MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10; or, if not, in what respects they differ; whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling houses exclusively; whether the total number of male occupiers stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on Monday consisted exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling houses; whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table their estimates of the numbers of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill, together with the data, so far as they think fit, upon which such estimates are framed; and, whether an oc- 285 cupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, it will be for the convenience of the House and to the right hon. Gentleman if I group the various inquiries made by him. The first two are, of course, fresh in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10;or, if not, in what respects they differ; and whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling-houses exclusively. It appears to me that these two Questions, which really refer to the same point almost, are framed rather under some misapprehension of the character of the measure we have introduced. That measure is entirely a supplementary measure; and it does not at all interfere with any privileges or conditions under the Act of 1832. Therefore, the conditions for voters in boroughs are not the same for voters of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10. We follow precedent in that respect. The qualification of residence under the existing law is in round numbers it residence of one year; and the qualification for the new householders proposed to be enfranchised is to be a residence of two years. There is that difference at once. We follow in that j precisely the precedent set in the Bill of 1854, brought in by Lord John Russell under Lord Aberdeen's Administration, of which Government the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member. That Bill proposed a considerable reduction in the amount of the borough qualification. It was proposed to reduce to a £6 rental. In consequence of that reduction the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed a residence of two years as requisite to the qualification. That is the same period of residence as we propose, without connecting it with a £6 rental, There was 286 a proviso introduced into that measure that the rights and privileges under the Act of 1832 should not be impugned or affected by that arrangement; and there was a saving clause which I hope in more effective language is contained in the present measure—I think it is Clause 40—which entirely preserves all the privileges under the Act of 1832. So far as the present measure of the Government is concerned, that Act of 1832 is preserved in its operation without the slightest interference, I think that is an answer to the first Question. Then the right hon. Gentleman has asked whether it is intended that the occupying franchise in boroughs which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building" is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling-houses exclusively. My previous answer to a certain degree applies to this Question; because, of course, the qualification of a householder under the new franchise is limited to the possession of a house. Any person who occupies a warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building, and being qualified under the present law, would enjoy his franchise in that respect. The reason why we have limited franchise in the Bill to the occupation of dwelling-houses is because there are no warehouses, counting-houses, and scarcely shops at a rating which the Bill particularly deals with. As for other buildings, the including them as elements of qualification would probably lead to considerable fraud. Therefore, we have resolved that it should be a bonâ fide household qualification. The third inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman is, whether the total number of male occupiers stated by me in my speech last Monday consists exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling-houses. No. That is the number of occupations, including, of course, all the enfranchised qualified by the possession of warehouses, counting-houses, and other buildings under the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman inquires whether the Government will lay on the table their estimates of the number of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill. On Saturday morning, I have no doubt that every hon. Gentleman will have I in his hands the most complete information of the amount of the inhabited houses in every Borough, and every possible detail connected with that most important broach of the subject. I believe that to- 287 morrow, if not already distributed, there will be Returns relating to the amounts in respect to the less important franchises, the savings banks, and education franchises. I am not clear whether there are any official Returns as to the amount of franchises arising from property in the funds. It would hardly be convenient to lay on the table an official Return in reference thereto, and it is no great matter if such a Return is not laid on the table. The House, I will assume, will accept the figures on the authority of my statement; but, with regard to the number of voters which may be produced by direct taxation, it is quite impossible for us to give any formal statement to the House. It would take a considerable time to make it out; and even if we had the time, the expense would be so great, that we should hesitate before authorizing the preparation of the Return. There is before the House a variety of documents of considerable importance, which, though they do not form materials from which an estimate could be framed, are of great value and amplitude, and upon which hon. Gentlemen will find it not difficult to arrive at sufficiently satisfactory conclusions. With respect to the question whether an occupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated, I have to state that he certainly would be called on, if he claimed the right to be registered, to pay the same rates as his neighbour. It appears to me that it would be a great injustice to confer upon him a privilege while he was exempted from an accompanying condition to which all other claimants were subjected.
MR. GLADSTONEThere is one point on which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might make his answer more complete, if he will reply to the question I am about to put. I think, under the present law which relates to £10 householders exclusively, there has been a certain ruling that part of a house will be construed as a whole house; will that law apply to householders under £10, or in that case must the entire house be occupied?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERNothing in the Bill applies to houses under £10 which is not definitely 288 and distinctly stated; but, of course, everything relating to £10 and upwards remains as before.