§ MR. GOSCHENasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will. 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, "nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated," have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session: Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session: Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not, 516 is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself: Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier: Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote: And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALIn answer to the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite willing to give my individual opinion on the section of the Act of Parliament and the law as it now stands. The first Question is—
Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will, 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, 'nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated,' have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session?As far as I can see, those provisions have not been modified in any way. The second Question is—Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session?As far as I can see, there is no form given by the 2 Will. IV. c. 45; and if since the Act of last Session a claim is made to be rated in pursuance of that Act, that is all that is required from the occupier who desires to be put upon the rate book. The next Question is—Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be 517 rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not, is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself?In my judgment that protection does continue, because it will be found that the Act of 1832 is, by Section 59 of the new Act, incorporated with that Act and made part of the Act itself. The fourth Question put to me is—Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier?The Question may be answered in this way—The 3rd section of the new Act points out who is to be entitled to the franchise, and the person entitled as an occupier of a dwelling-house must have been rated and must have paid his rates. No substantial alteration in the law is made by the Act of last Session. Certain things must appear on the rate book or else the occupier is not rated as is required in order that he may obtain the franchise. He is therefore in the same position as the occupier was before; and as regards misnomers and inaccuracies, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is an Act, 6 Vict., which provides that many of these inaccuracies shall not vitiate the entry on the rate book. In other respects the occupier remains in the same position as before the late Act passed. The next Question is—Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote?In reply to that, I beg to say that I believe it will be found that since the last Act occupiers of blocks are in precisely the same position as before. When owners choose to let their houses in flats, as in Victoria Street, a difficulty did before exist, and the same difficulty will exist still. However, under the 7th section of the late Act, the overseers are required to ascertain the occupiers of each separate house within the meaning of the Act, and to put their names upon the rate book. The last Question is— 518And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately?My answer is that they should at once give notice to the overseer that they claim to be occupiers within the entire block, and they would have a right to appeal in the event of the overseer not rating them separately. And if complaint should be made that the overseer wilfully or maliciously refused to rate them separately, an action might lie against the overseer for so refusing. I have now answered the Questions as well as I can. These are my individual opinions on the subject; but it is difficult in a question of this kind to go into all the reasons for such opinions.
§ SIR WILLIAM HUTTsaid, that in the borough he represented (Gateshead) the overseer, while rating to the poor the occupiers of those houses which were formerly compounded for, took a different course in their case from that which he pursued with respect to the occupiers of separate tenements. In respect to those houses he placed on the book not the occupier, but the owner; and under these circumstances the occupiers would not be qualified. He wished to ask the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the overseer had taken a sound view of this portion of the Reform Act?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALI think that the view which has been taken by the overseer is wrong; because under the 7th section it will be found that after the passing of the Act no owner of a dwelling-house shall be rated to the poor rate instead of the occupier, except as thereinafter mentioned; and the next clause is that the full rateable value of every dwelling-house, the rate, and the name of the occupier shall be entered upon the rate book.