§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose, however, principally because he wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law affecting the rating of Compound Householders claiming to vote at Elections. Before the Reform Bill, an Act was passed providing that in the case of all property of less valuation than £20 a year the owner might be assessed to the poor rates instead of the occupier, but that that should not interfere with the exercise of the electoral franchise by the latter. The Reform Bill laid down the uniform rule that a voter must occupy premises within a borough for one year, and that during such occupation he should be rated for the relief of the poor. Again, in 1836 another Act was passed, directing the overseers, in making out the rate, to insert the names both of owner and occupier, and to place on the list of voters the name of any person occupying property above £10 in value, who claimed to be so registered. Whenever the overseer neglected his duty in that respect, it was competent for the occupier to apply to be registered. In 1851 it was enacted that an occupier having once given such notice to the overseer, and continuing in the same premises, need not repeat it, but should be entitled to be put on the roll. Last year, moreover, in an Act to regulate the assessment of property, it was provided that the rate should be made out in a prescribed form, and should contain the names both of the owner and occupier of the premises. It was therefore beyond all question that the overseer was to insert in the rate-book the names of both owner and occupier, no matter which was charged with the payment of the rates. But overseers had discovered that the power they possessed of putting occupiers on the rate-book might be used for political ends, for they were not bound to make the inquiry as to the occupier at 1365 all costs, but were only required by the Act to insert them as far as they had information on the subject. He did not complain of any overseer who, after taking fair and reasonable trouble, should not be able to ascertain the name of the occupier, and should consequently put the landlord on the rate-book; but where the overseer could obtain the requisite information—where, in fact, he knew the truth—it was his duty to state it on the rate-book. But some overseers were politicians, and they had discovered, that if they omitted an occupier from the rate-book under certain circumstances, they would probably get rid of a voter opposed to them in politics. Another new mode of procedure had also recently been hit upon by overseers which was still more objectionable. Some persons who occupied property which would entitle them to vote in a borough election, finding themselves omitted from the rate-book because the landlord was rated as compounding for the property, gave notice in the usual way to the overseers to have their names put on the rate-book. According to law that had no other immediate effect than making them responsible for their proportion of the rate, but it had also the effect of giving them a right to vote in the election of a member for the borough, provided they continued in the occupation of the property for a whole year. No sooner did the overseer receive the notice than he at once cancelled the rate which had been imposed on the premises, and raised it to a higher standard in respect of the houses occupied by the persons who had given notice. He thus assessed the houses in one row at different rates, leaving the existing assessment upon those occupied by persons who had not claimed to vote, but raising it upon such of the tenants as had requested their names to be put on the rate-book. That might have been done from conscientious motives, but it might also have been done from political motives; and it was therefore a very unsatisfactory state for the law to be in. He did not think Parliament intended that such should be the operation of the law; and, indeed, according to one construction of the original Act which allowed the overseers to rate the landlord, it ought not to be employed in any case at all where it affected the elective franchise. The question had been fairly tried by the tenants, and it bad been held that in point of law the overseers had acted rightly, and that the tenants had no redress. But, on inquiry, he ascertained that in the particular 1366 case to which he referred the overseers had not acted under the general law, but under one of those local Acts which Parliament so frequently passed regulating the assessment and management of particular parishes, and that by that Act the overseers had obtained the right of dealing with compositions as they pleased. Under the general law it was extremely doubtful whether they were not bound in all cases to deal with all houses of the same sort in the same manner. As this confusion of the law affected the right of voting in all cases where property was of the value of between £10 and £20, it was a very serious matter for the consideration of the House and of the Government. Local Acts had been passed for many places in which provision had been introduced for the purpose of regulating the assessment and collection of the rates, but in passing those private Acts the attention of the Committee and of the House had not been drawn to their indirect bearing upon the elective franchise. He should not have introduced the subject if he had thought that they were going to have a Reform Bill next Session, but it was a subject which deserved the serious consideration of the Government; and if they found on inquiry that the numerous private Acts alluded to affected the guestion of electoral rights, he trusted that early next Session they would bring forward a general measure defining so clearly upon what conditions the elective franchise should depend, that it could no longer be tampered with by the overseers of parishes.