The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-23 00:00:00

Tacut : of a plot of ground, valued at 101. a year. He saw no resson why this privilege to the sons of freemen, aged twenty, sh..uld be taken away, thus robbing them of a reversionary int -rest. In Newcastle-under-Lyre the freemen were en tit'. <1 to freedom of stalls from toll, and of this their sons svculd be deprived. In Daventry there was a privilege of pas swage to no less than 4,217 acres of land, which was of the :slue of 251. a year to each burgess. Another class of co I.nrate rights was proposed to be abolished by the Bill of tbs Noble Lord. He alluded to the deprivation of the rights app:staining in the regular course of time to children of free nacs. and to those who had nearly served their apprenticeship, the right of voting for Members of Parliament—a right pro p° ed to be continued to the present possessors by the Noble L rii himself, and the principle of which was lately discussed an ; approved of, not under the press of any embarrassing op -ition, but in a House friendly to him and his measures.— ir, and ci ies of " No.") These privileges were intro duced by the Noble Lord into the amended Reform Bill sub set 'ently to the Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords, int;s,deced as an improvement, and the Noble Lord thereby pl pledged himself that the corporate right of voting should be maintained in perpetuity.—( Hear, hear.) That was the time when the principle of this part of the subject should s have been fairly discussed, and these corporate rights openly ,'averted, if the Noble Lord had thought such encroachments ess s ntial to the principle of reform.—(Hear.) Now, how ever, when the principle under discussion had no relation to right of voting for Members of Parliament, but to the better government of Corporations, the Noble Lord proposed to unsettle and civerthrow what he had established by his pre vi.)ll3 Bill. He thooght that this was an inconsistency of pro ceeding which the Noble Lord would not easily be able to re concile to the satisfaction ,'f the House. But, independent f the inconsistens,' displaysd is: the introduction of this clause 11.- the Noble Lord, he must confer that he decidedly dis liised the spirit of the Proposition in itgf4f- Its object obvi ously was to deprive ti:'t poor of all re psssentation, of all shadow or participation of pOwer , w ithin the wa.!_is of Parlia rr cot. He thought that the m anifestations of this e ngrossing spirit was peculiarly ill-timed and u.'".lwise at this critical period, when the injudicious working of the I:0 or Law Bill had giverl rise to such re-action throughout the couery. Sir M. W. RIDLE Y rose to second the motion, and ex pressed his suprise that several Hon. Memllers should take the liberty of indulging in a sneer whenever the word freem:n As mentioned. It was hereby proposed to deprive freemen of the right of voting for Common Councilmen in their own corporations. This was a decided injustice, which no excuse -whatever could suffice to establish the expediency of. Then the chartered rights of apprentices, both in expectancy and in existence, were wholly disregarded. The apprentice had pro b .bly paid his master a large sum of money to learn his trade, asd thereby step into the possession of corporate privileges, which were now to be annulled as far as his claims were con cerned. Thus they would cancel the contract between mas t( s and apprentice. All the ties of civil society which hitherto held these classes together for their mutual benefit, were torn asunder. All was confusion and disorder. The motion was then read from the Chair as an amend ment. Mr. PR AED was not aware that his instruction to the Committee would be put in that shape. It placed him under a disadvantage that he did not expect. Lord J. RUSSELL did not quite understand the Hon. Member for Yarmouth's views for the improvement of Corpo rations (recapitulating the terms in which Mr. Praed had drawn up his instructions to the Committee), but perfectly agreed in the concluding desire therein expressed, " to pre serve the rights and privileges of freemen, as far as may be consistent with the future good government of Corporations." A laugh.) It would appear, however, that the Hon. Member's feeling on the matter was to leave the Corporations untouched. In this he could not agree with him. It was the great object of the Reform Bill to extend the right of voting s for Members of Parliament. That Bill, however, must only be considered a step in the consideration of the subject of Corporate Reform.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that Llght that he had therein extended that right of voting to the freemen in Corporations ; but that was not his wish, nor did it form part of his original plan in the first Bill.—(Hear.) The clauses recognising various corporate privileges had sub sequently been adopted as amendments, which were felt to be Lecessary to carry the Bill through the Lords. The fact 14 - 13 that several bad and noxious alterations had been made in the first Bill in the Upper House, and "we (said the Noble Lord) found it advisable to adopt the least bad in the shape of amendments, such as those that preserved the right of voting to freemen in Corporations, as necessary evils, to enable us to pass the Bill in its present shape—( Hear)—but I should have much preferred the first Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The question of Corporate Reform now for the first time comes fairly before us, and it is asserted that the freemen should still be allowed to retain in perpetuity their corporate proper ties and right of voting. This, however, would be quite in consistent with the contemplated municipal reform which pro poses to extend the right of voters to the ratepayers and respectable inhabitants in general ; and I decidedly object to the continuance of the power of voting in the hands of the freemen, whose existence, as a separate class, it is well known, leads to the greatest bribery and corruption." He would re ccmmend those who were inclined to leave things as they were ia corporations to read attentively the report of the Ipswich Committee, which would be laid before the House on Wed nesday next. where the most striking instances would be found •)1 the venality which characterised the ordinary routine of the admission of freemen, and by which it plainly appeared that the impelling motive was to gain the power of voting for the candidate who paid their expenses--( Hear.) Thus, for even years previous to, and ending with, the election of 1826, there were 1,873 freemen admitted, and 1,000 of these were registered just before the election.—( Hear.) At Mahon a similar state of things was obvious from the examination of the registry. In 1811 there were 341 freemen admitted; in 1812, the year of the election, 5,997 ; in 1817 were admitted 1,715 ; rud in 1818, for election purposes, 8,889. What would the lion. Member for Newcastle say to this ? In 1825 only 2,655 were admitted, while next year there were 10,797.---( Hear.) Now, instead of leaving the power of voting in the hands of such individuals, who only paid anything, or were paid for, in one year, it was proposed to throw the privilege open to the rste-payers who should have paid up their rate for three years. lfe had been accused of harshness as well as inconsistency, but Le f e lt that this was the least harsh remedy that could be adop ted to meet the enormous evil. Any palliative of less efficacy would only tend to postpone the period of real Reform. As to the injury inflicted on those who had not yet attained the age of twenty-one, by shutting them out from the rights of free men, he believed it could n 'tbe helped. Some line of demar cation should be drawn, and it it were overstepped in favour of the individual twenty years and elev,'n months old, there would be no just defence against the claims fir those younger and younger still, down to the child of five years old. Nay, the wives of freemen would have as good a right to ~aim similar rights for their children yet to be born, on the same principle, if we wish to avoid being censured as harsh in granting tlO l l to those already born.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He thought tu it if the proposed measure was good, the sooner it could be i - ,troduced in corporations, the better. He must therefore up nose the amendment of the Hon. Member for Yarmouth, which could only have the effect of invalidating the effects of he Bill, and postponing to a longer period the eradication of that bribery and corruption whose existence was so notorious Corporations. Colonel SI BTH ORP made some observations, the import of which we could not precisely catch, on Lord John Russell's management of the Reform Bill. Mr. ROBINSON said the Noble Lord had travelled quite ,Nicie of the question. He had not touched on the points cc hich the Hon. Member for Yarmouth had pressed on his attention. He had not ventured to defend the contemplated scizure of individual property, and did not appear to under ! rand his Hon. Friend's appeal in behalf of the freeman's franchise, touching his right to vote for Members of Par liament, not members of the Common Council. Mr. O'CONNELL—That right is not touched by this Bill. Mr. ROBINSON, in continuation, contended that great allowance should be made for the class of freemen, many of !torn were in extreme poverty, and of whom it might be :aid that their poverty corrupted them. He had himself great experience on this subject. Mr. O'CONNELL—Hear, hear. (A laugh.) Mr. ROBINSON declared that the corporation of Wor cester had not supported him, and that he did not feel himself ound to support the principle of corporate monopoly, but he would not consent to disfranchise the freemen by a side wind. Mr. HUME impressed upon the House the necessity of proceeding clause by clause through the Bill, otherwise they ,could never get on. He proposed that they should now con. hoe their attention to the 9th clause. They were all agreed, is ith the Hon. Member for Tamworth, that s o me Reforms must take place, and they only remained to be separately con sidered and determined. For his own part he felt convinced `hat as long as the freemen were allowed to enjoy their here i.,:ary rights and privileges, they could have no good govern ment in Corporations. Lord SANDON agreed with Mr. Hume, that it would be best to consider the Bill by its consecutive clauses. He was somewhat surprised at the very extraordinary intimation af- Forded them by the Noble Lord, that the object of the present Bill was not to reform the Corporations, but to repeal the Reform Bill. He was happy, however, that he had at last t'iought proper to throw off the mask, and avow his dislike to the Reform Bill, into which, it seems, he consented to insert bad and noxious matter," favourable to the Corporate rights, to enable him to push it through the Lords. " What a pity," exclaimed Lord Sandon, " that his Lordship did not tell us s' at the time..—( Hear, hear ) It appears now, however, that I,e thinks he can accomplish the task of bringing back the Reform sill to the state in which he first presented it to the public, and thus virtually destroy the rights then secured to freemen."—( Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he had said the intention of the Bill before the House was to affect any provision of the Reform Act. His Noble Friend the Member for Liverpool ;tad said he (Lord J. Russell) had thrown off the mask. Now Le de.nied having in any one respect changed his opinions ; they had always been the same. Lord SANDON reminded the Noble Lord that his inten tions, as expresd by himself, were to bring back the Reform Act to the standard of the original Bill. Lord STANLEY tri:Ated that the House would adopt the course pointed out to it by Hon. Member for Middlesex and his Noble Friend the Membe for Liverpool, in respect to the motion of the Hon. and Lea,7. Tied Member for Yar mouth.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member had most unfairly brought forward his motion at the moni:"nt. when the Bill was about to _committed ; although the prinC i ule in volved in it could be hs well discussed in the Committee a.; P 2 the House. 'The Committee was the fittest place for it ; and he (Lord Stanley) was, in common with the whole House, most anxious that it should go thither without delay.—( Hear.) The motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman involved two questions,,the first related to the inchoate right of the - !;:b. • THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1835 descendants of freemen ' • the second to those absolut e r ights reserved to them by the Reform Act, as it wereby speciA con tract. These two subjects were so distinct in their nature, that he ( Lord S.) did not for a moment wish them to be mixed up with each other. Both were important, and the prejudices which might attach to the House in favour of one should not be made to serve in aid of the other. That was the reason he con sidered the mode taken by the Hon. and Learned Member in bringing them forward together as unfair. His ( Lord S.'s) Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the Bill before the House was not intended to affect the Reform Act. He (Lord Stanley) gave his Noble Friend the fullest credit for his good intentions; but it was not to be concealed from the House for a moment that such would be the result if the Bill, as it stood, should pass into a law. However, as that would form a distinct subject for discussion at a future stage of the measure, he should not observe further on it. He wished the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member to bo dis cussed in Committee. The SPEAKER said the Noble Lord was under a mistake as to the nature of the Hon. and Learned Member for Yar mouth's motion. It was not moved as an instruction to the Committee, but as a specific motion. Mr. PRAED—After the expression of feeling, on the part of the House, which he had just witnessed—and after what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, should not press his motion. The Hon. and Learned Member then withdrew his motion, giving, at the same time, notice of an amendment to a similar effect on the 9th clause. The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill. —Clause 1. Sir R. PEEL inquired of the Noble Lord opposite what he intended to do with the schedule to the clause—(as we un derstood) ? Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that it would be placed at the end of the Bill. Mr. SHAW wished to know whether by this clause any right of voting for Members of Parliament at present possessed by freemen would be continued in them for life ? Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply that the Bill would not prejudice the rights at present possessed by freemen of voting for Members of Parliament. Sir R. PEEL wished to know, as the Bill went to repeal certain charters granted by the Crown to corporate bodies, and as by these charters the Crown possessed aright of nominating nfficers to these Corporations--mayors in some instances, baii;.4.s and town clerks in others—whether it was not neces sary to the Royal consent to this effect before the measure proceeded fur:. / .'er" Sir J. c Amphf LL said that it was not necessary to have the Royal consent as a r ;:eliminary, as the King's rights in no instance would be affected by he Bill. Sir R. PEEL thought that the Hon. and Learned Gentle man would find in the course of the dis;ussion on the measure that the Crown had certain rights in some C9rporations. He trusted that if it were so the Noble Lord would at some future state of the Bill take such steps as the exigency required. Mr. O'CONNELL said that it would be time enough to entertain the subject mooted by the Right Hon. Baronet when a specific case was pointed out to the Committee. To prove any invasion of the personal rights of the Crown it would be necessary first to prove that they existed. Mr. J. JERVIS knew several Corporations to which the Crown had a right of nominating the chief officers. Mr. BLACKBURNE believed it would be found that the Crown had no such right in any great number of places. He only recollected one place in North Wales in which it was so. In one or two places the Crown had a right of appointing the town clerks, and also the recorders. But the continuance of the nomination to the latter office was provided for by the Bill, and the former were too few to make even an exception. ..... _ . Mr. JERVIS said that in the boroughs of Carnarvon and Conway, as well as three or four other places (which he named, but so indistinctly that we could not catch them), were cases in point. In these the Crown had the right of nomination. In fact he believed that through the entire of North Wales the privilege of nomination to the chief offices of Corporations and boroughs was in the Crown. Lord J. RUSSELL would institute immediate inquiry into the subject. Captain ELPHINSTONE wished to know whether the change of Corporations would affect the patronage of chari ties vested in them ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the patronage of charities would be continued in the Mayor and Common Council. . _ . _ Sir R. PEEL perceived, On looking over schedules A and B, that some Parliamentary boroughs and some Corporations were not included in them. He wished to know of the Noble Lord whether it was his intention to leave them in the pre sent state, and on what grounds they were excluded from the schedules? Was it that they were too small to be worthy of notice? Or was it from any particular cause? Lord J. RUSSLLL said that some of them were ex cluded, because they were too small; others for especial reasons. Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether the Noble Lord meant that the population was too few in number? Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the affirmative. Mr SC ARLETT wished to believe the Bill was one not intended to destroy, but amend Corporations—not as a party, but as a political measure—and therefore he could not help deprecating the unseemly haste with which it was about to be urged through the House. It comprised the essence of one hundred Bills, each of which should receive more con sideration than the Bill before the House appeared destined to receive. The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 was also ordered to stand part of the Bill, with some verbal alterations, after a brief conversation, in which Messrs. C. Buller, H. Twiss, C. W. Wynn, and Lord J. Russell took part. Clause 3. Mr. SCARLETT wished to know the reason why the style of the Corporations was changed? And why, if it were so changed, it was not the mayor, common council, and citi zens, rather than the mayor and common council ? The paucity of the title was a proof of the poverty of the imagina tion of those who gave it a name.—( Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL said the title of mayor and council in cluded that of citizen. Mr. WYNN said that where there were wards there should be aldermen to preside over them. He wished to know how, as there was no mention made of aldermen in the Bill, that difficulty was provided for? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Bill would change the name of aldermen to common councillors ; but (as we under stood) not their functions in that respect. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that aldermen were not a necessary part of a corporation. There were many corporations which had no aldermen. He thought the adoption of an invariable style in respect to corporations would be of infinite advantage to the community at large. Mr. H. HUGHES wished to be informed what was to be done in those places which bad no mayor, but were governed by a bailiff? Mr. O'CONNELL deprecated the time consumed in these nemi;f'ss questions. Mr. sC . kRL ETT proposed an amendment on the clause. It was to the ef fect that the corporations should be styled the mayor, aldermen, ed burgesses of —. He thought it would be a great injury to the community at large, as well as an act of gross injustice to the individuals, if the body of al dermen were to be abolished. It would be extremely hard upon these gentlemen, all of whom were of a certain age, and almost all of whom were respectable—( Hear, and laughter)— to be degraded from the condition in which they had " lived so loved so long," and be placed in that of overseers of the poor and surveyors of the parish roads. The reasons for re taining the aldermen in the government of cities and boroughs were very convincing. They represented a second estate as it were, and no measure could pass without their sanction. That the aldermen were fully worthy to be made partakers in the civic administration, he should only call in proof the report of the Commission. Mr. B. CARTER supported the clause. Mr. PO LLO C K said that the effect of the clause was not only that Corporations should be called by another name, but that they should do and suffer all the acts that hitherto had been done or suffered by the old Corporations. He admitted that opportunities might occur hereafter to discuss this point, but still he would maintain that the point was of considerable importance now. In his opinion the House was at that mo ment passing one of the most material clauses of the whole Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause con tinued the identity of the old Corporations, and the amount of the identity of the new Corporations was to be determined by the Act. The privileges of the old Corporations would be conveyed to the new. The Court of Aldermen might have all its functions preserved to it, although it might not be men tioned by name in the Corporation., There were numerous instances of this now existing. Sir S. WHALLEY said a few words that were inaudible in the gallery. After a few words from Mr. D. Maclean, Mr. H. Hughes, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Goulburn, and Mr. Scarlett, The clause was carried without any opposition. The 4th clause was then put from the Chair. Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know the reason why the boundaries of certain boroughs were left by the Bill to be fixed by the King in Council. He would mention in particu lar the boroughs of Plymouth and Coventry. Lord J. RUSSELL very briefly explained, but in so low a tone, that it was impossible to catch the import of what he said. Sir J. GRAHAM contended that it was highly objection able that the boundaries of Plymouth and Coventry should be fixed by any other power than an Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) The present clause gave by far too great a power to the King and Council. In the Reform Bill, after the prin ciple had been fully discussed, the power of fixing boundaries had not been confided to the King in Council, but had been exercised by the Houses of Parliament. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished only to remind the House that the King had possessed this power from time immemorial. It bad always been a part of the prerogative of the Crown. The House would, of course, be always open to any complaint against an undue exercise of the power. Sir R. PEEL was never more surprised in his life than he was to hear the argument of the Right Hon. and Learned Member.—( Hear, hear.) Here was a Bill which superseded all the prerogatives of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) Here was a Bill which set aside all the charters granted by the Crown ; here was a Bill which assumed for Parliament a right to super sede all those charters ; and when the question occurred whe ther there should be entrusted to Parliament the opportunity of fully discussing and finally determining the boundaries of boroughs, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman turned round upon the House, and said, " Pray respect the prero gatives of the Crown."—( Cheers.) He (Sir Robert Peel) ,-,?uld contend that, in conformity with the nature of the Bill, the mete'!" and boundaries of boroughs should be determined by Parliament. 13: 7 the. resent Act many person; yvbp would have to bear all the i,::z•ge of the borough would not havo the privileges of exercising the e:C: t jve MIRO*: The owner of land, for instance, not occupying a house within the borough, v , ould have to pay his taxes, but would not have a vote, and 'was it fit, therefore, that the Crown should have to determine . the boundaries upon which such important differences would «depend? In strict conformity with the Reform Act, the fixing 'of boundaries ought to be reserved to Parliament. In the :saw: manner ought to be reserved to Parliament the right of ExinnA; the wards of boroughs. The only argument against this view of the subject was that if the House were to post pone the operation of the measure until the metes and boun daries should be determined, and the wards fixed upon and con stitute d, the existing Corporations might have the opportunity of alienating the whole of their property. He could not con ceive any other principle 'upon which Parliament should act than that of its fixing the number of wards arid councillors, and the boundaries of the boroughs. He should therefore move, when the clause came to the words schedule B, line 42, to insert words to the effect of reserving these rights to Parliament, and that a Bill should be passed fixing the metes and boundaries of the boroughs, and which Bill, when it was passed, should be deemed as fully a part of the present Act as if it had been incorporated in it.—( Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL contended that the power should be left to the Crown, and that, with reference to the proposition before the House, all that the House had to consider was the expediency of the two courses. Had the Reform Bill been passed as had been first proposed, it would have been incon venient to have had the boundaries discussed, but the delay had given to Ministers the opportunity of bringing in the Bill. With respect to the Bill now before the House, it was most desirable that when the Bill was once passed there should be a certain day, and not a distant day—( Hear, hear, hear)— when it should come into o p era ti on . Th e Right Hon. Bart. might provide against the alienation of property ; but the question was not only that of alienation, but the time at which the Bill should come into operation. The greatest animosi ties might be excited if the old Corporations were to be al lowed to exercise their rights, whilst a popular body existed in the borough. The House might certainly adopt the limits of the present boroughs, but then this would be extremely incon venient with respect to several of the towns in the Bill. He did not think that there would be felt any want of confidence in the King and Council. If the question were to be put to the towns, whether the boundaries should be fixed by the King and Council, or that the Bill should be postponed a year and a half, he had no doubt what the reply would be.—( Hear. ) Lord D. STUART did not wish to throw impediments in the way of the Bill, but he thought the clause most objec tionable, and fraught with great danger and inconvenience. If the Right Hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth) did not press his motion he should certainly divide the Committee. Sir R. PEEL'S object was not to postpone the operation of the Act, and he would, therefore, propose that the boun daries of boroughs as they now existed should in all cases be (Nerved, until Parliament should make further alterations. Would the Noble Lord accede to this proposition ?—( Hear.) Lord D. STUART said all he wished was that Parlia ment, and not the King in Council, should have the power of determining the boundaries. Lord HO WICK said that if the boundaries were suffered to remain as they were at present until Parliament should otherwise determine, the consequence would be that a small district of a borough would, by its council, have the power to tax remote districts for local purposes, in which those re mote districts possessed no interest whatever. This he knew would be the case in Morpeth, and, no doubt, in many other places. As to any abuse of this power given to the King in Council, no Minister could make a bad use of it, because the power would be exercised in the face of day, and any decision come to would be always open to the revisal of that House. No Government would venture to make an improper use of a power so exercised. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) seemed to think that there was something new and unusual in granting this power to the Crown ; but it was only similar to the power of tracing out the wards which the Right Honourable Baronet admitted the Crown ought to pos sess, and did possess, under the Scotch Reform Bill, and against which not a single complaint had been made.— ( Hear.) If his Noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) could make out a case for the borough which he represented, or for any other particular borough, it would be a matter for se parate, and no doubt favourable, consideration ; but he hoped his Noble Friend would not attempt to impair the Bill by pressing his present amendment. Lord D. STUART said that his objection to the clause was not at all removed by what had fallen from the Noble Lord. Mr. PO ULTER said that there were several places where it was impossible that the people would consent to pay rates to a borough in which they possessed no sort of interest. He would much rather give this power to the King in Council, than that the Bill, or any of its efficiency, should be impaired or postponed. Sir J. GRAHAM fully concurred in the amendment, and should give it his support. Sir R. INGLIS, although he by no means concurred in the general principle of the Bill, still thought that the clause as it stood was less objectionable than the amendment. Sir F. POLL OCK said that to him it was clear that the ancient municipal boundary, and not the Parliamentary boun dary, was the limit intended by the Bill itself, as it most cer tainly was the proper limit. It was much better to take what was already settled than to adopt a new principle at variance with the Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) By the 79th clause of this Bill the borough council had the power to tax, and by the present clause the Crown was to have the power of saying who were to pay the tax.—( Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Parliamentary boundary was too large, and the municipal boundary too small. He had no objection, however, that Commissioners should be ap pointed to fix proper boundaries, who should make their report in the next session, and that in the meantime the boundaries should remain as they were. Sir R. PE EL said that the whole argument of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) assumed that the Parliamen tary boundary was to be the boundary fixed by the Bill. The reference that had been made by the Noble Lord to the Scotch Reform Bill was not at. all analogous to the present measure. In the case of the Scotch boroughs the Commis sioners had no power whatever to alter the boundaries beyond the old municipal limits. On the whole he hoped the House would assent to the amendment of the Noble Lord. Lord HOWICK was much amused by the manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet had accused him of inconsistency in alluding to the Scotch Reform Bill, when in fact it was the Right Hon. Baronet himself who had laid such stress upon that Bill, and had put a notice on the books to assimilate the present clause to the power given by that Bill. Sir R. PEEL was sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord, but he begged to assure the Noble Lord that he had given no no tice on the subject.—(Hear and laughter.) Lord HO WICK would give the Right Hon. Baronet the full benefit of the mistake: It appeared the Right Hon. Baronet had given no notice, but it would be in the recollec tion of the House, that in his speech the Right Hon. Baro net stated that he would call the attention of the House in Committee on the Bill to that point. He appealed to the House if the Right Hon. Baronet had not treated the two questions as alike, and argued that the power ought not to be given to the Crown. Mr. TWISS looked upon the power thus intended to be given to the Crown, as extremely unconstitutional. When the present Government came into office, they loudly asserted their determination to carry out all the principles of the Reform Bill ; but to-night they had shown in two instances, their dis position to depart altogether from those principles. He was opposed to placing this power in the hands decidedly of the executive, but not for the same reasons which influenced the Noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord D. Stuart.) His ( Mr. Twiss's) reason for not wishing to give this power to the present Government was, not that he had entire confidence in them, but that he would not trust them at a 11...—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was a great difference between the Reform Bill and the pre sent measure. The Reform Bill was designed to give an ex tended franchise, and it behoved the House to see that the boundaries were co-extensive with that design. He should he the last to trench upon any constitutional principle, but he looked upon it as impossible that any unfair exercise of the power proposed to be here given to the Crown could take place. If it should be thought that the power given to the Crown by the Bill as it now stood was too great, let a clause be introduced which should provide that the boundaries would be subject to the future revision of Parliament. Was it meant that they were to adopt one principle during the first year that the Bill was in operation, and alter it the year following ? The proposition last submitted to the Committee by the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) was quite different to that he first pro posed. He understood him to have first proposed that the ope ration of the Bill should be entirely suspeuded till the boun daries were ascertained. The answer to that proposition was the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet himself that Corpo tion abuses existed, and that they ought to be removed. Were they, then, to continue such abuses for another year. His Noble Friend (Lord Stuart) said he was proud of the able and eloquent support of the Right Hon. Baronet ; but there was another thing of which he ought to be still more proud, and that was, that his Noble Friend made a convert of the Right Hon. Baronet. The amendment, if agreed to, would leave the Bill in an imperfect and molt unsatisfactory state. They were perfectly ready to meet the objections made to that course; but if the amendment were agreed to it would give rise to the.greatest inconveniences. Mr. G 0 ULB URN said they were told that the amendment if carried, would involve the Corporations in dissension, and that the greatest inconveniences would arise. The course pro posed in the Bill would more certainly lead to these conse quences. Nothing could tend so effectually to produce dis content and heartburnings. Was it to be supposed that sur rounding districts, proposed to be included in this Bill for co em t? a W t aou power Would it prevent was mu nicipalre- served purposes, would not be discontented at having taxes im posedup on them without heartburnings and served to them of future application to Parliament. But, said discontent their to o tell consent? his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), we have all the facts connected with the boundaries before us. They are in a state of readiness for immediate application. If such was the case, why not act upon them immediately Why not appoint some one or more Gentlemen, competent to the task, to look over and arrange these facts ? It could not be difficult, and might be completed before the Bill passed. A Commission, they were told, was to be appointed to ipttip boundaries. As the Bill was to come into operation by the Ist of October, a Commission would scarcely be able to close their labours by that time. Looking at the principle of taxa ation involved in this part of the Dill; the unconstitutional power it gave to tite Government, the confusion and inconve nience it must necessarily give rise to, he thought it was the duty of the Committee to support the proposition of the No ble Lord. Mr. O'CONNELL said he congratulated the Right Hon. Qeptlernan who spoke last on his new constitutional anxiety on the subject of taTation. The Right Hon, Gentleman ob jetted to the Bill because it extended taxation. But, if it extended taxation, it also extended representation, and for what were people to be taxed by this measure? Not for ex travagant expenditure at home or abroad, but for their own local conveniences, and by Representatives over whom they would have an efficient control. The Noble Lord who pro posed the amendment said the King in Council meant the Ministers. It might be so ; but the Noble Lord professed his confidence in Ministers. Let him, then, show his confi dence by not pressing the amendment. If agreed to, the effect would be that Corporate Reform would go to some parts of a town and not to others, to No. 16 in one street and exclude No.' 17. The Noble Lord was not a bit-by-bit Reformer, and he trusted he would not act upon the bit-by-bit principle here. It would be better knock Corporate Reform on the head at once than thus to leave it half dead and alive. It would be better to pass this excellent measure at once, than to send it out in such a mutilated state. He was apprehensive, from the many dry nurses it had on the second reading, that it would be smothered in the Committee, but he hoped the Noble Lord would withdraw his motion, or, if he persisted in it, that it would be defeated by a triumphant majority. Sir G. CLERK could tell the Hon. and Learned Gentle man who spoke last that the Scotch Corporate Reform Bill proceeded on the very same principle as that involved in the amendment of the Noble Lord. If Government, as they were told, had the materials in a state of readiness, why not deter mine the boundaries at once ? An Hon. MEMBER (Lord J. Russell, we believe) said the materials were not all ready. Sir G. CLERK proceeded. He did not think a Commis sion would be able to settle the boundaries in time enough. For the purposes of the Bill it ought to be done by the last day of August next. It would be better to adopt the amendment, than leave boundaries in such a state of confusion. Lord D. STUART said, if Government were in posses sion of the necessary information—as had been intimated— they ought to act upon it. It was a great blot upon this ad mirable all, to Icavo the question of boundaries as it now stood. The Noble Lord made some further obs,,rvati,us, but they were quite inaudible from the great noise in the body of the House. The cries of " Question" were loud from all parts. The Gallery was then cleared for a division. For the amendment.. Against it 192 279 Majority On our return to the Gallery we found Mr. Scarlett upon his legs ; but in consequence of the noise and confusion we were unable to catch ony one observation - of the Honourable Member. The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill. The sth clause, which enacts that every place and precinct included within the boundaries of any borough as before pro vided shall be part of such borough, and within those bo roughs which are counties of themselves, shall be part of such county, was then read. Mr. G 0 ULB URN asked whether the effect of this clause would be to include within the limits of the borough the Uni versity of Cambridge, and to subject it to the municipal regulations ? Sir R. INGLIS made the same inquiry in reference to the University of Oxford. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the two Universities would not be affected. Mr. O'CONNELL observed that in such a case it would be necessary to have a clause to prevent the members of the University being burgesses.—(A laugh.) Sir M. W. RIDLEY asked whether the consequence of taking certain districts out of counties, and including them within the boroughs, would be to render the inhabitants liable both to the county and the borough rates ? Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply in the affirma tive. After a few words from Mr. C. Buller, Lord Howick, and Sir F. Pollock, The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill. On the 6th clause being read, which enacts that every per son who should have been an inhabitant householder on the last day of August in any year, and during that year and each of the two preceding years, and who shall have been rated to the poor rates, and who shall have paid all rates due from him at the time of the revision of the burgess roll, except such as shall have been made or become due within six calendar months next before such revision, shall be entitled to be a burgess of the borough, and a member of the body corporate, &c. Lord J. RUSSELL had an amendment which was of some importance, though it in no degree interfered with the princi ple of the clause. As the provision stood, there was no certain day named for the householder paying up his rates. It merely stated that a person to be entitled to vote must have paid up all his rates except those due six months before, and his amend ment was, that he should have the right to vote if he should have paid up all his rates except those due six months previous to August. He proposed to amend the clause further by pro viding that a person to be entitled to vote must have been in the occupancy of his house for two years and ten months, du ring which all the rates must have been duly discharged. The amendment was as follows :—" That every person of full age who, on the last day of August i n an y y ear , s h a ll h ave occu pied any house, warehouse, countinghouse, or shop, within any borough during that year, and the whole of the preceding year, and also during the time of such occupation, shall have been an inhabitant householder within the same borough, or within seven miles thereof, shall, if duly enrolled, be a burgess of such borough, and member of the body corporate of the mayor and burgesses, provided that no such person shall be so enrolled unless he shall have been rated for two years and ten months to all the rates of the parish where his premises are situate, or unless he shall have paid all such rates as shall have been made or become due within six calendar months next be fore the last day of August, and provided that no such person shall be so enrolled who, within the said six calendar months, shall have received parochial relief or other alms." Mr. JE VIS moved an amendment, to the effect that any person who shall have resided within a borough or within seven miles thereof should be entitled to vote in municipal elections. Lord STANLEY moved an amendment, for the purpose of ensuring a continuous occupancy for the three years pre ceding. Sir R. PEEL thought that a wharf or a solicitor's office ought to give the occupier a right to vote, but he doubted whether those buildings could be said to be comprehended within the words " any house, warehouse, countinghouse, or shop." Mr. B. CARTER A suggested that the proprietors of land within the boundaries of any borough should also be entitled to a vote. Sir R. PEEL said that the proposition of the Hon. Gen tleman would tend too much to facilitate the qualification for the municipal franchise. Householders residing in - villages within five miles of the borough might by the Hon. Gen tleman's proposition be all qualified, by dividing the land into small parcels, and giving them an interest in it. Great difficulties would arise from the proposition, and the land qualification ought to be resisted, since it would give all persons residing in villages within a certain distance of the borough a right of voting. He very much doubted the pro priety of persons possessing land in the way described voting for borough purposes. An Hon. MEMBER and Sir R. PEEL made a few observa tions across the table, the purport of which was not heard in the Gallery. Lord J. RUSSELL believed that the introduction of the word "lands" would be liable to much abuse, and that such occupiers ought not to have a right of voting. With respect to the introduction of the words mentioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman ( Sir Robert Peel), namely, " wharf and office," he saw no objection to them. At the same time other words might be proposed, such as " mill," &c., and he was of opinion that time should be given for the consideration of the intro duction of words of that kind. Time ought to be given for the introduction of other words, properly describing buildings, &c., and making the meaning sufficiently extensive. Mr. HARDY said that many persons might occupy land for the purpose of carrying on certain business, and that they ought to have a right to vote. If land was introduced as a qualification, the objection that it might be subdivided could be obviated by taking the amount at which the land was rated. With respect to the period of occupancy proposed by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he thought that the words pro posed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire would be clearer, and would clearly point out the time to be three whole years. Simply stating once that the occupancy should be for three years preceding would be far more intelligible. Lord STANLEY said that his amendment would not inter fere with that of the Hon. Member for Exeter. If his (Lord Stanley's) amendment should be carried the Hon. Member for Exeter might still propose his. What he proposed was, that the words relating to the period of occupancy as they now stood in the amended clause should be struck out, for the pur pose of inserting " for the space of the entire three years next preceding." -- Sir S. WH ALLEY said that if the Noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) amendment should be carried, the time, instead of being three years, would in many cases extend to three years and eleven months, that was to say, one month short of four years. He should propose that the date of occupancy should be the last day of September, instead of as it was now the first day of August. Sir J. CAMPBELL—If the first day of January was adopted instead of the last day in August, in that way all con. fusion would be obviated, and the time would become two years and ten months, and the person could not vote unless his occu pancy extended to that period. That was what was intended by hi s N oble Friend near him. That would be the sho r t es t period, though in some cases it might be much longer. Sir R. PEEL—Supposing a person is on the burgess poll, and he ceases to occupy whilst on it, is he entitled still to vote ? It appeared to him from the Bill, that a person so ceasing to occupy whilst on the poll was entitled to vote.— (" No," from the Ministerial bench.) Sir J. CAMPBELL made an observation, the nature of which we could not understand. Sir R. PEEL—The person, then, on the burgess poll is entitled to vote, though he should cease to occupy ? Mr. DIVETT—If three years' occupancy were necessary, it would be impossible for persons to prove their qualification at all, since they would he obliged to prove the payment of their rates for that long period. It would be impn-,ible for them to do so, and a great many persons would be disfran chised by the clause as it then stood. Under these circum stances he would talk the sense Qt . the House, and move the omission of the words "three years," inserting in their stead, " for one year." The amendment of Lord Stanley having been read, Mr. WATMURTON considered that the three years pro. posed by the Noble Lord would extend to three years and ten months. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Exeter that one year would be better, and that extending the time to three years and ten months would be too long, and that it could never be carried properly into effect. Mr. ROBINSON begged to suggest a medium period. He would rather have two years substituted, in the room of three. —( Hear.) Mr. GROTE felt strongly disposed to support the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Exeter. He considered that one year's rating was sufficient for the qualification of a Burgess. Sir R. PEEL said that all he wanted was a three years occupancy and a bona fide payment of rates during that period. That he supposed was the intention of the Noble Lord who proposed it. He could not see how three years and ten months would be required, if the Bill were so amended. He could not see how the Noble Lord's amendment would extend the time to three years and ten months, and for that reason he would vote for it. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the loss of some days was on all hands unavoidable. He objected to the amendment of his Noble Friend, as it would tend to extend the time to nearly four years. The Noble Lord made another observation which it was impossible to understand in the Gallery. Lord STANLEY had no other wish than that three years' occupancy should be the minimum period required for the en rolment of burgesses. More than that he did not require, nor did he wish to obtain less. Taking as a date the last day of September, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Maryle bone, and adopting his (Lord Stanley's) amendment, the time would be only three years and a few days. If the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Marylebone should be adopted he would not divide the House. Mr. M. PHILLIPS would support the proposition ofthe Hon. Member for Exeter. Sir J. CAMPBELL felt himself bound to oppose the amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley.) Sir R. INGLIS was in favour of extending the time of occupancy, as by it the character of the voters and their re spectability would be raised and tested. Mr. AG LIONB Y would vote against the amendment, and then against the clause, as two years and seven months, pro posed by it, was too long a period for testing the respectability of voters. After he had so voted, he should have an opportu nity of stipportimr the proposition of the Hon. Member for Exeter. Mr. BROTHERTON thought (as we understood) if the payment of municipal rates, as well as poor's rates, were in sisted upon, it would very much diminish the number of voters. Mr. WARD could not vote for any amendment that would extend the time beyond three years. He would vote against the amendment of the Hon. Member for Exeter ; but if the Government did not confine the period to three years he would vote against the proposition of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). Mr. HUME considered the period of two years quite long enough. Requiring three years' occupancy would disfranchise too many persons. He was favourable to the medium period proposed by the Hon. Member for Worcester. Mr. HAWES said that cases might occur, even supposing the amendment of the Hon. Member for Exeter to be carried, in which the period would extend to two years. Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE made a remark which did not reach us, in consequence of the intervention of the Speaker's chair. Lord STANLEY wished, before he gave the Committee the trouble of dividing, to be informed whether the Govern ment meant to resist any further diminution of time ?—( Oh I) If that should be their intention he would not press his amendment to a division. Lord J. RUSSELL said that in what he heard he saw no reason to induce him to shorten the period of time.--( Hear.) Lord STANLEY then said that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing on his amendment. After a few words from an HON. MEMBER the amendment was withdrawn. Mr. DIVETT rose to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. The long period of time proposed by the Bill would be productive of great inconvenience, and would cause extensive disfranchisement. He would propose that the two preceding years be struck out, and that the period be limited to one year. Dr. BOWRING rose to address the Committee, but re sumed his seat amid loud cries of " Divide." The CHAIRMAN then put the amendment, to the effect that the period of occupancy be limited to the twelve months pre ceding. Mr. HUTT could not see on what principle of justice the clause Has to be supported, and he must, therefore, vote in favour of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Exeter. Dr. BOWRING again rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide," and made a few observations which were inaudible in the Gallery. Lord HOWICK wished to recal the attention of Honour able Members to what the question before the House really was. By some Hon. Gentlemen it seemed to be supposed that the clause would have the effect of disfranchising the inhabitants of corporate towns ; but this was a mistake in language of considerable importance.--( Hear.) The fact was, there was no question of disfranchisement before the House at all, and the only question they had now to determine, was whether the enfranchisement contemplated by the Bill should go only a certain length or be carried to a still greater extent. He must express it es his opinion that those who voted for the election of the members of the town council ought to be resident, that was permanent, inhabitants of the town, so as to have its welfare at heart, and he thought a recollection of the old corporation system, when the right of voting was acquired only by birth or a servitude of seven years, should, without any other argument, satisfy the House of the reasonableness of the clause. It was neither fit nor proper that the temporary inhabitants should have the power of sad dling- the town with permanent burdens, or altering the dispo sition of the landed property of the Corporation ; and, this be ing his opinion, he hoped the clause would be agreed to. Mr. ENV - ART should vote for the amendment. An HON. MEMBER said that this was the only clause in the Bill which was generally complained of, and he hoped the ob jections to it would be removed.—(" Divide, divide.") Mr. PEASE did not think that making residence a qualifi cation would give the least additional security to corporation property. The Committee then divided, and the numbers were— For the Amendment Against it 97 321 - Majority On our re-admission to the Gallery we found Mr. Jervis proposing an amendment, but neither the observations of the Hon. Gentleman, nor those of Lord John Russell, Mr. C. Buller, and one or two other Hon. Membeis could be heard, owing to the noise occasioned by Hon. Gentlemen walking about the floor, as if intending to leave the House. During this state of confusion, however, we infer from what followed that an adjournment was proposed. Sir R. PEEL said that it was now the 22d of June, and, unless they resolved to pay some little attention and devote some degree of time to this Bill, the consequence would be, that it must be protracted to a period of the year when it would be utterly impossible to give it the sort of consideration which its importance demanded. They should recollect that in this one Act were embraced more than 150 private Acts, and that, unless they went fully and fairly into the discussion, not only of the whole subject, but of every one of its details, they would not be doing justice either to the parties whose in terests it would affect, or to the public at large.—( Hear. ) Mr. DI VETT said he fully agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that it would occupy until the end of September, if not until Christmas, before this measure could be passed, if they adjourned at so early an hour as half-past twelve o'clock. He hoped the House would allow the Hon. and Learned Member for Chester to go on.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. BROTH ERT ON was understood to say that he would not persist in the motion for adjournment if the feeling of the House was against him.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and " Mr. Jervis, Mr. Jervis.") Mr. JERVIS then moved that they should leave out from the clause the words " inhabitant householder," for the pur pose of inserting these words, " owner or occupier of any house, counting-house, shop, or warehouse, even though re sident beyond seven miles from the borough." Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, and expressed it as his opinion that the clause went quite far enough as it stood. Mr. PE ASE thought that the clause as it stood would ex clude many persons living near the town who ought to be en titled to vote under this Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it would include all per sons residing within seven miles of the town. Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that some provision would be made by which the sons of persons who had retired from business, but whose names still continued on the rate book, should be allowed to vote. He knew many persons at Man chester and elsewhere, who were deprived of the franchise on this account, although they possessed great wealth, and con tributed largely to the rates and taxes of the towns in which they lived. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think there was more hardship in the case alluded to by the Hon. Member than in that of lodgers. He could not agree either that mere residence was enough, and for the reason that he did not think it would lead to either the independence or the purity of election. He hoped the clause would not be altered. Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that this Bill would have the effect of disfranchising him, and many other merchants like himself, who lived beyond the prescribed limits, although pay ing many thousands a year in rates. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he should support the clause, because the rich and not the poor were to be the sufferers. Mr. B A INE S wished to know whether it was intended that a tenant whose rates were paid by his landlord should be entitled to exercise the franchise ?—( Cries of " Yes.") Mr. TOOKE said he should vote against the amendment. Mr. FLEETWOOD supported the amendment of the Hon. Member for Chester, on the ground that confining the franchise to resident householders would shut out many re spectable persons, particularly in the town of Preston, which he bad the honour to represent, who, though not resident house holders, paid taxes as proprietors of valuable premises in the town. Mr. WARBURTON opposed the amendment, because he feared it would occasion considerable danger of frauds, by the creation of a species of voters who might be used to swamp the inhabitants of the borough. Mr. C. FE RGUSSON said that, with respect to the ob jections raised by the Hon. Member for Preston, as to the ex istence or a 1.,.; 6 0 :a.:-.:l;er of persons paying tzr:e7. , Aliu were not properly speaking householders, he believed the number of such persons was very inconsiderable. He hoped therefore that the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud would take warning by the course adopted on the occasion of the Reform Act, and not listen to amendments like the present, tending to injure the wholesome provisions of his Bill. Mr. P. THOMSON supported the clause as it stood, and agreed in the opinion expressed against the amendment by the Hon. Member for Bridport as to the danger of frauds, by the introduction of the proposed constituency. Mr. PRYME complained of the ambiguity ckf the words " inhabitant householder," Uc took the vase 9f a father and son in joint occupancy of the same house, and he questione which, or whether both, could be qualified. Sir IL PEEL opposed the amendment, but at the same time admitted that it was difficult to come to any arrange ment on the subject which should not include some cases of hardship. Mr. JERVIS then withdrew his amendment. On the question thee seven miles around be the extent of each borough, Mr. PRAED inquired from what points and upon what plan it was proposed to calculate this distance? Lord J. RUSSEL L said that he would rather not propose any definite arrangement on that subject at present. It would probably depend in a great measure upon the arrangement adopted in the Bill with respect to the registration of voters, now before the House. After a few words from Mr. WARauaTtitt and Colonel SIBTIIORP, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was desirable that the admeasurement, both as to parliamentary and municipal purposes, should proceed from the same point. Sir R. PEEL suggested that certain local authorities should be appointed to perambulate the neighbourhood of each borough, and fix its limits. Mr. WA RBURTON proposed that the seven miles should be measured from the market-place in the town. Mr. PR YME objected to this proposal, that in some places there were no market-places at all, and that in many cases it would be difficult to determine the distance of any particular person's residence in a direct line from the market-place, with out trespassing over the individual land of somebody else. He thought the distance bad better be regulated by the milestones on the nearest road. Lord HOWICK said there were many places which bad more than one market-place, and he would ask the Hon. Mem ber for Bridport what he proposed doing in that case ? Sir R. PEEL said that he had given notice of an amend ment which he hoped the Noble Lord would feel inclined to concur in, namely, that the payment of rates for borough pur poses should be equally necessary for the qualification of burgess with the pa . , uieut of rates for the reiiei of the poor. Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought the payment of poor'? rates was a sufficient test to entitle a householder to the privi lege of a burgess. Besides, there were many cases in which the Right Hon. Baronet's amendment would be wholly ineffec tive, there being no borough rates for municipal purposes whatever. Sir R. PEEL said it would be better not to half discuss the question, and he was willing to consult the opinion of the House whether to discuss it now or postpone it. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say he was ready to discuss the matter whenever the Right Hon. Baronet thought proper. _ _ Sir R. PE EL then said that, supposing what was antici pated from the Poor Law Amendment Bill proved true, the payment of poor rates would become an exceedingly small charge in many places ; and he doubted, under such circum stances, whether the being rated to the support of the poor was a sufficient test of the respectability of the parties. He really thought that if the payment of municipal rates, where they existed, were to be in conjunction with the poor rates, ne innovation and no hardship would result. It was clearly nothing more than the old principle of scot and lot, and be hoped the Noble Lord would not oppose so very reasonable & modification of his Bill. Lord HO WICK suggested that the clause should be adopted as it stood, and that on a future occasion the Right Hon. Baronet should propose a separate clause, embodying the views he entertained. Sir R. PEEL said he was quite willing to consult the con vet ience of the House. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there were manY places in which there would be no borough -rate ; whilst the poor-rate he found would b e ever y w h ere o f very long conti nuance. Sir R. PEEL and Lord J. RUSSELL explained as to the pro priety of proceeding at once with the discussion. Mr. BROTHERTON thought if the proposition were for imposing two rates as a qualification for a vote, the time ;of payment should have been less—in place of three years it should have been one. The present proposition should have been decided before the question of time. Now there was a great deal of property within the boundary of large toffee instance, small was n o t assesse d f or b oroug h rates— f arms for small cottages too, which were not worth mere than 61. a,„ year. If the b oroug h rates were i mpose d on the holders o f these cottages, who could not pay them in addition to the poor rates, that would limit the constituency. Mr. WARBURTON said the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet went on two distinct principles, the payment 0 1 two distinct taxes. As those who had not paid three year? poor rates would be disfranchised, it would be too severe to lay on them the additional burthen of borough rates. Mr. SC ARLETT said if the favourite principle of some Gentlemen, that taxation and representation should go toge ther, were a good one, then they should allow that those who did not pay the taxes required for all the purposes of the town should have no vote. There could be no sound reason for omitting the borough rate as a qualification.—( Hear. ) Mr. BAINES said there were many in large boroughs , such as Manchester and Leeds, who paid only one rate, the poors rate. To require the borough rate in addition would be to disfranchise many, and would destroy the liberal spirit of the Bill, which was looked on so favourably already, but which would be looked on very unfavourably if this proposition were adopted. Sir R. PEEL suggested that it would be better to defer the discussion on so important a point until to-morrow.-- (Cries of " Adjourn.") In Manchester and Leeds, which the Hon. Gentleman called boroughs, but which he (Sir R. Peel) would not, certain property was taxed for the payment of the watch, and paving and lighting, and other local purposes. Now, under the present Bill, the common council would have charge of the watch, and should impose a tax for that and other pur poses, and the consequence would be that these taxes would be imposed on many who were now exempt from them, for in stance, on the small householders alluded to in Leeds and Manchester. So that part of the Hon. Gentleman's argument went for nothing. Mr. ROBINSON objected to the borough rate. The House had decided that the principle of the three years' poor rate should be adopted as the qualification, and it was not right now to call on it to sanction the imposition of the other rate, which would have the effect of limiting the franchise. Mr. ROEBUCK said a few words Which were inaudible. Sir R. PE EL would contend. in opposition to the assertion of the Member for Bath, that no kind of property would be exempt from the borough rate. The council who would have to provide for the watch would be bound to rate all kinds of property. He would ask his Majesty's Attorney-General whether the Hon. Member for Bath's construction of the Act was the correct one. In fact the requiring of the two rates was not imposing any hardship on the inhabitants. Mr. B. CARTER made some remarks, which were not audible to us. Mr. M. PHILLIPS thought it probable that the C o mmon Council would continue the exemptions from the borough rates as at present. He would not object to the proposition if it were, not found to limit the constituency.—( Question.) Lord SANDON said if it were true that the Common Council would exempt the poor, they would take care !() continue the exemption by electing themselves as the Counca• -Hear, and cries of " Q uest i on ," an d " Adjourn.") Sir. BAINES said it appeared the object was to impose new taxes on the people. Sir R. PEEL—Undoubtedly. Mr. BAINES—Then he would object; and he was sure the proposition, if carried, would render the Bill very unpo pular. Sir R. PEEL said he did not wish to enter into any un fair or partial discussion on so important a clause that night. He hoped the Noble Lord would allow the discussion to be postponed till to-morrow. He had not stated his reasons for making his motion. Lord J. RUSSELL said he would have been better pleased if the Right Hon. Baronet had said so earlier, before any discussion took place. But if he saw the importance of the clause, he would not prevent him from having another discussion on it. He hoped he would allow the clause to be read now, and discuss the matter afterwards, on bringing uP the report. Mr: SHEIL said the Hon. Baronet had given notice of motion on this subject, and after they had an hour's debate be wished the question to be postponed, on the ground that be had not stated his reasons. He should have been prepared to state them then. The Right Hon. Baronet need not delay the progress of the clause now. Let him allow it now to pass; and introduce his arguments on bringing up the report, and then take the sense of a full House upon it. Lord SANDON moved that the Chairman report progress, amidst loud cries of " Divide." Sir R. PEEL said that Hon. Gentlemen might themselves move for a division if they pleased, but he would take his own time to bring forward his motion. He did not wish to throw any unnecessary obstacles in the way, and was willing to enter into any fair arrangement, but no one should trench on his privilege as a Member of that House. He should not wait for the report, but would take any other fair opportunity which might be afforded of pressing his amendment. After a few words from Messrs. ROEBUCK and SHEIL the question was put, and the Gallery cleared for a division ; but during our absence the motion was agreed to without a di vision. The Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow., The other Orders of the Day were they disposed of, and the House adjourned at half-past Two o'clock- MA 11 R lED. On the 92d inst., at Trinity Church, Mat ylebone, J. Wakeman Long, Esq., only son of Captain Long, of Hans-place, to Favel Georgina Douglas, youngest daughter of the late John Scott, Esq., and of Mrs. Scott, of Devonshire -place. DIED. On the 20th inst., at Bishop's Teig n ton, in her 82d year, Frances, daughter of the late Very Rev. William Cooke, D. D., Dean of Ely, and Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and sister of the late Edward Cooke, Esq., Under Secretary of State in the Foreign Department. On the 10th inst., at the residence of her uncle, Dr. Thomas Wakefield, Ma r ia Margaretta New, third daughter of the late Cap tain New, R.N. Late': W ( est darghtcr of th e late Rev. H. R. Knapp, of Woodford, Northamptonshire. On the 20th inst., at Deptford, William Herbert Wood Mitford, only son of the late William Herbert Mitford, of the Royal Artil lery, and grandson of Thomas Mortimer Kitson, Esq., late of Sevenoaks, Kent. On the 11th inst., at Kingston -on-Thames, aged 92, Ann, relict of the late George Roots, Esq. On the 10th inst., at Tretaliesin, near Aberystwith, Mrs. A. Elias David Daniti, aged 93. London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the county of Middlesex, GENERA' Assoc 31111iblished Oa The object of tl wed if life incorf 1 a es for wid AU* from 11. 10 e t Six annuities p LU year, to the 30 q l„ Pear, to the 30 " 1 „,1111ar, to the 30 " 4 year to the 30 ith r ear, , to the 30 , Prosecttwas - s:1; 'Nal To p n till Thr SCOTTISI SURANCE George -street, Ed Incorporated Thoma s Hawker, Charles Balfour, I Gordon Duff, Janes Gooden, E 'Pohn Kingston, E a. Z. Langton, I „ UNQUESTIC aATES of PRE v ORATION, at I nsurances on loud the Policy 4 4stE DAY when PREMIUM ro Without is X. s. d. 0 15 0 1 2 8 1 510 1 SI 5 1 14 01 I 19 11 2 7 8 3 0 6 3 18 11 In the FIRE seription may be 4 1,..u.al low rates. rears only, and " Removals. Tables of Rat C ) tee, 449, Wes GENERAL THE GI COMPA 1 HAMBURG I4l 'd Saturday, e end Saturday. From HAMS frstn,, whence th '‘ICOLAY sail lly. Steam gAGEN and S FFf jib) * V6ry WeAdnesda: r eturning every P ares, Chief Ca Passengers to 1 1 the General * ern Packets of leutages. A splendid N *III shortly com ANTWERP r rist-offi(.e), evi 1. " 11 '11 inn e ver' , Aitsci Fares, d OSTEND at . 111 X every Tites CALAIS, el. returning every ',BUT:LOGS' QeSdai;frida3 Ind Wedrit*Y. BRIGHT I: L ' r eturning ever) BRIGHTO Thursday. , Application; to be m a d e • in the otheAta • Infortnatielial Custom-hofe-( Agent, Rta Ma and So n Forei Mr. Coilb a 6 ket ; at th i ppr Office of t ta G stre et. ' Perteefi Ste General T Oa ss situ at jthe e Co 1.. r valuation , ._For further I %trot, Rye. b OWL, Final Ind restoring turning grey !tusked heir it beautifully Subduing •url and othe , 1 1 damp VI ea usercise. This eelet beautiful Hai of existence. the progress Xfustachios, NOTICE. Wrapper, wh The lower — &11 other %delta. Partisular fully solicite Piou s injury Public:, (Ext.rast " haNTe 3 of the effi'oa this place, who had trio Without effeo Jour how a entsgh tiOed at its I (magnified) " To A. If anythii and eelebrit world hob so Principled k) the great The ()rip slet.table P UNDER t TUC QIGH AC (krea test im Inventor ha droensiitt:ir,4B:ll restorative from catar mea , eases of thi , ft off aft ton tag 1 , ichol U lm Tb rnoni STO, 14 road .ctrl Lando D. _ CO OY street, for a true great ben , tot e bet t •' !Y ars vozc ; fin 1 earn Sot afi mai D. Sil DO( Jr.—! Sig fit res )R.SE Sept. 22, ?repar ati kuovr„ tt purgb !g ' scritv fou Rhea toi 'fully to e laboui OBSI April 19 tto so m: taew disc to their r •stified now e: shou'es ottiws y Let, iol tituale, stuna'a tone to . its effica vnn exi CBS to oann lignatu Testy, z made y 4uti One Year.