question
the
much,; r a
eau
-et
be theyoorod
lug to the construction of the necessarily
person who levied the rate.
There was no doubt discrepancy in some of the returns,
but that arose a
in a great
houses also oceupyingmelaansudre from persons who
Inoccu-
pied some of the smaller
boroughs the difference was striking. Thus in Wallingford
there were 369 persons on
the register, but only 357 occu-
piers of £lO houses. At Cricklade ther
on the register, but only 385 £lO occupiers. a wer e 470 subject persons
The: of
compounding was an important mutter,
and he hoped would
receive full consideration.

Mr. J. LOCKE wished to know when a return
in uponn this
should
subject which he had moved for some weeks
be produced. It was most important that the housee ld
know the real number of persons occupying houses the rates
for which were compounded for by the landlord. As re-
garded the borough of Southwark, the Government re-
turns were tolerably accurate, except that they had taken
the register of 1858 as their guide, instead of the register of
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. He wished to
know whether the 200,000 increase spoken of by
the noble
lord would arise only from the new £6 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 Lumbers 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 SPEAKER 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 of previous speakers.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped that the house would not be
called on to discuss the Reform Bill after Easter without