The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-13 00:00:00

Lord DENMAN had no objection to insert such a provision.
Lord A SHB URTON thought it would have been better to
introduce a general rneisure rather than one applicable only to
particular sects. _

The Earl of lIADDINGTON hoped the provisions of the
Bill would not to extend to Scotland.

The Earl of WICKLOW could see no reason why the
Bill, if pas-4ed at all, should not extend to Scotland as well as
to England and Ireland. If a division were come to, he should
vo:c against it.
The Earl of CAM PE R DOWN was understood to concur
in the impropriety of extending the Bill to Scotland, in the
abience of any opinion on the subject having been taken of the
judges there.
Lord ASHBURTON moved that the Bill be read a
second time that day silt months.
Lord DENMAN supported the Bill.
Lord A SHBURTON vvould not persist in his amendment
at pr2sent._

The Duke of WELLINGTON had recommended that
the Biil should 13.! withdrawn for the Session, because he was
anx;ous that it should secure the sanction of the Judges before
it passed. Thole learned persons were better able than any
others to form a sound judgment as to whether or not the Bill
should pass, and it was chiefly by their opinions that he should
be guided on this occasion.
Lord DENMAN observed that this measure had been in-
troduced in consequence of a case tried at Lancaster, and
afterwards brought before the Judges in the Exchequer. In
consequence of the administration of justice being stopped in
this ca,c, by this defect in the law, the Judges seemed to re-
gard it as a case of great hardship, and thought that the law
should be remedied to meet such cases.

Lord BROUGHAM thought that if there was an intention
to oppose this Bill it would be better to do so when it was
printed in its amended shape.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Lord ASHBURTON wished to know whether under this
Bill Jews would not be admissible to seats in Parliament ?

Lord DENMAN replied that it only applied to witnesses
in Courts of Justice, and deponents on oath in other places.
Lord ASHBURTON asked whtther the word ." place"
might not be held to include Parliament?
Lord BROUGHAM stated that the words in the clause
were, " being witness in any proceeding, civil or criminal, or
deponent in any Court or place where an oath by law is re-
quired." This was quite sufficient to exclude the class stated
by his Noble Friend from the operation of this Bill. With respect,
however, to the objection, the persons who took oaths of qua-
lification to office did not depone, and the clause required tint
the party exempted under this Bill should be either jury, wit-
ness, or deponent.

The Earl of HADDINGTON moved that a clause should
be inserted preventing the extension of this Bill to Scotland.
Lord BROUG 11 AM agreed in the observation of the Noble
Earl, but he would recommend him not to rely too much on
the outward solemnity of administering an oath in Scotland.
Lord DE NM A N would not divide the House on the amend-
ment.

A number of verbal amendments were introduced into seve-
ral olauses, and the House resumed.
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)
BILL.
The Marquis of D 0 WNS HIRE presented a petition from
the Recorder and clerks of several guilds of the City of Dub-
lin, praying that in the Irish Corporation Bill regard would
be bad to their vested rights. The Noble Marquis also pre-
sented similar petitions from the masters and wardens of the
guild of Smiths and other trades in the City of Dublin ; and
also from the register and deputy of the Coort of Conscience
of the City of Dublin.
The Earl of HAD DINGTO N preiented a similar petition
from the turncocks under the Pipe-water Commission of the
City of Dublin.

pelt that oil the part of the Noble Viscount any objection
would be made to no proposition, and the reason was, that it
was a mere repetition of the proposition made in the
other House of Parliament, which was not objected to, and
which, as he understood, was not adopted merely from the
circumstance of a more material amendment having been
!ejected in consequence of which no alteration was made in
the Bill. Now, passing this over, he came to the second and
mi.ro material amendment. It related to the qualification ;
and it was, in fact, almost the only material and essential
amendment to the Bill. It was proposed that the qualificatiora
should be similar to that which was in existence in Scotland
—the occupancy of a house of the value of 101. That was
the qualification whicls he meant to propose. He had already
said that it would be icti to do nothing further than to say
that every person occupying a house of the value of 51. ought
to vote, because they knew from the evidence that such a qua-
lification was altogether illusory. He would not go into a de-
tail of the evidence, because Noble Lords had doubtless either
read the evidence, or they had had their attention referred
to the subject; but he would point out to them the evidence
of one individual, Mr. L...eei of the county of Cork. It had
been already referred to in Oscussions upon this subject, and
the witness was beyond all exception, on account of his pri-
vate character, and because, po,i itie"llY, he was favourable
to the present Government. From. his testimony it appeared
that a great number of persons, a mu.iit ode of persons, who,
for the purpose of avoiding the paymeest of rates, declared
their property, and on oath, to be under the value of 51., were
•
afterwards put on the register in order to enti*le them to vote
at the election of Members of Parliament.—( Oar.) So that
when they came to be called on for the payment oi: money the
property was sworn to be under the value of 5/. ,:nd then,
when they came to the register for the purpose of thee being
entitled to vote, it was sworn to be of the value of la Such
was the reliance to be placed on a m. re money qualifis'e-
tion, unchecked by any other test. This did not occur'
in ono or two instances only, however, but innumerable
eases occurred. For instance, persons were known to
have been rated at more than 5/., and they had appealed
against the rate, and then, although they had succeeded,
they were afterwards placed upon the register in order to
entitle them to vote.—(Hear, hear.) Again, there was a
large class of perons' houses, as it was contended, undet
the value of 101., anu to whom it was of importance, let
order that they might is!'tain some advantage under the
excise laws,, that they should be rated at an amount of bl
They had been se rated, but scbsequently they had pro-
cured their names to be placed or. the register as holding
houses of the value of 10/. These Ce:SCS were not few, and
he believed that, out of two hundred pe:sons in the situa-
tion he had described, ninety-two had been g'-uilty of the con-
duct he had stated, and were registered as hoi:lers over the
value of 10/. in order to entitle them to vote. He mentioned
these only as instances, however; and thousands of cases of a
evidence
similar description were to be found in the mass of
collected by the Committee, and their Lordships would !here-
fore see that some test was necessary besides that which was
proposed, and in which there was a pecuniary interest involve 1.
He knew no other test which could be better than that which
he proposed should be taken, and he therefore said that they
were not to limit the qualification to a house of 101. value, but
of 10/. value as proved by the rate. But then another ques-
tion arose. What rate? A- rate of what amount ? A bona fide
101. value was what they said
:ight to be the elective franchise,
and then let them inquire what
; a house of 10/. value. He
considered a house of 101. value to
be a house which would
,-(1
give to the landlord 10/. rent, the landlo
paying such charges
as were necessary to enable him to commahei such a rent—not
the value of repairs this day or this hour, bat the average
amount of repairs necessary to enable him to command the
rent. An article was worth what it would sell for, sizid there-
fire he apprehended that he had stated it correctly when
be said that the test should bee house of the annual value of
10/., which must be a house which, let to the tenant year by
year, and the tenant paying the usual charges, should bring
to the landlord 101. rent after he had paid the average amount
of those charges necessary to keep the house in repair. Ho
hoped he made himself understood.—(Hear.) That, then,
was the principle upon which he proposed to proceed—it was
the basis of the whole argument. Then they were to check
this by rating. It was necessary to see first what was the value
of rating. A Bill was passed through Parliament two years
ago with respect to the system of rating in England ; and the
estimate of the value of it in that Bill corresponded with the
description which he had given their Lordships. He alluded
to Mr. Poulett Scrope's Bill. Now, in that Biil, which had
come into operation under the Poor-law Commissioners,
the value was taken thus :--what the tenement ;would let
for from year to year, the tenant paying the usual
charges, deducting from it the amount of repairs, and
the amount of insurance to be pad by the landlord, in
order to enable him to command t,'Je rent. The plan
in the Act of Parliament corresponded, therefore, pre-
cisely with the mode of ascertaining the yearly value which he
bad stated, and therefore, if the rating swere to i!)e under Mr.
Poulett Scrope's Bill, which applied only to Eng land, the
rated value would correspond with the clear yearly vatoe as ho
had stated. But there was another proposition to be oken
into account, which was the rating under the Poor Relief Act,
which was in a manner different from that under the Bill to
which he had referred. He would not go into the minute
particulars connected with this Bill, because it would be diffi-
cult, without much consideration, to communicate all the lir-
; guments upon the subject to the House, but the result was
this, that the rating under the Poor Relief Bill was precisely
l the same in its result as that under Mr. Scrope's Bill. There-
! fore, if they l• ,d the rating under the Poor -Relief Bill, the
rating of tenements, it would correspond precisely with what.
he had already stated to be the clear yearly value of the tene-
ment, and every holder of a house of 101. annual value would have
aright to vote. Now, if he had made himself intellisible, he
would go to the only remaining pointto which he would will their
attention, and it was an important point, and that on which the
whole question turned. In England the Parliamentary francNise
was the yearly value of 10/. ; in Ireland the parliamentary
franchise was the yearly value of 101. ; in Scotland the muni-
cipal franchise was the clear yearly value of 101. Now, on
the appeals in relation to the parliamentary franchise in Eng-
land to the revising barristers, they had never in any instance,
or only in one or two, deducted the landlord's repairs, the
consequence of which was, the ealue of a 101. tenement in
England was also then the clear annual value to which be
had referred. It was less than the clear annual value de-
noted by the rating under Mr. Poulett Scrope's Bill, or
under the Poor Relief Bill, and it was so much under it
as the amount of the landlord's repairs and insurance.
Now, he did not think that the revving barristers had
done right ; but it bad been the practice in England so
to decide. Then this was the whole argument in the other
House, and the question in contest between them was,
whether it should be the clear annual value of 101. But
then it was said that this could render the value higher in
Ireland than in England. He could not stand up for this ;
for the estimated value in Ireland should correspond pre-
cisely with some definite value under the Poor Relief Bill.
But he added to the rated value the amount. of the repairs,
and of the insurance; and he said that the lot value should
be measured by the aggregate of these three sun's ; and if
it
thisc rwr aewss
apssoon:dipt
oewxi
naates
toldyfeinw very
iotnhsgttrrheabeatpl e
rnati
nicety
teaitteyat
ilhnev
value
vtl
stai ledueietnai nEI
snlraelnlaadnr.drac.
qw:sruoi
rou,7ldd,
the minutest inspection of the clauses of the Bill ; but be
was quite satisfied that there was no Noble Lord who would
d_liirlect his attention to the subject, taking these clauses in the
B
intoa
(correspond
would account, who would
with
not
the
say that
practical the
valuecertainin E
valuenglnn idn.
He Ire
ni
proposed, therefore, to amend the clause; and he had bet-
ter at this stage read the form of the amendment. The quali-
fication now was 5/., and he proposed to raise it to 101., and
then the point was how the 101. was to be measured. His
ava
saml
hue
ene
rdoemifneannfttoetwr
lessams e 'n`
tt
hiToanhnte,
di
.oqualification
t question
ascertainedeosut liodnbweaansodfwdhee
thetet hr yearlyni nHouse would accede to the proposition for raising the value to
101., and the neat was whether they thought his mode of er thed
e
as-
certaining the value was correct. He proposed to continue
his
amendment, "and such yearly value shall be ascertained
and determined in the manner following, and not otherwise,
that is to say, it shall be composed of the value of the pre-
mises rated, as they are hereby required to be under the pro-
visions of an Act made and passed in the present session
of Parliament, entitled An Act for the Relief of the Poor
in Ireland,' and of the amount of the sum at which
the landlord's repairs and insurance is estimated in such
rate." Their Lordships were already aware that by an amend-
ment introduced into the Poor Relief Bill, there was a schedule
attached to it in reference to the rating, in one column of which
were mentioned the landlord's repairs, while in the other the
insurance was set out. The Poor-h-ets Commissioners were to
appoint valuers, and the valuers were to act ender their orders,
and the rates were to be made under their direction, and these
points were to be ascertained in the rate, arid the persons, there-
fore, who were to decide on the qualification would have t oity o
take the three sums which he mentioned. had
He would now
state the effect of his amendment. The
was to be 10/., which should be •
clear yearly value
estimated in this manner ;
they should take the amount of the
g rating of the tenement,
and to that amount of rating they would and what appearsd
in the column of repairs,
and what appeared in the column
of insurance, and if these three sums amounted to 10/, that
constituted a tenement of the
value of 101., which would en-
title the party to vote. There would be na room for fraud
because it would be done under the Poor-law Commissioners,
and therefore, if any of these. itemsh were incorrectly stated,
right the party aggrieved had atto apply, not to the Re-
vising Barrister,
or to the
Assistant Barrister •to
Assistant Barrister sitting with the 13ni.
t; theh
lagistrates o. the
county, who were to decide on the • Now, lie would, with the permission validity of the return.'
that which he had stated before, of the House, repeat
for very great consideration. The resultthe matter required
would make the valuation in I- . would be this, that it
with that which wvsthe in e and to correspond exactly
test ln valuation under the Municipal c oland ;it would make the
pond exactly with the valluati orporations in Ireland corres-
practice in England, and he this" under the Parliamentary
that it should be placed on a
diffught that no one could desire
said here that a person occu • crent or better footing. They
had a right to vote, and thePling a house of lot yearly value
house in Ireland of the value said also that a person having a
should have a right to vet of 101., estimated as in England,
borough in which he resided for the election of officers of the
amendments which he • Now these were two of the
he said so, he begged intended to propose, and, when
he was the mere or a that it might be understood that
milted them to the I g n
7 of others, at whose desire he sub-
drawn louse. draw The amendments were not alone
nup or suggested by •
by many Noble Lords him, but they had been agreed to
consideration. Anoth after
a very great deal of discussion and
was with respect to t Another amendment which he should suggest
property char;tabl •
trustees.. There was in Ireland extcnswe
posed that in the y given for Protestant purposes, and he prd-
. administration of it none but Protestants
should be conceri ed
for h, di He would not go further into the sub-
ject,d not think it seas a matt
matter into which it was nes