The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-12 00:00:00

Sir E. CODRINGTON said that the Speaker called his
name first, and he immediately handed in his paper.
The SPEAKER did not know that he could settle it other-
wise than by referring to the Clerk's entry.
Mr. WARD trusted that in future the original papers would
be preserved.
After some further discussion, which was not heard in the
gallery, the conversation dropped.
Mr. ING HAM presented a petition from Sunderland against
the Postage Bill.
Sir A. Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod, then appeared
at the table, and summoned the Members of the House to the
House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given to several
Bills, for which see Lords' Report.
NATIONAL LOAN FUND.

Mr. HALL said on Wednesday neat he should ask the
President of the Board of Trade whether he intended to bring
in a Bill to amend the Letters Patent Act of last year ; and
if he answered in the affirmative he should then ask on what
day he intended to bring in that Bill, because there were se-
veral Bills at present standing over until that Bill should be
brought in.
Mr. P. THOMSON had stated on a former occasion
that he intended to bring in a Bill which had already been
drawn to amend the Letters Patent Act passed during the
last Session. It was quite out of his power to say when that
Bill would be discussed, but he would bring it forward as
speedily as possible.
Mr. HA LL felt committed to the House, in consequence of
the permission given to him to carry the second reading of the
National Loan Fund Bill, not to take any step with regard to
it, if there was any chance of the Bill of the Honourable
Member being brought in early. It was impossible that
this Bill (the National Loa❑ Fund) could be much longer
delayed, and unless the Right Honourable Gentleman brought
in his Bill in the course of this week, he (Mr. Hall) must
proceed with the other.)
FACTORIES' BILL.

Lord ASHLEY gave notice that on Friday, the 22d
of June, when the Order of the Day for the second read-
ing of the Factories' Regulation Bill should be read for the
purpose of the Speaker leaving the Chair, he should call the
attention of the House to the state of the law for the regulation
of Factories, and move a resolution expressive of the regret of
the House that such a state of things should be allowed to
exist so long without amendment—( Hear, hear)—and lest he
might take the Noble Lord by surprise, he would now state
that he would most assuredly bring forward that motion, and
although only one or two gentlemen should concur with him,
he would take a division upon it.
ELECTION PETITIONS.

Sir ROBERT PEEL brought in a Bill for amending the
laws relating to the trial of election petitions. He was anxious
to bring it forward for discussion at an early hour, when there
was a prospect of a larger attendance, but he was in the hands
of the Noble Lord. The Bill was one so far of gener,,l inte-
rest as that it could not be considered in the light of one
brought in by a private Member of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL had stated to the House that there
were several Bills brought in not only by the Government, but
by private Members of the House, which should be considered.
Having already arranged that Orders of the Day should take
precedence of notices, he was deprived of the power of acced-
ing to the proposition now made by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PE EL then gave notice that he should move the
second reading of the Bill on Wednesday week.
Lord MAHON thought it would be more convenient, if the
Noble Lord would name some day for the second reading- of
the Bill, when there would be a certainty of its coming on.
On Wednesday week he thought there was business before
the House that would prevent its coming on.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be desirable that
such a course should be adopted, but he did not feel that he was
called upon to name any day—that was with the Right Hon.
Baronet.

Mr. E. TENNENT wished to ask the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Morpeth) when the Irish Estimates would be brought on ?
Lord MO R PETH said that the Secretary of the Treasury
would bring them forward, but from the present state of busi-
ness he could not say on what day he would brine them forward.
Mr. MACLEAN begged leave to ask whether the Go-
vernment intended to institute any Committee of Inquiry into
the working of the National System of Education in Ireland ?
Lord MORPETH said the Government had no such in-
tention.
Mr. MACLEAN would then give notice that when the
Irish Estimates were moved he would move the appointment
of such a Cemmittee of Inquiry.
Mr. CR ES WELL wished to know whether the Noble
Secretary for the Home Department, in the absence of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, could inform him when the
House might expect an answer to the Address respecting the
Danish claims.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not at present give an
answer to the question.
Mr. CRESWELL gave notice that he would put the
question to the Right Hon. Gentleman when he saw him in
his place.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in rising to move the further
progress of this Bill would say, by way of preface to the
motion, that the House in general would feel it to be
more convenient, the Bill hating gone through Committee
pro forma, and without having been regularly discussed, that
it should be recommitted, rather than that the discussion should
be taken upon the bringing up of the Report. He therefore
moved that the Bill be recommitted.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. O'CONNELL rose and said—l request the indul-
gence of the House while I attempt to give reasons why this
Bill should not be re-committed at present. My object
in delay is, that I may have an opportunity of maturing
such materials as have come into my possession lately, so that
I may be enabled to show the House that the proposed plan
ought not to be adopted, especially with regard to the
City of Dublin. I mean to call the attention of the
House to the particular situation in which the franchise
in that city is placed, and to show the impossibility
of giving a good municipal franchise to the electors
of that city, unless the Heuse was in possession of
more facts than it at present had knowledge of. When
a prospect was held out of conceding to the Irish people
municipal institutions—when it was discovered in Ireland that
the Opposition party in this House had given up their inten-
tions of destroying the Municipal Corporations, it was received
with unmingled satisfaction, and the lurking suspicion which
dwelt upon my mind, that it would all turn out a delu-
sion did not find place in the breasts of my countrymen.
In order to understand the sentiment that thus pre-
vails, the House ought distinctly to know what it is the
people of Ireland require in this respect. They know
Scotland has got a Corporate Reform Bill upon the
Parliamentary franchise. They know that England
has got a Municipal Reform Bill under another franchise. In
England and Scotland tho Parliamentary franchise is different.
In England it depends on the rating of the party for the poor.
Each requires residence. The residence is required to be longer
in England than in Scotland. The English Poor-law Bill is
coupled with the necessity of triennial residence, and pay-
ment of rates, previous to the registry. It is desired to get
either the Scotch plan or the English plan, and it is possible
to realise it in every thing but in the payment of poor rates,
which, of course, cannot be expected in Ireland, and there-
fore calling for the English plan would be an absurdity on
the face of it, there having been no poor rates there.
The Government proposed a residence of six months prior
to the registry, and a payment of the triennial poor-
rates- That was thought too short a period by the Right
Honourable Baronet, and he substituted one years' resi-
dence in place of a half year. That was his proposal.
I am ready to accede to his proposal—of course.
I am speaking of the substitute for the by-gone payment of
Poor-rates. -His proposal was to substitute an actual resi-
dence of twelve months. I adopt his substitute, and adopting
his substitute in every other respect, I call on the House to
give to the people of Ireland either the English or Scotch Bill.
In the circumstances in which Ireland now is, I would infinitely
prefer the Scotch system. It is more simple, and it affords ma-
terials which we have in Ireland. If the House would give us the
Bill, with the Scotch municipal franchise, I will accept it cheer-
fully and gratefully. But if the House refuse us the Bill which
I should prefer, and give us the English Bill, identifying us
with English institutions in this respect, I will adopt it at
once, although reluctantly, on account of its complications.
But I will receive it as a matter of conciliation and
justice to Ireland. I want either the one Bill or the other.
You have the materials for it in the Scotch Bill ; and I suppose
we shall have the materials soon in the English Bill, as the Irish
Poor-laws Bill has passed the House; so that we may be identi-
fied with England in this respect. But we ought to have one or
the other. There is no justifiable pretext for giving us a third
measure. There may be a reason which is not avowed—to
diminish the franchise and- lessen the number of the elec-
tors. That reason will not bo avowed.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) But that alone can bo the reason why we
are refused either the English or Scotch system. Therefore
it is I impeach the plan of the Right lion. Baronet. If
you employ a rating, fixed at a particular sum, you
must restrict the franchise, by trammels which do not
exist in England or Scotland.—( Hear.) I wish to
put the question so that the House should have before
it the state of the Parliamentary franchise which is unincum-
bered by the details, by one-half of the charges, which the
Right Hon. Baronet wishes to impose in the Municipal
Reform Bill. Let the House compare the population
of Dublin with its Parliamentary constituency, and then
say, will it be Justice to limit the municipal constituency
in the same way. The inhabitants of Dublin are 265,316.
There are districts in the county of Dublin that are not inclu-
ded in the Parliamentary boundary of the city, the population in
these amounting to something like 40 or 50,000. I leave
these out of the calculation. I speak of nothing but what I
have documents for, and for the 265,316 I have the Parlia-
mentary returns of 1831. The House ought to be curious
to know how many voters are among them. They
do not amount to four thousand. The entire of the constituency
that voted in Dublin at the last election ran thue—the great-
est in number, 3,556, voted for me, and nearly the same num-
ber for my Honourable Colleague ; 3,467 voted for the de-
feated candidates ; and these were compounded thus-1,856
were freemen; of these 136 voted for the sitting Members,
and 1,750 for the defeated candidates —( Hear, hear, hear. )
The municipal franchise is to be found among the residue
of the constituency. That is composed of leaseholders and free-
holders on the one hand, and householders on the other. The
leaseholders and freeholders who voted for the sitting Members
were 1,590; for the defeated candidates 1,065 ; making together
2,615. The householders who voted for the sitting Members were
1,830, and for the defeated candidate 652, making alto-
gether 2,482. It is amongst these that you are to find
the Municipal constituency. Supposing the Municipal
and Parliamentary constituencies to be identical, here
are the materials for finding them. But there must be
considerable deductions from this. In the first place the house-
holders eynsist of 50/. freeholders who are not bound to reside