The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-02 00:00:00

rask fr anchise not too low Is the best security against a subversion of the
sleets of any parties, and I am satisfied the Roman Catholics in Corp°_
raisons will see their interest in dicontinuance of religious or party ani.
mosity. I have said thus much upon the subject of ray proposition, as
it has been charged that I had brought it forward as a covert mode of
,adrancing the Protestant interest in Ireland, or for 4actious purposes.
in my opinion it is calculated to secure the franchise, and so far to aid
In securing good local government for Ireland.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the application of the English and
Scotch tests in combination to Ireland. In preference to this it would
De better to adopt a Si. franchise.
Several verbal amendments were then proposed by Sir R. PEEL, as
Enecessary to the completion of his main amendment, if it should be
agreed to; and they were adopted by the Committee on that under-
standing.
A verbal amendment proposed by Mr. O:)COITNELL was then
agreed to.
Sir R. PEEL then proposed his amen?.ment, 'which was to the fol-
lowing effect :—" And shall in respect tr, the said premises be assessed
sander any Act of the presfmt Sc,sion o'• Parliament for the relief of the
destitute poor of Ireland.'"
Lord J. RUSSELL raid he was ready to assent to that portion of the
proposition which said 'chat there should be a rating under the Poor Re-
lief Act; 17-it he di agreed as to the sum which the Right Hon. Baro.
net propos‘A to sug'iest.
After 'a few words from Sir E. SUGDEN, the motion was agreed to.
Sir F,, BEET,, then proposed that ten pounds should be insetted in
the B,' I, as the amount of such rating.
1/7 rd .1. ritUSSELL said that if the Committee disagreed to the
osition of the Right Hon. Baronet, it was his Intention to propose
the the sum should be five pounds.
The Committee then divided.
For the amendment lll
Against it

Majority
Sir R. PEEL said that he should not divide the Committee against
the proposition of the Noble Lord for 51., lest it should be for a moment
supposed that he was satisfied with an (thing less than 101.—(Cheers.)
But, with the best possible disposeeion towards the measure, he could
not agree to any further amendments. All those he had already sug-
gested, depending as they did en this principal one, were now thrown
away. He found in scherhalet A and B that there were eleven towns in
Ireland, in seven of whech the Bill of the Noble Lord established a real
arid true 10/. franchise, He (Sir R. Peel) attempted to extend the
principle to four othees, but be was so exceedingly unfortunate that he
net ones did not succeed in his object but he lost the 101. franchise for
thern • altogether.--(Cheers and laughter.) He had lost the 101, and he
was r low about to have the 51. franchise, rated as he proposed, substituted
In it s stead. It was quite evident, from the course which the thing had
tak en, that the security he sought was not only greatly required, but
absolutely necessary, for it now appeared after all, that the bona fide
Ii enchise intended to be established under the provisions of the Bill was
e5/.—(Cheers.) He was very sorry that such an important question
'had been decided in such a small House. He could have wished that
It- were otherwise, because it was, a principle of the greatest
moment to the welfare of the Treasure. He did not see the
slightest advantage to be derived from his proceeding farther with the
details of the Bill; but he distinctly reserved to himself the right of
taking another division on the report, for which he would give due
notice of al) his amendments, and on which occasion he should lay be.
fore the H ouse a clear scheme of all he proposed, in the hopes that by
that petered they would have reconsidered the subject —(Great cheering
from bieth sides of the House.)
Lor dJ. RUSSELL said that of course the Right Hon. Gentleman
woe) d take what course appeared best to him on the occasion; but
wise n the Righe Hon. Gentleman stated that the only proposal he had
suede had had an unfortunate result, it behoved him (Lord J. Russell) to
*Vete what he had already stated in his argument on the question, that
the Committee ought to be set right on the subject. Putting aside
every minor matter, the state of the question was this. There were
47 boroughs in the Bill, of which seven were to have 10/. franchise,
without any rating, and the remaining 40 to have a 51. franchise with
e rating. The Right Nonourahle Gentleman proposed one uniform
scale of rating for these Isoroughs--and that 11 should be placed in
the schedule of the Bill as not to be rated., while the remainder
should have a 101. franchise with rating, Ile (Lord John Russell)
agreed with him in the eirmere-he agreed also to the test of rating, but
he differed as to the amount; because the houses would be rated at an
Increased value under the Poor-law Bill. Thus, whether the main pro-
position of the Right Hen. Gentleman was right or wrong, no one
could charge him (Lord J. Russell) with an indisposition to entertain
any reasonable proposals suggested by him.—(Hear, hear.) The result
was wethin the knowledge of the Committee, and he (Lord J. Russell)
only mentioned those things to show that he was ready to make very
great alterations in the measure, as far as he could do so consistent with
principle. But he did not come down to that House to acquiesce in
every proposition of the Right Hen. Gentlerean, or to adopt any pe-
remptory suggestion he chose to make from the beginning to the end
of the BilL—(Hcor, iear.) It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that
tis amendment to tee proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not
only reasonable, but absolutely necessary, inasmuch as it would make
the measure work well in Ireland. He (Lord J. Russell) regretted
the determiner ion which had been come to by the Right Honourable
Gentleman, and he regretted it the more as it seemed to be anything but
accordant with the spirit of the principle which he professed to enter-
tain of tie, question at the outset—the principle of concieation.
In
refereneee tp the observations of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dub-
lin, aeiel the Hon. Member for Tipperary, as respected the motives of
the Right Hon. Baronet in regard tee the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
hoe (Lord John Russell) regretted them very much, because he did not
believe the Right Hon. Gentleman was influenced by any desire what-
ever to insult them.
Sir R. PEEL said that, the observations of the Hon. Gentleman, in
that particular only, ken him an advantage over them which he should
not abuse. He st.ould not reply to them in a corresponding spirit.
With respect to he course taken by the Noble Lord, he (Sir Robert
Peel) admitted, that he had a right to move any amendment he chose;
but lie (Sir Robert Peel) also claimed an equal right of objecting
to it, and of taking any fair course in reference to it which he
saw fit. He (Sir Robert Peel) had already stated, in his opening
speech the objects he had in view ; he had told the Committee that he
eemeedered the 101. qualification a just and reasonable one ; and he had
cier uttered a word which, could by possibility, lead any one to suppose
Chat he meant otherwise. The whole of his amendments were based on
that assumption.. But he was not to be presumed in an ill temper if,
that principle being defeated by a decision of the Committee, he then
threw up all further concern in the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He would, as
he had seated, on the report being brought up, take his chance of
the reconsideration of the amendments so defeated--(Hear, hear)._
by proposing them again to the House.—(Hear, hear.) It would
be in vain for him to do more now—(Hear, hear)--and this he
said neither in ill humour nor bad temper, with the decision of
the Committee, or the cou.iso which had been taken by any party
In the House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL feLt that after what had taken place, he for his
own part had no rielit to be in any other than good humour, seeing that
he had succeeded :n 'what he considered the most important part of the
Bill.—(Cheers tons both sides.) It was attempted to saddle the Irish
franchise w:.t..h the limitations in both the English and Scotch Bills. Had
either bee") proposed separately, it would not have been so objectionable
but it ''ene too bad to propose burthening the Irish Bill with both. The
Peelyesition of the Right Honourable Baronet, if agreed to, would
re .are the franchise in Ireland, like that in England, dependent on mere
Totting, and on that alone. It would require the qualification to be one
of 101. value over and above all rates and charges. Now, the effect of
such a proposition in the borough of Tralee would be to reduce the qua-
lified persons from 230 to 50. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to
Dublin, and stated the number of voters at 12,000, but of these in
the late election, which was perhaps mere warmly contested than any
previous one, the number who polled did not amount to six thou-
sands. This was the number which actually voted, out of a popu-
lation of three hundred thousand. If the houses were, as the Right
Honourable Baronet proposed, calculated, after the payment of
all charges and taxes, the number of votes would be reduced to 1,500.
(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the attempt thus made to be a conti-
relation of the iesulting treatment which had been always offered to
Ireland—(ob, oh.) If Ireland and Scotland had municipal institutions,
and that they were denied to England, would not the people of this
country feel it an insult? If there was an Englishman who did not
feel ao he could not much respect him. The whole history of the con.
election of England with Ireland showed the desire to domineer; and
when the latter was not directly oppressed attempts were made to put
her (town by humbug.
Mr. WYSE supported the lower franchise.
Mr. PRAED would just make one observation. The Bill, in the
tret instance, proposed 101, yearly value. The Noble Lord (Russell)
when the rating was proposed, said he would agree to the proposition of
'rating if the amount was reduced to Si. Now he (Mr. Praed) would
wish to know ftom the Noble Lord whether he thought the rating was
equivalent to the full yearly value of 101. ?—(Cheers.)
Lord .1. RUSSELL said the lion. Gentleman had not stated the
whole. The original proposition in the Bill was that seven towns should
bitve the 101. franchise and all the others 5/. If thewhole were taken
at the 51. valuation, with rates, it would rather raise than lower the real
amount of qualification.
After a few words from Mr. BAINES and Mr. G. PALMER the
blank was filled up with the words " five pounds."
When the remainder of the clause was about to be proceeded with,
Sir R. PEEL suggested that the change from 101. to 51. so affected
the whele details of' the Bill that it would be impossible to proceed with
it until the necessary alterations were made.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL felt that the clause must be entirely altered.
An attempt was made to preemie with the Bill, but as had been ob_
served by Sir Robert Peel the change in the franchise was found to affect
every clause.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House resumed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would propose the pro forma Commit-
tal of the Bin on Wednesday, and proceed with the further consideration
im a future day—say that day fortnight.
On the suggestion of Sir R. PEEL it was agreed that the Bill should
be brought forward for discussion on Monday se'nnight.
Sir R. PEEL wished to know from the Noble Lord what business
would be proceeded with on Friday next ?
Lord J. RUSSELL intended to proceed with the Benefices Pluralities
and the Registration of Voters (England) Bill.
Mr. KIRK asked the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home De-
partment if it was his intention to include Carrickfergus in schedule
It, as he proposed in 1836, and if not that he (Mr. Kirk) was determined
o make such a proposition himself, and to divide the House upon it ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not prepared to give an answer at
present.

°lthe motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER the
Sch,.ols Scotland Bill passed through Committee.
The Waterloo Annuities Bill was read a second time.
The Factories Regulation Bill was postponed till Friday week.
Several remainiug Orders of the Day were then disposed of.
RAILWAY BILLS.

Mr. FINCH then moved " That all Railway Bills, the reports on
which might, according to the standing orders of the House, stand for
further consideration on Tuesday next, in case the House ware then
sitting, should, in consequence of the adjournment to Wednesday,
etand for consideration on that day ; that all reports on Railway Bills
which might, according to the standing orders, be brought up onMonday
next, if the House were then sitting, and which should be brought up
on Wednesday next, might be taken let° further consideration on the
Tuesday following, provided that amended prints had been deposited,
and notice given according to the standing orders.—Agreed to.
NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. F. BARING moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the establish-
ment of a British Colony in New Zealand.
Sir R. INGLIS said this was a subject of great importance in the
minds of all those who were interested in missionary exertions, all of
whom were opposed to the establishment of this colony. No colony had
ever yet been formed by this or any other country, without leading to
the extermination of the native population. Before the House consented
to the introduction of the Bill, the Hon. Mover ought to furnish them
with some statement as to the nature of its provisions.
Mr. F. BARING said his statements would be too lengthy to enter
upon at that hour of the night. He hoped the House would allow him
to introduce the measure.
Sir G. GREY expressed a hope that the House would not resist the
Proposition of the Hon. Gentleman.
Colonel WOOD said this was a measure which ought not to be under_
taken by a private individual but by the Government—(Hear, hear)—
who, as they had long known the state of these islands, ought to have
ere this established some controul over the runaway sailors
,and-convicts
fronr New South Wales, who were introducing every sort of vice and
immorality among the native population, and destroying the good effects
which had been produced among them.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTT, in answer to what had been said by the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, said that so
far from exterminating the native population in the Colonies, this
country had formed the Colony of South Australia without any such
deleterious effects.

Mr. PLUMTRE said this was a measure that ought to have been
taken up by the Government.—(Hear.)
Mr. PEASE said it was not fair to put an extinguisher on the project
because it was not brought forward by the Government.
Mr. HINDLEY said that the Hon. Gentleman ought to give a full
explanation of his Bill.

Mr. HUME said the Government ought to have established a suffi-
cient force in these islands, instead of giving the population a merely
nominal protection.
Sir G. GREY said the Government had, en a former occasion, been
defeated in their attempt to do so by the lawyers on the opposite side
of the House.
Mr. HA WES said that as there was an anxious desire on the part
of the promoters of the Bill to secure to the natives all tbeir rights,
and he, for one, was willing to introduce provisions into it, that no-
thing should be taken from them without an equivalent. He con-
sidered the measure a useful one, and therefore, although the Govern-
ment did not approve of it, he felt it his duty to support the motion for
its introduction.

Mr. C. W. WYNN did not deny the right of any individual to
bring in a Bill on any subject, but as this was a question involving
questions of international law the measure he thought was one which
ought to emanate from the Executive Government. This was a Bill
to establish a colony, and it could not, consequently, be regarded merely
as a private BilL He thought the How. Gentleman should take time to
consider whether the course they were about to take might not lead to
great and serious inconvenience.

Mr. WARD said that there was a precedent for this Bill in the mea..
sure brought in for establishing a colony in South Australia. The
questions mooted in the present case arose in that, but still the South
Australian Bill was passed. He did not understand that the Govern.
ment were opposed to the Bill; on the contrary. he believed there was a
probability that they would sanction it. If the Bill were introduced it
would be seen that there was nothing objectionable in the details. All
that the promoters of the measure had in view was that the subject
should be fully and fairly discussed.
The SPEAKER said that as to the measure with respect to South
Australia, which had been alluded to, he was bound to state that the
consent of the Crown was obtained before the motion for the introduc.
tion of that Bill was made.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know whether in point of fact the consent of
the Crown was necessary.
The SPEAKER said that no measure relating to the prerogative of
the Crown could be introduced without the consent of the Crown hav-
ing been first obtained.

Mr. VILLIERS said that, ai the object of the present Bill was not to
establish a Colony in a foreign country, there was end to the opposition
to the motion of the Honourable Member for Thetford.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the subject had been considered by the
Government, and they had arrived at the conclusion that it was proper
that the Bill should be brought in. It was trot, therefore, his intention
to oppose the motion.

Sir R. INGLIS said that, u the Bill was connected with a Colony
belong to the Crown, no such measure should bo Introduced without the
sanction of her Majesty.
Mr. A GLIONBY supported the motion, but would not pledge himself
to support the second reading of the Bill, unless the details were such
as he could approve of.

Mr. DARBY was anxious to know whether the Government intended
to provide in this measure, should they approve of it, for the protection
of European settlers in New Zealand ?
Mr. VILLIERS thought the Government were not called on to answer
that question at present.
Sir G. SINCLAIR hoped his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford
would consent to the introduction of the Bill. He believed the Bishop
of London and the other Prelates who had been applied to on the subject
concurred in the principle of the measure. Something was necessary to
be done, as it was a matter well known that the missionaries bad served
their secular views to a considerable extent by obtaining large grants of
land, but he did not mean it to be understood that they had not attended
to their spiritual duties.
Sir G. GREY said that it was the intention of the Government to re-
cognise the principle of protection to both the Europeans and the na-
tives, but they had deferred bringing forward any measure for the pur-
pose until this Bill was introduced.

The House then divided, and the numbers were :
For the motion
Against it
Majority .. —5l

Leave was then given to bring the Bill in.
On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE a return of copies of all letters
and other documents addressed to the Poor.law Commissioners or their
Secretary, with the replies thereto, respecting the last election of guar-
dians for the Holborn Union, was ordered.
Capt. PECHELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the more
effectual protection of innkeepers. The Hon. Member said that the
statute law imposed great hardships on this class of persons, and that
Lord Tenterden had expressed it as his opinion that they should be
placed in the same situation as carriers, who were not liable beyond 101.
for goods entrusted to them, unless at the time of delivery the value
was declared. The object of the Bill which he proposed bringing in was
to exempt innkeepers from all liability beyond 101. for the loss of money,
jewels, or writing brought by persons to their houses, unless the value
of the same was previously declared.
Mr. C. W. WYNN opposed the motion, on the ground that it was a
departure from the law of the land. It was reasonable enough that such
a measure should be desired by the innkeepers, but the question was
would it meet with the approval of the public.
Lord J. RUSSELL fully concurred in the view taken by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the common sense view of the
case was against him. _ _ .

Mr. MAULE opposed the motion, and said that as the present law
had worked well, he for one would not wish to see it altered.

After some further conversation, and a few observations from Captain
PECHELL, the gallery was cleared, but on returning, we found that
the motion had been negatived witbout a divsion.
The House was then proceeding with the Orders of the Day, when
Mr. WALLACE begged leave to make a complaint of the conduct of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Gentleman had given him (Mr.
Wallace) a distinct promise that the Scotch Education Bill should not
come on this evening, and, notwithstanding, had afterwards advanced
the measure a stage. Under these circumstances he considered that a
very improper advantage had been taken.
Mr. HUME said that there was no Bill which excited more public
interest in Scotland than this, and he certainly thought the Government
was bound to give due opportunities for discussion.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that what had occurred must certainly have
been caused by misconception, and he trusted the House would not
judge harshly of his Right Honourable Friend until he had an oppor-
tunity of explanation.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the Holfse ad-
journed at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.