The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS. AUGUST 2.
The SFEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
LETHBRIDGE'S DIVORCE BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill. Mr. Ser-
geant Nlerewear:r, addr.s;ed the Committee un bahalf of
the petitioner for the Bill, and it was reported without
amendment.

Mr. JAMES presented a petition against encouragement to
Indian idolatry.
Mr. EGERTON and several other lion. Members pre-
sented similar petitions.
Mr. PUSSY presented a petition against the Parochial
Assessments Bill from the clergy of the diocese of Win-
chester.
Captain ALS AG ER presented a petition from the Arch-
deaconry of the Ea,tern Division of the county of Surrey
against the Parochial Assessments Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE brought up the Report on the
Sheriff's Court ( Scotland) Bill.
Mr. WALLACE seeing the Lord Advocate in his place,
Leg6ed 'to ask lilm a question rely; ive to the Clerk of the Jus-
tices of the Peace in Scotland. He found that that °dicer
received no less than 131. r. day for his services, which he con-
sidered most exorbitant. Such being the case, he bagged to ask
the Noble Lord whether a copy of the warrant by which that
appointment was made could not be seen by Hon. Members,
in order that the matter might be officially taken notice of.
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was perfectly compe_
tent to the Hon. Member to move for a copy of the warrant,
if he thought fit.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Studeley
against the enema agement of idolatrous worship in India.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice of a motion for to-morrow,
for a copy of the warrant of the appointment of the Clerk
to the Justices of Scotland.
PRIVATE BILLS DEPOSIT BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the report on this Bill,
Mr. P. THOMSON said its object was, that deposits on
public works, instead of being placed in the hands of the
Clerk of the House, should be committed to an officer
created by Act of Parliament.
The Report on the Militia Ballot Suspension Bill was re-
ceived.
The Slave Trade ( Sicily) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Slave Trade (Tuscany) Bill was also read a third time
and passed.
The Transfer of Funds (War-office) Bill, was read a third
time and passed.
The Affirmation of Oaths Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The Militia Pay Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed to-morrow.
The Stamp Dies Bill and the Valuation (Ireland) Bill
were also read a second time, and ordered to be committed

to-morrow.
The Forms of Pleading Bill was read a third time and
passed.

CORPORATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved the Order of the
Day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the
Corporation ( Ireland) Bill. He was very glad the House of
Lords had not adopted the course it pursued in 1836, by send-
ing back a Bill stating that the people of Ireland were not fit to
enjoy the liberties that had been given to the people of England
and Scotland. In the present instance they had admitted
that Corporations might exist to a certain extent in some of
the towns of Ireland, at. the same time they had made such
extensive alterations in that Bill that in its present shape it
could, not be accepted by the House of Commons.
The exclusion of many and the introduction of 92 new
Clauses—( Hear, hear)—the alteration of many others in
such a manner as to give them a different purport and ten-
dency—(Cheers)—all these, besides other reasons, showed
that the House of Lords, in their great zeal for the objects
which they had in view, hnd not given sufficient attention to
the alterations which they had made. According to the votes
and proceedings of that House, he saw that they had paid
great attention to the Irish Poor-law Bill, but from all he
could learn, though the Municipal Bill had been away from
that House for more than a month, they had not spent six
hours in deliberating upon such very considerable alterations.
—(Cheers.) He would, therefore, propose that they should
lay their reasons for disagreeing with the amendments,
in order that the Lords might have another opportunity
for more mature deliberation. The Irish Reform Act
had preserved to the freemen the right of voting. But
there existed in the city of Dublin a sort of anomalous right
of. voting dependent on the consent of the Corporation,
and it seemed the object of the Lords in their amend-
ment, to interpose words, which, under cover of carrying out
the Corporation Act, should give the right of voting for Mem-
bers of Parliament, to persons who otherwise would not enjoy that
right. —(" No, no," from Sir Robert Peel.) Then the Right
Hon. Baronet could have no objection to make the Bill in this
respect conformable to the Irish Reform Act.—( Sir R. Peel :
—" Hear, hear ; and the English Municipal Act.") The
Noble Lord proceeded to state that there appeared a studied
desire on the part of the Lords to preserve certain
persons in power in the Corporations which it was the
object of this Bill to do away with.—( Hear, hear.)
By the clauses which bad been introduced with respect to
charitable trustees, it was proposed that the powers hitherto
enjoyed should be preserved to the Members of the old
Corporations till Parliament should otherwise determine. By
that means their powers might be preserved during their lives.
Several of the other clauses had the same object in view.
Another change had been introduced, by which the present
Town Council were allowed to mortgage the property of the
Corporation to pay the debts of the previous Corporation, and
the probable result of that would be, that the whole of the Cor-
poration property would be mortgaged.—( Hear.) as such a
state of things desirable? He was speaking with suspicion,
of those bodies—(Cheers)—and he was fully entitled to do
so—(Cheers)--for they were condemned not only by the
votes of that House, but also of the House of Lords, not only
in the present Session but in 1836, when they were anxious
to correct the abuses then existing, and they could find no
other remedy far such abuses than abolishing them
altogether.—( Loud cheers.) Among the new clauses,
180 and 181 provided that Town Clerks, Chamberlains,
weigh masters, and other officers were to retain their offices,
notwithstanding the Act abolished the Corporations in so far
as all the boroughs in schedule 8., so that those persons hay_
ing been appointed under abuse, the Bill then provided that
such abuse was still to exist. By some other clauses, the
watching of the towns would be placed in Commis-
sioners under some local Act, and not under the
Council to be appointed under the Bill.—(hear*, hear.)
Care was taken by the amendments of the Lords to take the
watching of the towns, and many other functions were taker,
from the new Corporations. Now he (Lord John Rus-
sell) could conceive that to preserve as much power as
possible to the old Corporations, and to give as little as
possible to the new, was the narrow-minded—(llear)
in some, perhaps the interested—( Hear, hear)—and in others
probably the fictious objects of those who were concerned in
maintaining the exclusive privileges of the old Corporations.
—( Hear, hear.) But it was to be considered by the Commons
of England, and by Parliament generally, if the peace and
vs elfare of these tow ns, arid the prosperity of Ireland, was to be
consulted by such provisions.—( Hear, hear.) The apprehen.
sion entertained by the " Conservative " party
was, that the
party-feeling of these towns would be opposed to their to
and that the Corporations would become schools of political
agitation ; now was not the best way for guarding against this
danger, to give the inhabitants subjects of local interest, on which
to employ their exertions ?—( Hear.) The rule for the selec-
tion of the Town Councils would not, then, be the religion or
the politics of the parties, but their capacity for attending to
the business which was to be entrusted to their cart.—( [lean. )
Such would Le the eff ct if they were given real franchises,
but if they were deprived of municipal rights, then there a
desire anise to become political bodies. With respect to many
of the other alterations in the Bill, he did not consider them
of so strong a nature as to call for objection to what had been dune
by the House of Lords. One of those alterations was the con-
fining of the municipal franchise to about twelve towns.
There were likewise introduced in the Bill clauses and pro-
visions with respect to the boundaries in those towns. The
chief objection he had to them was, that the House would have
no opportunity of considering those clauses except in the light
of amendments, while, in his opinion, they ought to form
matter for another Bill.
The Noble Lori was here interrupted by a Message from
the House of Lords, informing the House that they had agreed
to a Conference with respect to the amendments in the She-
riff,' Courts ( Scotland) Bill.
The Lord Advocate, Mr. Wallace, and others, were ap-
pointed to manage the Conference on the part of the House.
After an absence of half an hour, they returned and reported
that they had left the Bill, with the reasons, in the hands of
their Lordships.
Lord J. RUSSELL then went on to say, that with re-
gard to the franchise, a very important. alteration had been
made in the Bill by the Lords. The M. rating franchise had
been changed to a 101. rating franchise, and twelve
months' occupancy was required. Now, in this re-
si‘ect there was a very wonderful correspondence be-
tween the amendments of the Lords, and a Bill which bad
been introduced into the House by Sergeant Jackson,
Sir William Follett, and Mr. E. Tennent, requiring
twelve months residence as a qualification for voting,
at Parliamer.tary elections.—( Herr, hear.) This remarkably
exemplified the general principle which always induced
that party to resist every measure for extending the
franchise ; and to adopt every proposition which tended
to limit and to restrict the franchise.—( Hear.) He would
now state what course he proposed to follow with regard to
the amendments. With regard to all those which went to
maintain to the members of the present body corporate
certain authorities which they now possessed, and which
w
English
Act,be should propose to dis-
agreeee tot rioti
hemn the. could be admitted while they
rtltnever
were proposing to reform Corporations; that they should
grant extensive power to those very parties they proposed to
supersede. With regard to the clauses giving Corporations
the greater
he did not
onlyoombteor a
osfmaltlownousmbiear oaf tdoiwffenrse,otandsehleeadvoilneg,
propose to disagree with the principle of that altera-
tion ; he agreed with the principle of giving the towns in
schedule A Corporations, and placing others in schedule B,
upon the understanding that at a future period they might
apply for municipal rights—but he objected to a great
number of clauses which gave power to Commissioners,
where no application- was made. lie thought that within a
certain time the provisions of the 9th of George the Fourth
should apply to those towns. With respect to the boundary
clauses, he did not propose to oppose them, but he thought
it would be necessary to qualify them, and therefore he would
propose that the Lord Lieutenant in Council, upon applica-
tion should have power to add suburbs in some cases, and to

alter the wards. The clauses respecting charities he I
would propose to restore to the same state as when
they left that House. He had then to approach the
subject of the franchise, and in doing so he was very happy
to be fortified in his opinion by what had fallen on former occa-
sions from the Noble Lord (Eliot), the Member for Corn-
wall, the Honourable Member for Guildford ( Mr. B. Wall)
and others who ,generally voted contrary to himself.—(llear. )
Many lion. Gentlemen opposed to the Government held that
rating under the Poor-law was not the best mode of obtaining
a real bone file value. Ile (Lord J. Russell) did lint object
to taking in the rating, but he did not think that alone it would
furnish an exact test of value.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord
went into some calculations showing that the ratine
would not alone furnish a correct criterion of the real annual
value of a house. It would not be wise, in his opinion, to
take the proposed rating of the House of Lords, as it would
make the franchise uncertain. Ile proposed that the House
should take a sum in lieu of repairs, insurance, rates, and
taxes. By that plan an 81. rating would give a qualification
of 101. if this proposition was stated to be too low, it would
be open to Irish Members to say, give us the provisions
of the English and Scotch 1111!;, and do not intake any dis-
tinction with respect to Ireland. He had made these conces-
sions in the hope that the question would be set at
rest. All the question of the Church having ben set
at rest it was too bad to hold out upon a Municipal Bill.
It was not showing either fairness or generosity to the people
of Ireland. He trusted that he might yet be allowed to get
the Bill passed, at least upon the same principle as they had
passed the Bills for Scotland and Englantl.—(Cheers.)

Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I should have been perfectly
contented to discuss each amendment proposed by the House
of Lords on the introduction of the individual clauses on which

they were made, and I cannot help thinking that that course
would have been infinitely better than that taken by the Noble
Lord. But the Noble Lord has taken a course which pre-
cludes me from following that which my own sense of expedi-
ency directed, and has indulged in a needless, an unjustifiable,
and, in my opinion, an unwise sarcasm against the House of
Lords.—(Cheers.) I think that 'if it were possible to throw
an obstruction in the way of a settlement of this question the
Noble Lord would have done it by his speech and his sarcasms.
He has charged the Noble Lords with intending to withhold
corporations from the Irish people. —(" Hear, hear," and
" No," from Lord John Russell.) I beg the Noble Lord's
pardon, lam quoting his own words. He said, " altogether
withholding corporations, because the people of Ire-
land are unworthy." The Noble Lord did not put
the withholding corporations by the House of Lords
on its true grounds.—( Hear, hear.) Those grounds were,
that seeing the state of society in Ireland—seeing the conflicts
of parties—the Lords did entertain an opinion that, while they
were willing to relinquish the old corporations, they thought
it would be better, taking everything into consideration, not
to establish new ones.—Hear, hear, hear.) When the Lords
found that this course did not agree with the general feeling,
they became willing to grant new corporations on the terms
now before the House. I think the Noble Lord might have
spared his sarcasm, when the House of Lords had shown such
a desire to conciliate the national feeling.—(Cheers.) But
when I recollect the numberless changes of opinion that have
taken place in this House with reference to Irish measures—
( Hear, bear, and cheers)—when I recollect having heard
most favourable opinions with respect to Poor-laws from Hon.
Gentlemen who are now its most strenuous opposers, and who
now think that the establishment of a‘ Poor-law in Ireland
would be sufficient to justify a dissolution of the Union ; when
I recollect the discussions that have taken place with refe-
rence to the Irish Church ; and when I think what was the
course of the Noble Lord himself in receding from opinions
he had so long maintained ; with all these fresh in my recol-
lection, I think the Noble Lord is the last quarter from which
I might expect any sarcasm on those who for the sake of peace
are willing to make a sacrifice of their opinions.—( Hear,
and cheers.) Then, Sir, I deny that the Noble Lord has
given a just description of the Bill the Lords have sent
down. First, as to the general purpose I will show you that
in every clause the Noble Lord has misrepresented.—( Hear,
hear.) He says that the Bill the Lords have sent down no
longer preserves the principle of Corporations, by making
their possession optional with the towns. I quote the Noble
Lord's words, and I ask the House is that a just description
of the Lords' amendments ?—( Hear, bear.) So far from
allowing certain towns to have Corporations on application,
the purport and effect of the amended Bill is this, that in the
eleven principal towns of Ireland no discretion whatever is
given ; it is made obligatory on them to have Corporations.
—( lean ) Does it withhold them in the cases of other
towns ? No ; it enables every town in Ireland with, I be-
lieve, 3,000 inhabitants, to apply for a charter of ineorpora.
tion.—( Hear, hear.) And if in any town, whether now pos-
sessed of corporate authority, or that never had a Corpora-
tion, a majority of ten householders shall think it for the ad-
vantage of the town that either the old Corporation shall be
continued or a new Corporation granted, in that case there is
full authority given to the Chief Governor of Ireland to
accede to the wishes of the inhabitants, and to con-
tinue or to grant a Corporation founded on the principle ap-
plicable to the eleven towns to which the Corporations ale
compulsory. The Noble Lord then proceeded to comment
on the changes made in the House of Lords, and says that no
less than ninety-two new Clauses have been inserted in the
Bill sent down by the Lords. Why, Sir, in the first place,
let me remark. that the Lords have incorporated in the 13111

the whole of the Boundary Bill of the 'notice of Commons.
And by whose authority did the Boundary Commissioners
act? They %lore appointed by the Noble Lord himself.--
(Hear, hear.) He gave them instructions, and established

eir boundaries, and-the Lords were perfeetlycontent w

the plans adopted by the Commissioners, .and have adopted
them.—( Hear, hear.) The Lords thought it desirable to in.
corporate them in the Bill relating to Corporations. The
Noble Lord makes objection to this ; but, if I mistake
not, another Noble Lord at the head of the Government
has distinctly admitted that the introduction is a great im-
provement,--( Hear, hear.) Well, that accounts for some of
the addition, and I cannot help thinking it quite as convenient
when we are establishing new Corporations, that we should be
able to refer to the Bill itself for the pupose of ascertaining
the boundaries. Of course it was necessary to introduce a
great tr number of clauses into the Bill than it originally con-
tained. The House of Lords has introduced those clauses for
the purpose of giving effect to the general outline which
some weeks since I sketched as the principle on which the
party with which I act would be likely to agree to the pass-
ing of the Bill ; and I must say that, notwithstanding the
altered tone which the Noble Lord, for some purpose or
another, has now adopted, he did not originally apply any
objection to my plan.—( Hear, hear.) It was not objected to
by any one then; it was known that we were making great
sacrifices to reconcile conflicting opinions, that we had to
soothe prejudices and feelings, and the impression of the
Noble Lord, and of Honourable Members on his side of
the House then was, that we had gone much further than
could have been expected for the purpose of reconciling these
differences.—(" Hear, bear," and " No, no," from the Minis-
terial benches.) At all events, the opinion then was far dif-
ferent from that now expressed, for it was then agreed, reserv-
ing a perfect right to enter into details, that no insuperable
objection existed to the plan proposed to give Corporations
to eleven towns, and universally, if the people desired
them. The clauses introduced by the Lords were then abso.
lutely necessary. The Noble Lord also says that considerable
time was taken up in discussing the Poor-law, and none in
discussing the Municipal Bill Whose fault was that?—
( Hear, hear.) Whose fault was it that the Corporation Bill
was sent up on the 28th of June ?—( Hear, hear.) By whom
was it that at that time of the session, when it was perfectly
notorious that the press of business would take place, the Co-
ronation was fixed ?—( Cheers.) You (addi essing Lord John
Russell) fixed it for the 28th, at the time when you knew the
attention of Parliament would be most required for the busi-
ness of the nation.—(Cheers.) Who is there who could not
of course foresee that while thus fixing the Coronation, and
in the sen.ling invitations to every country in Europe to send
their representatives to do honour to the Sovereign of Eng-
land, the natural desire of all here to honour those who were
thus honouring our Sovereign, would render it most difficult
to direct attention to business? For this reassri those who
fixed the Coronation for the 28th of June are responsible if
the Municipal 13111 did not receive the required attention.—
( Hear. ) But whose fault is it if the Bill was not discussed
in the Lords ? These who proposed the amendments had no
occasion to discuss them; they naturally expected opposition
to come from the other side.--( Cries of " Hear, hear.)
Why did not the Noble Lord's colleagues in the Upper House
consider in detail the amendments, and, if defective,
point out the defects ? Where was the Lord Chancellor and
the other law authorities? Public notice was given that the
clauses would be moved ; they were to have been opposed on
the third reading. Why was that intention departed from ?
( Hear, hear.) And still the Noble Lord blames the House of
Lords for not giving sufficient time for discussion.—( Hear,
hear.) But that is not all. Why. if objections were felt as
strongly as the Noble Lord now feels them, why did not the
head of the Government himself propose the third reading of
the Bill ?—( Cheers.) Why did he not refuse to move the
third reading of the Bill until the clauses should be amended?
—(fares, hear.) Seeing that none of these things were
done, I must say that the Noble Lord's attack on the House of
Lords with respect to not allowing sufficient time for delibe-
ration, is unfounded, and that his sarcasm is, in other respects,
perfectly unjustifiable.—( Hear.) I come now, Sir, to the spe-
cification of clauses in respect of which the Noble Lord founded
grave charges against the House of Lords. He says, " I shall
now enumerate a long succession of clauses not individually
important, but by their accumulation proving a lurking desire
on the part of the Lords to vitiate the principle of the Bill
by retaining for the present Corporations all the power it is
possible to retain, and to throw discredit on the new Corpora-
tions by withholding the functions to which they would pro-
perly be entitled." The Noble Lord has indeed truly said
that he views this Bill with great suspicion, for he comments
on its points with manifest injustice. I do not know that
lago has been nourishing his baneful passion, but this I
know, that I never saw a gentleman in public life labour
under such an accumulation of jealous pangs as the Noble
Lord. —( Cheers.) Now, to show the degree of misconstruc-
tion the Noble Lord has put on various clauses, I shall first
take the four first clauses of the amended Bill. The Noble
Lord charges the House of Lords with retaining by these
clauses the freemen in certain towns in Ireland, particularly
in the city of Dublin, and with giving them certain pri-
vileges beyond those to which they are entitled by the
Bill for the Reform of the Representation. Now, Sir, a
great part of the objections which the Noble Lord had ap-
plied to the amendments of the• Lords may be applied to va-
rious clauses in his own Bill, but he is so blinded by his sus-
picion and his jealousy, that in attempting to put an injurious
construction on the work of the Lords he has wounded himself,
and entitled his own clauses to a share of the blame.—( Hear.)
Sir, I disclaim altogether, on the part of the House of Lords,
any intention to secure for the freemen of Dublin any privileges

to which they would not have ben entitled if this Act had n,,t
been altered. Of course necessary alterations have been in-
..

troduced by the Lords, because they had to provide for cases
in which Corporations, should be extinguished, a,(l none sub-
stituted. It is generally admitted that the rights of f:cemen
should be preserved, whether the Corporations existtd or n•ii,
and therefore it became necessary that in cases not contem-
plated by the original Bill—those of towns in which Corpora-
tions should he extinguished—the Lords should plovide f(:-
the rights of the freemen. The Noble Lord did rnu, re,,cl the
clauses on which he relied as exhibiting the animus of the
House of Lords: I have read them over, and I coidess I cat:-
not perceive where they substantially differ from his own
clauses. Take care that the Noble Lord is not attributing
to the House of Lords the very words he himself had p: e-
viously adopted. He says the Lords have inserted the words,
" hereafter may be entitled." his own words are, " Every
person who, if this Act had not passed, would have been en-
titled to enjoy, or hereafter may be entitled, either by birth,
marriage, or service, to enjoy'the privileges of a freeman, or
of voting for it on election for a Member of Parliament frr
city, town, or borough, shall be entitled to all such right as
fully as if this Act had not passed."—(Loud cheers ) lam
only showing the injustice of these charges of the Noble
Lord, and I have no hesitation in saying that if any equi-
vocal words have been put in by the House of Lords, I dis-
claim on their parts any intention of preserving to freemen
any privileges to which they would not have been cutitAd
under the Reform Act. For these reasons I do not de-
spair of an amicable adjustment of these four clauses, unless,

indeed, the Noble Lord should view his own bantling with a
degree of jealousy so great as to render it impossible he could
receive it from those crafty men who have done so much harm.

-
Laughter.) Now, a• with respect to the powers reserved
in old Corporations, the Noble Lord says the old Corpora-
tions are maintained in important municipal functions. I do
find that a distinction is made between charity trusts and mu-
nicipal trusts, and different provisions made in cases where
the trustees of charities are Corporators ; but the Noble Lord
himself makes a similar distinction, for he does not devolve
the trusteeship of the charities on the new Corporators. He
establishes a clear distinction between municipal functions and
charity trusts.--( Hear.) He enacts that in cases where Cor-
porators may be trustees for a charity, they shall be main-
tained in the trust for a limited time, and at the expiration of
that time the Lord Chancellor shall proceed to appoint new
ones ; thus establishing a new distinction between municipal
functions and charity trusts, and providing that in all cases
the Lord Chancellor, not the Corporations, shall succeed. I
admit there is some difference between the Noble Lord and us,
but not upon this point. We make the provision respecting cha-
rity trusts because I think it highly important that the whole
subject of charity trusts should be reserved, and that Parliament
should legislate anew upon the subject. We have given up to the
Lord Chancellor the power of filling up vacancies as they
occur, but not the power of absolutely and at once appointing
to all the trusts. I must say for one that I will most readily
consent to any arrangement that can be made to prevent charity
trusts being perverted to political purposes, for it is my duty to
say that, Parli?ment having made a provision with respect to
charity trusts in England, I am not satisfied with the conse-
quences of that arrangement, and think that political feeling
has influenced the management of those trusts.—( Hear,
hear.) It is on that account, and as the result of experience,
that I dissent from the principle that on a certain day the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who is himself a politician, and
connected with Government, shall have the appointment to all
these charity trusts. I say that another arrangement would
be more satisfactory to me—one that will prevent charity
trusts being perverted to political purposes.—( Hear, hear.)
This is the point on which we differ. I know it has been
said that under pretence of retaining the powers over charity
trusts to the old Corporations for a certain time we had gone
much further, and included trusts not of a charitable nature.
Here, again, I can only disclaim any such intention. The
Noble Lord refers to clause 75. lam perfectly willing—but
this is open to objection, but those who complain of it did not
come fairly to the purport of the clause—l am perfectly wil-
ling to admit that these words in clause 50, lines one and two,
" That in every borough in which the body corporate, or any
member or members thereof, is or are trustees for any purpose
other than charitable uses," seem to imply, and in fact do enact,
that the old Corporations shall have reserved to them other
than charitable trusts ; but I can only state that immediately
after the Bill passed the Lords the error was discovered, the
cause of it being that the amendment was copied from the old
Bill. I can only say that, if the objection had escaped the
Noble Lord, I was prepared with an amendment for the pur-
pose of clearing up the doubt, and preventing any extension
of the power to trusts other than charitable. lam extremely
thankful to the House for the attention with which these de-
tails are listened to, but it is of the utmost importance that a
speech likely to produce such an effect in Ireland should be
answered. It is absolutely necessary that I should go through
these charges and exhibit their falseness. Now this has also
been remarked—that the word charity has a technical sense
much more extensive titan that in common acceptation—that
it includes the pipe water. I am no lawyer, and I can as-
sure the House that when I said charity I had no intention
of including pipe water.—( A laugh.) In point of fact and
law, pipe water may be a charitable trust ; but I confess that
I never was so surprised in my life as to see this morning that
pipe water was a charity trust. I can only say, that no de.
sign of the kind imputed entered the heads of the artful men
of whom the Noble Lord is so jealous, nor had they any in-
tion of confiding the pipe water to the Corporations. But the
Bill of the Noble Lord does this ; it enacts that charitable
trusts shall be considered apart from municipal functions, and
if, by general construction, pipe water means charity, of
course the new Corporations are excluded by the Bill of the
Noble Lord.--( Loud cheers.) If, however, the term have
the meaning stated, I ant perfectly willing to consent to any
amendment which shall exclude any trust partaking of the
character of a municipal trust. The next point to which the
Noble Lord came was this. He says that a great alteration
has been made by the House of Lords in the clause which
defines the purposes to which the property is to be applied.
He says that in England we imply confidence in the new Cor-
porations, by consenting that they should have controul over
the municipal funds, untied by any obligation, and thus be
able to consult the good of the inhabitants, but that in Ire-
land we take a different course ; that we propose to limit the
purposes to which the surplus Corporation revenues are to be
applied. What does the Noble Lord himself provide ? " That
in all boroughs, if, after all payments of municipal expenses
necessary for carrying into effect this Act, the funds shall
prove more than sufficient, they shall be applied to the pur-
poses aforesaid." Of course the House imagines, from the
statement of the Noble Lord, that he had taken a comprehen-
sive view, and given the Corporations entire and exclusive con-
troul over their property ; but so far from that being the case,
it is expressly provided in the Bill that in every case, except
the city of Dublin, the surplus property of the Corporation
shall not be applied to the purposes of the Corporation ; but,
in the first instance, be applied to the paving, lighting, and
cleansing of the streets, and afterwards to such otner pur-
pose as the Noble Lord himself shall prescribe. We retain
his words ; the only alteration we make is this—that the
principle he thinks good for every other town in Ire-
land shall be applied to the city of Dublin—( Hear,
hear, hear)—and that, in case of a surplus revenue,
it shall not be applied to e political purpose, but to pur-
posss of public improvement. This is the ground on which
he differs from us, and thinks that the House of Lords is actu-
ated by a crafty purpose. When I stated in this House that
I trusted the House of Lords would support me in this princi-
ple, I can only say that the principle met with unanimous
assent, and no suspicion but that the prevision was absolutely
right, and, I must say, warranted by the experience of most
Corporations.—( Hear, hear.) Now we come to another to-
pic, clause 97. The Noble Lord in commenting on this lost
all self-possession. Ile said, " Here you make a mockery of
Ireland. Both Houses had condemned the existing Corpora-
tions arid passed enactments, tying them up from disposing of
their property ; but now the Lords have introduced a clause
which shall enable them during the interval to deal abso-
lutely with their property, and that, too, for purposes
other than municipal." I never was more surprised than to
hear this statement front the Noble Lord—it is a com-
plete perversion. We intended this for the new Corpo-
ration, not the old ; we never meant to give the old Corpo-
ration that which they did not before possess ; if we breve
done sa, we are perfectly ready to relinquish this provision.
All I can say is, that I doubt whether it is done, and I posi.
tively decy any intention of the kind. But there is this in the
amendments ; we find that in English Corporations new secu-
rities are found for old debts, and we thought it desirable to
apply the principle t; the new Corporations in Ireland. We
were told it would be convenient to give the power of mort-
gaging, and we consented, and this the Noble Lord has con-
strued into an intention on the part of the House of Lords
to afford the present Corporations facilities for disposing of
their property. Ido not vindicate this. Ido not know
what wish the Lords could have for the Corporations to
enable them to dispose of their property between the
periods. Ido not think that we, or any party pretending
to credit, will be accused of permitting the Corporations
to do that which we agreed they should not do.—( Hear. )
It is an imputation I do trot think worth while to reply to.
—( Cheers.) I disclaim such intention altogether, and I
greatly doubt whether, as usual, the Noble Lord has not
been blinded, and whether the potter does not apply to the
new Corporations.
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that some alteration was
made in the Bill.
Sir R. PEE L—lt was necessary to make .some alteration ;
it was absolutely necessary to provide for cases in which Cor-
porations shall not exist, and when there were no Corporations
it was absolutely necessary to make a provision corresponding.
For instance, to show you that the amendment only applies
to the new Act, it enacts that it shall be done by council iu
the new boroughs that may apply for incorporation.
Lord J RUSSELL made some observation which did
not reach the gallery.
Sir R. PE EL—Does the Noble Lord doubt whether I
am stating the truth in what I say a.—(Cheer;, and cries of
" Order" from the Ministerial Benches.) Now we come to
the next point—that in which the Noble Lord charges U 3
with adding 180 clauses ; but so imperfectly has the Nob e
Lord read the Bill that he begins by stating that we ei.e
the town-clerks an interest in their office for life, He said, "Here
is an instance of your respect for the old Corporations; you
make the office of toevn-clerk, the hotbed of abuse in the old
Corporation, permanent, and you deprive the new Corpora-
tions of power to appoint their town-clerks." We do not
maintain any such thing.—( Hear, hear.) All we require is
that the old officer shall receive compensation, giving at the
same time power to the new Corporations to appoint their
town-clerks. Therefore the Noble Lord was not justified in
stating this. But this we have provided for—that whereas
there may be certain cases in which Corporations shall be dis-
solved, that we provide that the duty shall continue to be
performed by the present officer. Now, I ask, does this de-
serve the character given of it by the Noble Lord ?—(Dear,

Icloe ra,rsi a)builarTftoarienelyuuniciide(r•rtshtoeocdontl;tiaotutilloefpirici)epoLsaolrdtoLpiclaucteenth73t
%vas acquiesced in. I thought that as it was felt that there iNathe
no great distinction between night and day police, and alai
power of appointment was taken from the gentlemen and
gistrates, the best was; would be to vest the poker in tne
Lord Lieutenant. The Noble Lord says that in this amend.
ment we are depriving the Town Councils of a municival foie_
tion. Why, what course has he himself taken with the city_ ct
London ?_( Hear, hear. ) What has he done in Dublin ?
( Hear, hear.) In both places he has transferred the when: (.1
the appointment to the Crown. In London, the first of Col:-
porations, and in Dublin, he had deprived the town councils
of this privilege. I contend that a police force, whose duty
it is to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants,
should be under one controuling power not likely to be dis:
turbed by municipal prejudices or feeling. Here, again,
think the charges of the Noble Lord could hardly have been
expected to come from that quarter.—( Hear, hear.) Then
the Noble Lord referred to the boundary, and here again Is
a charge against the crafty men for adopting his own prin-
ciple. With respect to the appointment of sheriff, I eon;
fuss I think it would be infinitely better that the Lord
Lieutenant should have the power of nominating one per"
son than that three should be selected according to the
old method, which the Lord Lieutenant could afterwards
set aside. The Noble Lord complains that the machinery
of the Bill has been rendered cumbrous, but he shoal"
recollect that when all appointments and regulations are
.
made for the first time, it is absolutely necessary that
the machinery should be cumbrous. The Noble .Lords
if I understand him rightly, proposes to leave the Bill
as it stands, with respect to the number of the towns t°
which Corporations shall be extended. Ido not object to that
principle where the application to municipal bodies is made by,
a majority of the 101. householders. Indeed I never objected
to that principle, nor to the nomination by the majority l:3
t
of i
101. householders of Commissioners to govern and manage the
public property of any town which may not choose to incur tie
expense of a municipal machinery for that purpose. As to the
proposition of the Noble Lord, to make the adoption of the
9th of George the Fourth compulsory upon certain towns,
must confess that I am totally averse to it. It would, as I ar
prehend, be much better to let those towns have a choice
whether they should or should not adopt the 9th of Georg°
the Fourth, and I am of that opinion, because the whole ma'
chinery of that Act was planned with a view to the voluntary
principle. I understand that it is the intention of the l'Oblei
Lord to move an amendment with respect to the franchise.
shall, therefore, take this opportunity of stating my perfect
determination to oppose any such amendment. lam ready to
make that the test, and to take the question upon it, deferci
ring any further discussion until such time as the Noble bar
brings forward his proposition. I shall then defend the jag-
tice and the reasonableness of the suggestions which were
made from this side of the House, and upon which the amend-
ments made in the other House of Parliament were foundl
—( Hear, hear.) I shall show that these amendments, an
the Bill altogether, as it at present stands, are more in Os*
logy with the system which it has been thought proper
ere
adopt in England than it was before the amendments wer
made.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, when he said that
the Bill was different from the English Bill, with respect to
repairs and insurances, ought to have been aware that I c.%
pressed myself most ready to remove any objection wit,le
might be made upon that point. I may be asked why toen
did I not propose to do so on the previous occasion? but 101
answer is, that in the present state of things I hesitated t 0
make too hasty a proposition lest it might be as hastily re:
jected, and deemed it the more prudent course to conte'
myself with intimating the intention. The Hon. and Learned'
Member for Exeter aso stated at the same time that if
valid distinction could be shown to exist between the Eng`Ta
franchise and the Irish, those upon his side of the House vvoe
be ready to remedy the defect. But the Noble Lord had on II
former occasion proposed a franchise different from that w,,,,hi,ce
he now professed himself ready to adopt.—( Cheers.)
Noble Lord would be content to have the Parliamentary fra::
chise such as that a tenant flaying 81. rent and 41. for tax
and repairs should be considered as a 121. householder.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Not the Parliamentary franchise,'
Sir R. PEEL—The Noble Lord then did not make hull;
self particularly clear upon the subject. The Parliament:lr'
franchise in England and Ireland is 10/. solvent payment, yr,
sides all rates and other fair charges. I propose to adopt t",,-
Parliamentary franchise, and to add the rating condition as I,
check upon fraud. By the Bill of Mr. Poulett Scrope
allowance was made which was not in the Irish Bill bef°'"
ri
adding to the net value the expense of repairs and insurance;
as taken upon an average of years. We are willing to mak,e4
abatement equivalent to this, and for my own part I twnia
we are bound in justice to do so. I do not admit, as
appear to be insinuated by the Noble Lord, that this was "of
luctantly forced upon me ; on the contrary, it was I 0199130
who threw out the suggestion.—( Hear, hear.) at, would
510
much better to estimate the repairs and insurance by an ,0
rage of years, as I suggest, than to adopt an arbitrary 111
i
the amount. The Noble Lord starts a difficulty to tit's f
saying that difference of tenures would stand in the we.
such arrangements, as there might be some persons clailelo
from a house singly and others from a bousc
an
land, and therefore it would be better to get rid of the niwg,
culty by making the reduction the same in all cases. In Erldie
land the allowance for land is about 2i per cent. ; but bp
calculation with respect to houses is more difficult. 'he
Lord says, the reduction ought to be equal, but I deny t"";
I say it would be most unjust, and I shall stand by then;
tics asserted here, and agreed to in the amendments ina,uede
the other House—( Hear, hear)—and I say that the r,°'
Lord ought not to contend for any more.—( Hear, bear.
shall not at present enter into details; but it is not beeaul
I would answer all that has been put forth by the Nohle,d4l.f
in the speech which he had just uttered, and the spirit for
was to accumulate all the obnoxious details, as "ibt..
the purpose of showing that the House of Lords were in lit
enced in making the amendment by an unfair spirit, and Wis.
the view of stripping the Bill of all its supposed advantages,
—( Cheers.) I believe that the House of Lords acted it'd,
fair, candid, and honourable spirit in making those atner'ice
ments.—( Cheers ) I believe that their object was to g..„
full effect to the outline which I had previously sketehecid to
(Cheers.) Whether it is the intention of the Noble IJ°I. ar
reject the amendments, and to keep alive, for sonic purposeub,
other the discontent and soreness which prevail upon the: at
ject, Ido nut pretend to divine. I only know that I hav-,.'6c0
the expense of much misrepresentation and at no little sacr",aa
of my private feeling, laboured to bring this question t° eat*
tisfactory adjustment, and I must own I should look uPeitiald
failure of my efforts with very deep regret; but if it
,11.1,-tive
fail I do not hold either myself or these with whom
mft(actedro;eeetrreennilttinrfisl
o.ceeawrnmrqßi:stuawiselkn).eresti:njteirtiiroLeoil
ie
ble
bed,
Idfn acttotelitiriadoet
piiitadfeelholernauelshtgi
ori:troecnsieluosteosneldueils)
asteudtuqodcoasu.eerecereoitni
consider
see
isra.s
e_. r Right --e
the Lords' a•-'e..
of
, in
osed
relativee
words,d t
by
and
nt hdbe
birth,
otat
iri
riage, servitude, and arc enrolled according to the Pr°
sions hereinafter contained." av of
Mr. SHAW had no objection to impose the nccess7oo"
proving the right before the proper officer, but he weal'
consent to have the right of any one class given up. if $
Mr. S HEIL asked what would be the state of things & be
roll were not made up previously to an election ? It coil'
made up, as at present, by the Assistant Barrister. tcrl
Mr. SHAW would nut object to the Assistant Barr's
making the roll. it
Mr. BALL would consent to take the entire wordingg,g,
stood, though it was different from the wording of the libel
fish and Scotch Bills, if a provision were added conaPc;beir
persons seeking to be placed upon the roll to establish t for
claim before a person appointed by the Lord Lieutenant
that purpose.
With this understanding, the clause wa3 agreed to.
To a questn O'BRIEN, „eel
Lord J. RUSSELL
to the boundary clause, that he would propose to vest a PeuiP
in the Lord Lieutenant to alter the boundaries, when a s
uklit gr,mnd was ni :de out for so doing.
Sir R. PEE L could not accede to such a propo,ition'
hich
Lord NIORPETH admitted that it was a powerwiter'
should be viewed with jealousy ; but there was no other a Or
native except to vest the power in the Lord Lieutenant'
postpone the whole question with respect to boundaries. ,
After a few words from Mr. SHAW and Mr. S. o'l3l""'lrtit•
Lord STANLEY said that Ministers had now an °PPc'dart
nity, in the details of the schedules, of discussing the bout' ore,
question. The power of altering the boundaries at Ple*hei
ought to bu taken out of the hands of the Government. the?'
ought to settle the question upon the information which
acquired by means of their CommissiHouse, that it vion.
n,ooll'o,
Mr. e
LYNCH submi
productive of advantage, and would afford much satialr°a-
if the Bill were postponed.
Si rJ A MES GRA HAM could not concur with the pro'
and Learned Gentleman with respect to the necessity er
ere tie
priety of postponement. The Commissioners, who °dad/
be supposed as best capable of judging, had made a In°9-, `vas
cious examination of the several localities, and the Hodsd
tit
in possession of the report which they had made, set tb"
boundaries which they had recommended. Ile thong
was the time to discuss the question. cot'
Mr. SIIE IL supported the proposition for its postp°llll,s
The Commissioners had recommended iii some eesere o°4
boundaries. The boundaries which they mentioned , abet
in all cases the same as the Parliamentary boundargon
this was not a difference to be settled with procipitl.i pO5l
Gentlemen unacquainted a ith the locality or geogralelctea'
tion of those towns referred to, or which would be aL.e- of tiof
Mr. GOUL BURN thought that the observationsotitylcie
Hen. and Learned Member, with respect to the qua bet , 0
local and geographical know ledge, was very correcti,;ectio,
should recollect that it was in order to obviate that" J
the Government sent Commissioners to those town%as 00f
pt
had received the fullest instructions, and the House,: desin the possession of the result of their inquiries. "e t °n°opinion that the boundaries which they had marked °II
to be
Mr.adhered to.
O'CONNELL thought it odd to hear the Goverorei/o efilt,lP
Commissioners so much praised by the Hon. Gentleone eap
the Opposition side of the House. It augured a foregeed too
elusion. The Commissioners in some towns cha be Ow,
boundaries materially. In Cork, for instance, hY
__old of
boundary, many persons paying all the city rates nrges,,,
left out, and thus, whilst they were liable to all the charges,,
aP,
the Corporation, they were to enjoy none of thef htheellepproc,eoe;t
ing from it. This was not a very fair result o
_op
.4,
ings of the Commissioners. He trusted the House "10 tieeu_,o
come to a decision so speedily, for he strongly
sity for postponement. He was sorry to see that 00
to
of Lords, instead of amending the Bill, had add to P
feltht the 1-1001wer
Bill to it. He regretted that they had thought proP` e
sue so inconvenient a course.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish to be understocd 119

1

Ltir.°°3'

of
°sub°,
3, 00
provi

ssitY otr
0°-

if $
PIA, be
)u,--

TriS"rl

i
ng a-
s
, Fog
l
orogheir
51, r
'ant 4°

„
resre
vie
a I)
k a su

011. • .11
r s'ilit'
lt'r'
era of
1104

s.
° tits rO' •
o
DPP dsrf.
oLlo re,
>leas" ir
The'
thei

l fri
isfaC,
you aOO,

voo'
he ore
or r to
were ,i,
os 0
" t
Dal the
gnu bio
fight t

)isei
De ,
Ise 00;
were 00
ring'-of
„
atioPosto
ical
f the,
ns 0 of
not' be
t. " -oP
übi repel
,•node
Viali
putasreo
ti

pc
:Mroi-eoo
e°
e
rO. W
4°l pel
tbeo be,
goo. ei
hare ow
Alto il•
1-
Prop pro,ao3.
wout_ece
be 1;;ooli°
he bet
loot
or
zr P

pcd ss %'

i

pressing a doubt that the Commissioners had perft.rmcd their
duty in a inost able manner ; yet it appeared there were cases
the people interested were not quite satisfied with the
lines of boundary they had marked out. They (the Govern •
meet) propo=cd that the Lord Lieutenant—the executive
9flicer —idiould have the power, not of eNcluding any portion,
Lett of including, in certain case;, portions of a population
who had a claim to be recognised in the municipal boundar).
.As the Lords had adopted so inconvenient a mode of proceed-
ing, the Government had taken the only course open to them.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN suggested that a power of appeal
t° the Lord Lieutenant might be given incases where portions
of a population were omitted from the boundaries.
The House then divided, when there appeared_
For the amendment ....
Against it
Majority for the amendment --8
Lord J. RUSSELL moved, as an amendment upon the
pause regulating: the amount of the qualification, that an al-
wane.' of one-fourth per cent. should be made to the occu-
Pier in lieu of the charges for repairs, insurance, :And other ex-
enses. lie admitted that the (fleet of this amendment would
lie to reduce the qualification from la to about but he f.lt
that it was necessary, in order to secure the more effectual
operation of the Bil-l.

Sir R. PEEL—Sir, I rise for the purposeo_f
odexpressing
111 Y opposition to the amendment proposed by the N
lie has suggested an entirely new principle, totally different
from that by which the English Corporation Bill is regulated,
and which principle he proposes to extend to Ireland.
1 Proposed to apply the bona fide franchise and qualification
Which is now operating in this country to Ireland ; and I shall
certainly oppose the introduction of a separate and distinct
princiale in this abatement. I proposed to have the franchise
a bona fide franchise with a 10/. qualification, and the Noble
Lord proposed an amendment which, by granting an abate-
ment to an extent unknown in England will have the effect of
eareducing theojebfrcatnchise to an amount under 10/.—( Hear,
h
to the Noble Lord's proposal on two
grounds—first, that it includes in the abatement an allow-
ance for charges that ought properly to he omitted ; and se-
condly, that instead of applying the reduction to particular
eases in such proportions as circumstances might demand, it is
proposed to apply an equal and arbitrary reduction in all cases,
without any regard to the circumstances which may affect
them. I contend that the amendment of the Lords pro-
tases a just and proper abatement. But the Noble Lord
Proposes to apply the principle equally in all cases.
Suppose a claimant for the franchise divided 31. per annum
interest from land, and 71. per annum interest from a house,
he would be entitled to the 101. franchise. Suppose, again,
a Claimant deriving 101. per annum interest from a house, he
would also be entitled to the franchise. Does the Noble
Lord mean to say that the same rate of reduction ought to be
appled in each of these cases? This is manifestly an injus-
tice, and totally different in principle from the abatement in
this country. Why does not the Noble Lord propose a ruc
lion similar in amount and application to that adopted in Eng-
-14"1? Why do you not give Ireland the benefit of the same
Principle ? Why do you not give one unvarying rule?
Lord J. RUSSELL instanced the Municipal Bill gene-
1311v, as compared with the English.
Sir R. PEEL continued—The question we are now discus.
Sing solely relates to the mode of ascertaining parochial assess
Meats.. and my objection is that it is virtually granting an unfair
V,1:1 unjust abatement. An Act passed for England two years
;id -ea established the principle which Hon. Members at this
of the House wished
to have extended to Ireland also. In
ligland the Act declared that the rate should be judged by
the• , annual value of the house or hereditaments, excepting
-"e commutation, if any, and all landlord's charges of re-
Pairs' rates, arid insurance. I propose that a similar reduction
alllaY be applied to Ireland, and that, instead of having that re-
,letion fixed or applied indiscriminately, that it should be ap-
v"ed according to the circumstances of each case. It can-
TA be objected to my proposition, that there would be a
Acuity in applying
a different amount of reduction in
different
cases- and it would be a work of less labour
Clad fatigue to' apply an uniform unvarying reduction in all
lusts• That difficulty had been got over, fur in the Poor-law
, passed the reservation is applied to the separate and dis-
``tict circumstances of each case. Why, then, do you not apply
the
this Bill the same arraneement which has been applied in
.he Poor-law Bill? Why do you make so unjust a distinc-
tion?, The Noble Lord has said that there is a corresponding
cWance in England. I contend that in England the reduc-
tionhe is totally different, both as regards the amount andsutb.
jlnctle of its application. I have made inquiries upon the
ect• and I find that the houses are rated upon the average at
Ea far lower rate. In Bath, and all the towns in the West of
gland, the principle of Mr. Pottlett Scrope's Act is gene-
„Y
applied, and the average amount of reduction is 15 per
cent(fl) In Bristol thereare
surveyors is no fixed rate ; there are
Surveyors appointed, who take into consideration the profits
arising from a house, its situation, and other circumstances
Which are calculated to increase or depreciate its value, and
they rate it accordingly. Is not that the just and fair principle
the princi le which ought to be generally adopted ?—( Hear.
'lll3Pose thephouses in one parish were not as valuable with re-
3Pect to situation and other advantages as those in a parish in
a different part of the town, the reduction was increased ac-
cordingly. In some parishes in that ancient city the abate-
taent is 10.'s per cent. ; in five parishes of Bristol the reduc-
tion is 114 ..per cent. ; in seven parishes the reduction is 12 to
43i • in six large parishes, where there is a great number of
small tenements, the reduction is 144- to 16 ; and in the whole
city this makes an average rate, inclusive of all, amounting to
not quite 134 per cent. How is the reduction regulated with
respect to land in that city ? There is an abatement of only
21 per cent. allowed for land. Yet the Noble Lord proposes
to allow 25 per cent in Ireland, even in cases where the
qualification arises
partly from land and partly from houses.
how Jet us look to another city. Worcester the parish of
St. Peter's is rated at 15 per
cent , the parish of .St. Martin's
at 15 per cent., two other parishes are rated at 10 per cont.,
and the average is 12,1,- per cent. In Bridgewater, the
mount is 10 per cent. ; in Gloucester it is but 9 per
cent. ; and seeing this, I totally protest against the prin-
iPle which the Noble Lord wishes to introduce. If
tlr, Bristol the amount be 134 per cent„ in Worcester
and in Gloucester 9 per cent. ; and it in those cities
a ere is no arbitrary reduction applied without any distinc-
tion or relation to circumstances, why then should it be 25
Per cent. in Ireland, and applied indiscriminately ? It is ma-
ilifestlY unjust to make so wide a distinction. I propose to
five the same franchise to Ireland as England now enjoy s, and
to have it a bona fide franchise, not reduced in amount under
:1111Y pretence. I propose to give them every benefit which is
thrYed in the English towns ; but I am opposed to granting
greater extent of reduction.
Lord MORPETH felt it was necessary to state the rea-
i
WilCh rinipally induced the Government to propose the
-mend p
Ment nowc before them. The Right lion. Baronet had
• ed that it was unfair to apply the Hriciple of abatement
• itarall.Y, and that it would be much more beneficially applied
af eata,ried as might be required by the peculiar circumstances
nienteli case. The decided opinion of her Majesty's Govern-
asd Was, that this would not be productive of advantage ;
The on the contrary, it would tend to much inconvenience.
With reason why the abatement was on a different principlo
beii,:e.,sPeet to the Poor-law was, because in that case the rate
tine uesimned to aid solely in the practical operation of the law
lithe; wide% it had been adopted, far different would be the e
I%.ase People applied to the Municipal Corporation Bill. Once it
poiiyicertained the effect of the qualification would be to have a
she "cal weight, there would be an end to the facility with which
at) necessary information could be obtained when the rate was
in opted for the purpose of general convenience. There would
the elattercase be afforded a temptation to increase or decrease
nr
not
Glatainin of qualification either for the purpose of obtaining,
tier g, the franchise, and a vast degree of inconve-
%tan:: would necessarily lya the result. Under all circum.
could isss they thought a general fixed reduction the best that
.atixiotc,:s adopted. The Right Hon. Baronet appeared very
which to have the same principle extended to Ireland as that
riot applied to England, but they (the Government) had
i;.. Met much support from that side of the House when
e 47 wished to carry the principle of equalisation at an
:titer period of the session. The abatement of 25 per
beilit• proposed would not clearly reduce the Irish franchise
~e'c'w what it was fairly understood to be fixed at in ac-
rdance with the systems in practice in Scotland and
agland. It was not, therefore, on account of any differ.
ice in principle that it was proposed, but in order
17 Prevent hazard. uncertainty, and doubt in the execution of
the law. The Government, to avoid these evils, thought
" far better to take a given sum, not rising above the
Mount of the bona fide ten pound franchise, and by that
tTicans let the people know precisely what they had to pay,
an to adopt a course which would lead to uncertainty and
‘4o4lst from the very circumstance of its variety.
tuitit• HUME felt bound to express his regret at the course
1 "t
e",hY the Noble Lord the Home Secretary in regard to the
11.,1,u'a before the House. When that Noble Lord found his
he 2:bn_able compromise of a 51. bona fide franchise rejected,
the Brid at once have introduced the English franchise into
But „111. One franchise could be carried as well as the other.
itlitz"loc Noble Lord was only endeavouring to effect an impos-
svhol)v'; for he was trying to meet a party on a compromise
m., ere never to be met. He (Mr. Hume) should be most
ePp_ t 0 have an opportunity of voting against both amend-
hilti:se in favour of the a/. franchise ; but as he bad no alter-
Noble' should give his support to the proposition of the
Nordrd.
STANLEY rose but to advert to one statement made
• ) is Noble Friend opposite (Lord John Russell), and re-
kithl44,,ted
_ by the Honourable Member for Kilkenny. It was
frttleb7sPrct to the non-adoption of the English municipal
Whe,,tse in the Irish Bill for the settlement of Corporations.
440 mer t was right or whether it was wrong, the principle
ley) Sat by the side of the House on which he (Lord Stan-
the at, in regard to this measure, was to fix the amount of
1111111161)d franchise in Ireland 'a
nearly as
andpossible the
came
as the Parliamentary franchise insthe mu-
iltc!pal franchise in Scotland. The Parliamentary franchise
tent "gland consisted in a house of the clear yearly value of
e
Utid&—the municipal franchise in Scotland was derived
trwe„nle ?at of a residence of six months, or an occupation of
weirth.7,lll • To combine both in the Irish Municipal Bill was
object • and he hoped that they had now succeeded in
es.i()_ll3,P,eassing 'it by means of the Lords' amendments. The
~ci Lord (J. Russell) and the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume)
eat'
tu asked the side of the House on which he (Lord Stanley)
wne s• •
ma they not adopt the English municipal franchise
4. I.lloe Irish Municipal Bill. Because, it was quite impossible
30, was his reply ; and they would come to the same
tioolte.lusion when they considered the real state of the
si " lie should decidedly vote against the Noble Lord'se
proposition.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the only justice that should and
icaotitsdhotri be done was to give the municipal franchise of Eng-
hadreland. In England every man rated to the poors'
rat,: the municipal franchise.
Mr,
STANLEY—Only when rated three years.
wir, O'CONNELL—Oh, that's the crotchet, and if you had

not that, you'd easily find another. It is never difficult to dis_
rover an excuse when we intend to do an act of wrong. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then went on to say that though
a house might not be rated to the poors' rate, as it could not,
because of the non-existence of any law on the subject, it
could be rated to the other rates for the necessary period of
three years ; and be would, therefore, ask the Noble Lord,
was it not a quibble to refuse the English municipal franchise
on such a ground as he had stated. Every man who occupied
a house in Dublin for the last three years must have paid mu-
nicipal taxes—and they were heavy enough—did the Noble
Lord then mean to exclude Ireland from the advantage of the
English franchise, because they had nut paid a tax which
never existed—also because they were not rated to the poses'
rate? He (ilr. O'Connell) regretted ver✓ much to sec the
Government• accede first to a 51. franchise with deductions, as
proposed by the other side of the House, an,'. now to an 81.
franchise without any deduction; but as he was bound to make
his election between both propositions, he should take the lat-
ter as the better one of the two. The Bill before the House
had been sent down from the Lords in mockery. Under these
circumstances he ( Nlr. O'Connell) should support the Noble
Lord's preposition.
Sir. E. SUGDEN, after a few words in reference to the
discrepancy of the observations of the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland in the early part of the night, and those made
by him at a subsequent period, said that it would be but a
delusion, and a mockery to change the clause as amended in
the Lords, and that therefore he should vote against the pro-
position of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Hume De-
partment.

Mr. O'CONNELL, in reference to the statements of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. said that in
Stockport the number of Parliamentary electors was only
3,000, while the Municipal electors were 9,000. In Leeds
also they were as 6,000 to 25,000. Was that justice to Ireland ?
Mr. SHEIL said the Right Honourable Member for Tam-
worth had argued that the plan proposed by the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell) would lead to uncertainty.
Could any thing be more certain than the uncertainty likely to
ensue if the clause as it stood amended were to be carried
into effect ? The Honourable and Learned Member for
Exeter objected to the franchise without the test of rating, on
the score of its great uncertainty alone. Was the present
clause calculated in any wise to reduce that uncertainty or en-
sure its opposite ? All the evils remonstrated against would
be let in by the present plan. It cost some sacrifice of pride
and feeling on the part of the Irish Members to accede to
the scheme of the Government, and his (Mr. Shiel's) wish,
if left to his own free impulse, would be to reject it altoge-
ther ; and but that he felt agitation was an evil, which nothing
but the direst necessity could justify, he would have voted
against it, let things take their course. Was all the sacrifice
to be on the side of the Irish Members and the Government ?
Two years ago they would destroy Corporations altogether ;
now they would grant them, because they were compelled by
the force of public opinion. The House of Lords had no
public opinion to contest them; but was it not the more im-
perative upon Hon. Gentlemen opposite to make some con-
cessions for the sake of peace. Under all the circumstances
he should support the proposition of the Noble Lord the
Home Secretary.
Sir R. INGLIS felt bound to deprecate the course of ar-
gument pursued by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
and to say, that however eloquent he might be, he was
not sufficiently stored with statistical information to grapple
with the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth. He ( Sir R. Inglis) should support the clause as it
stood amended.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with
respect to the clause before the House, he felt bound to say it
was the most essential part of the Bill. He did not consider
he extension of the franchise in regard to mere numbers a
thing to be greatly desired ; nor did he consider that such was
the object of the clause as it stood amended ; but yet he fore-
saw that such would be its effect if passed without alteration..
An opportunity would be afforded by it of extending the Mu-
nicipal franchise fraudulently ; and that would especially be
the case when the stimulus of political excitement was applied
to the parties. There was not the slightest doubt on his mind
but its pi °visions would be wholly perverted. He had gone
through the valuation of houses in Limerick and Cork since
the subject came unCer discussion, and be was satisfied that
if the original 101 test were adhered to, the rating would be
25 per cent. over the value of the tenement. The House of
Lords found out that fact too, and they altered the measure
accordingly. In the present sense of the clause the people of
Ireland would be entitled at the end of three years to claim
the full benefit of the English municipal franchise. There was
a disposition on the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to con-
found this franchise with the Parliamentary franchise. Now
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) argued that if they were
permitted to raise one they would, in the process of time, try
to raise the other. On any other hypothesis the course taken
by Them towards Ireland, in respect of the Bilt before the
Hous, was perfectably unaccountable.
Mr. TURNER attempted to address the House from the
rear of the Ministerial benches, but could not obtain a hearing.
The House divided, and there appeared—
For the Lords' amendments
Against 169
Majority for. Ministers l5
Several verbal amendments were then made in the same
clause. On coming to the words " and all other local cesses,"
The ATTORNEN -GENERAL for Ireland objected to
those words as unnecessary.
" •

Mr. O'CONNELL supported him.
The House divided and there appeared—
For the above words
Against
Majority for Ministers
"
Clause 14. On the Lords' amendment, striking out the pro.
visions for payment of municipal taxes at Bankens',
Mr. BALL proposed that the sense of the House should
be taken.
The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided.
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
The Lords amendment was then struck out.
On the proposal of the amended clause 58,
Mr. O'CONNELL proposed the omission. No oath
ought to be administered to a person accepting civil office. It
was but an addition to the insults which had been already of—
fered to Ireland.
Mr. SHAW could not understand the motive of the oppo-
sition to this oath.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man would press his motion to a division, to ascertain whether
the Government would or would not vote with him.
Mr. A. YATES hoped the Government would assent to
the proposition of the lion. and Learned Member for Dublin.
Lord J. RUSSELL would vote against the oath. lie was
always opposed to any clauses in Bills which imposed mote
oaths than were necessary.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place, and, as we understood, the omission of the oath was
agreed to.
The clause providing for the compensation of officers, who
would suffer loss from the passing of the Bill, was next con-
sidered. The specific compensation of the town clerks was,
struttk out, and it was decided that the fixing of the amount
should be left to the Lords of the Treasury, as under the
English Bill.
Lt,rd J. RUSSELL then moved that the further con-
sideration of the amendments should be postponed to to-mor-
row (this day).
OATHS VALIDITY BILL.

On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, this
Bill passed through Committee.
After a short discussion, the committal of the Spirit Li•
tenses (Ireland) Bill was postponed to this d ty.
Mr. FOX MAULE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
facilitate the establishment of District Courts in Boroughs.

DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for
leave to bring in Bills for the regulation of the Duchies of
Cornwall and Lancaster. He had divided the subject into
three Bills. II,: wished to bring them in in redemption of the
pledge he had given, but he would not press the Bills through
thil Session unless he found the wish of the House decidedly
iu f&vour of his doing so.
Mr. G 0 ULBURN strongly objected to the introduction of
these Bills at this period of the session.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER and Mr. DARBY, the motion was agreed to.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Lord PALMERSTON obtained leave to introduce a Bill
to continue the provisions of the Ist of Victoria until the next
Session of Parliament, enabling her Majesty to make Orders
in Council to carry into effect the abolition of slavery in her
Majesty's colonies.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the :souse adjourned at a Quarter past One o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Auausr 2.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at
Five o'Clock.

A Message from the Commons brought up the Militia
Ballot Suspension Bill, the Dublin Police Bill, the Forms of
Pleading Bill, and several other Bills, which were read a
first time. _ _

The Earl of CAR LISLE presented petitions from Wake-
field, Dewsbury, and other places in the county of York,
against affording encouragement to idolatrous worship in
India.'
Lord REDE SD ALE presented a petition from the Glas-
gow Medical Association, praying for the institution of a Fa-
culty of Medicine.
The Hackney Carriages Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord B RO UG HAM presented petitions against the encour-
agement of idolatrous worship in India, from Southampton,
Andover, and several other places. A petition from the members
of the Mechanics' Institution of Maidstone in favour of Mr. Row-
land Hill's Post.office plan ; a petition from Gringley, in favour
of the abolition of the system of negro apprenticeship.
A Message from the Commons brought up the Sardinia
Slave Trade Treaties Bill, and several other Bills.
Lord BROUGHAM then presented a great number of
other petitions against the encouragement,of idolatrous wor-
ship in India, and favour of Mr. Hill's Post-office plan. A peti-
tion from Paisley, complaining of the conduct of her Majesty's
troops on entering Newcastle-upon-Tyne in a menacing man-
ner, during a public meeting, and stating, that but for the
prudence displayed by Thomas Doubleday, Esq. (the Chair-
man), and F. O'Conner, Esq., the county would have had to
lament over this uncalled-for interference with their constitu-
tional privileges. The Noble Lord next presented a petition
from Montrose, complaining of the gross inequality in. the
distribution of the Parliamentary franchise ; and another peti-
tion from the same place, praying for the repeal of the Corn-
s. Also petitions from Bath, Huddersfield, Mansfield,
Bury, and several other places, against the Beer-law, and in
favour of the Bill which he had introduced on the subject.
The Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Abingdon, the Ear