The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-22 00:00:00

REWARDS TO INVENTORS.

Sir G. STUCLEY asked the Secretary of State for War
bow he proposed to divide the sum of .£22,800 as a reward
to inventors, and who were the inventors to be rewarded ?

Sir J. PAKINGTON said nothing had been decided
until tho amount to be awarded to Major Palliser had been
decided upon

THE REFORM BILL.

Mr. H. VIVIAN asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether a forty shilling freeholder, residing on his own
freehold within a borough, and paying rates, would not
become a borough voter, and thereby lose his county
qualification under the proposed Reform Bill ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if he
dwelt in his own house, subject of course to the regula-
tions of the existing law.

Mr. GLADSTONE asked the following questions .
1. Whether the conditions of voting in boroughs, so 'far
as they are affectekby the bill of the Government, are to
be the same for occupiers of the value of £lO and upwards
as they are for occupiers under £lO ; and if not, in what
respect they differ ? 2. Whether it is intended by the bill
that the occupier franchise in boroughs, which now depends
upon the occupation of any house, warehouse, counting-
house, shop, or other building, is henceforth to depend
upon the occupation of dwelling-houses exclusively. 3.
Whether the total niunb2r of male occupiers, stated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on Alouday.
consists exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling-houses?
4. Whether her Majesty's Government will lay upon the
table their estimate of the number of voters to be enfran-
chised under the several clauses of the bill, together with
the data, so far as they think fit, on which such estimates
are framed? 5. Whether the occupier claiming to be re-
gistered underclause 34, when the composition, or other re-
duced rate on the premises has been duly paid by the land-
lord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference be-
tween such reduced rate and the rote which would have
been chargeable uporehite if he had been directly rated ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
first two questions were founded upon a misapprehension
of the character of the measure. lt was merely a supple-
mentary one, and did not interfere with the privileges
under the- act of 1832, therefore the conditions
were not the same. With respect to residen-
jel qualification, they had followed the precedent

laid down in the bill introduced by Lord Aberdeen and
Lord John Russell in 1854. The bill proposed a resi-
dential qualification of two years, and therefore they had
adopted it. The bill of the Government preserved all the
privileges of the Act of 1832. The words dwelling house
had been introduced into the measure because it was
deemed sufficient, the words "other buildings" being
thought likely to lead to fraud. With reference to the
number of voters, on Saturday a return would be in the
hands of members with respect to the savings Lanks and
minor qualifications; but as regarded the statistics of the
entire number of voters, it would be quite impossible to
produce them without incurring great expense, and then
they would scarcely be produced in time to be of service.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked another question with respect
to the compound householders.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would become entitled to the franchise upon being called
upon to pay the same rates as his neighbours, otherwise an
injustice would be committed, and nothing applied to the
£5 unless expressed in the bill.