The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-29 00:00:00

SERIAL I~ PARLIAMENT

MOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
four o'clock.
VIE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (LL.
IRELAND)
ACT CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILR.
Lord REDESDALE moved the third reading of this
hill, and it was passed.
NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passel.
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
The House again wont into Committee upon this Bill.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said that, as
far as be was concerned, he acc,pted the amendment of the
Noble Earl.
Earl GREY was understood to say that the objection
which he offered to the bill as it formerly stood was the
clauses that regulated the suffragan or assistant bishops,
And he considered that by amendment these were remove
instead
d.
The Archbishop of CANTEEragRY said " one"
of "ono or more persons."
The EARL of DEVON said that he thought the Noble
Earl opposite had provided an excellent amendment, and
he quite concurred with him as to the clause that he had
produced with regard to the assistant; that he had used
a very wise discretion, and one beneficial to the public.
Several other technical objections were made by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and remarks from the Bishops
of Oxford, London, and Peterborough as to the fact that
the assistant bishops might be selected from any clergy-
mar, whether they held a position as dignitaries in the dio-
cese or not; and objection to that being made on the ground
that a dean, canon, or archdeacon acting as an assistant
bishop would retain his position in the diocese,
while the simple clergyman would relapse from te
same position to be a simple clergyman again, but it also
being urged that a bishop would be sure to select some
dignitary of the diocese, the bill passed through com-
mittee.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of the Statute Law Revision Bill, the object of which he
stated was merely to continue the work of revising the
statute law.
The bill was read a second time.
The Public Libraries (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill
was also read a second time, and several other bilk having
been advanced a stage, the house adjourned at 5 minutes
past 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at two o'clock.
R7,PRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The 'house went into committee on this bill.
The discussion was resumed upon the proposal to
adopt the following reconstruction of the 35th clause :
—" Where any occupier" of a dwAliug-house or
other tenement for • which the owner at the time
of the passing of this act is rated, or is liable to be rated,
would be entitled to be registered as occupier in
pursuance of this act, at the first registration of Parlia-
mentary voters to be made after the passing of this act, if
he had been rated to the poor rate for the whole of the re-
quired period, such occupier shall, notwithstanding he
may not have been rated prior to the 29th September,
1867, as an ordinary occupier, be entitled to be registered
subject to the following conditions : first that ho has been
duly rated as an ordinary occupier to all poor rate=, in re-
spect of the premises, after the liability of the owner to
be rated to the poor rate has ceased under the provi-
sions of this act ; second, that he has before the
20th July, 1868, paid all poor rates which have become
payable from him as an ordinary occupier in respect to the
premises up to the preceding sth day of January, together
with all the arrears of poor rates, if any, duo from the
owner before his liability to be rated caused as hezein-
before mentioned."
Mr. DENMAN objected to the insertion of the date,
viz , 20th July, 1868 ; he thought the matter should be left

open.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho
could not agree with the hon. and learned gentleman. It
was desirable that the measure should be a complete one,
and he hoped the house would adopt the clause as it stood.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the matter very important.
There was an amcndment, however, previous to it which
he thought it desirable should be made in the last proviso,
awl that was to introduce the words "or shall have een
demanded" after the word " payable" in the last provbiso.
With respect to the date in the clause he thought it would
be desirable to insert instead of that the words "the day
appointed by the act," because the matter of dissolution
was connected with it. He thought that if the 20th of
July was fixed the act would not come into operation until
December, 1868, or possibly January, 1869. He therefore
moved the omission of the words 20th of July, 1868, in
order to insert the words, " the day appointed by the

act."
Mr. GOLDNEY thought it best to allow the date to
stand. The proposal of the right hon. gentleman would
entail another discussion on the motion at another and
later part of the deliberation.
'rho first part of the amendment was agreed to, but that
relating to the date 20th January was withdrawn, after an
intimation from the Govirnment bench that the date was
not inserted as a positive and unalterable one.
Mr. MONK thought the words after the sth of January
should be omitted. If they were retained the tenant
would be liable for the payment of arrears, however far
back.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the objection to the words wall founded, and therefore he
would agree to their being struck out, and the clause end-
ing with the words "sth of January."
Mr. P. SCROPE, who had an amendment on the paper,
thought that would be the proper time to bring it forward.
The amendment or addition to the clause was as follows :
" Provided that no person, whether .owner or occupier of
a dwelling house within any Parliamentary borough the
rateable value of which shall be less than £4, be hereafter
rated to the relief of the poor in respect of such dwelling

house."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it
would not be in accordance with order for the lion. gentle-
man to proceed with the amendment at present.
The CHAIRMAN having ruled that it was quite in ac-
cordance with order for the hon. gentleman to proceed,
Mr. P. SGROPE then moved his provision, and said that
the present time was the first that he had brought the
subject under the consideration of the house. He had done
so in 1858, but the matter was looked upon with distaste;
but that circumstance had not at all daunted the interest
be felt in the matter. In nearly all taxation acts certain
exemptions wore made, as in the income act no p•rson
was taken whose income did not exceed £lOO. He could
cite various other cases in which exemptions were made
on account of the poverty of tke person liable to the taxa-.
tion ; and that being so in many instances, he did not see
why the uGual reservation be exempted or ignored in the
act under discussion.
Mr. HIBBERT opposed the proposition, as he looked
upon it as an attempt to limit the franchise. Under
these circumstances ho should vote against the hon.

member.
Viscount CRANBORNE said ho should support the
proposition, although he should have much preferred that
the hon. member had fixed the amount at £1 higher, and
then ho could have adopted the proposal of the hon.
member for.leinsbury. The line was cut short in the in-
come-tax at £100; it was cut short at £2O, and yet it was
proposed to go to the very bottom of the line in respect to
the qualification for the franchise.
Mr. HENLEY hoped the house would reject the pro-
posal, especially as them has been a very general objec-
tion to have any hard and fast line in the bill. (Hear,
hear.) lie did not think that the refusing to adopt the
proposition would lead to the increase of corrupt practices
at elections.
Mr. GREGORY thought the house had fixed a hardand
fast line last night, when they sot tho qualification for the
counts franchise at £t2. He had, however, a proposition
which ho thought preferable to that of the hon. member
for Stroud, which he should be quite prepared to bring
forward at the proper time. He, - how-
ever, would take the opportunity of saying ho
should have no objection to alter his amendment so as to
throw the payment of the whole of the taxes below £4
upon the landlord.
Mr. lIUBBARD supported the proposition of the mem-
ber for Stroud.
Mr. BRIGHT thought it was rather late to discuss
matters connected with the borough franchise. In the year
185 d he (%fr. Bright) addressed numerous meetings in
the principal towns on the subject of Reform, and it would
perhaps bo an interesting fact for hon. gentlemen opposite
to know that, with regard to the borough franchise,
the proposition in the bill brought forward by the right
bon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
precisely that which he then recommended. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) lie held in his hand a copy of the bill,
which he brought forward at the time, and from which it
would be seen that with respect to the occupiers of dwel-
ling-houses, those persons excused from payment of rates
on the ground of poverty, and those who paid their rates
by the 20th of July—(hear, hear)—the bill of the right
lion. gentleman entirely corresponded. Her Majesty's
Government had brought forward a bill which exceeded
the extremest measure with respect to the borough
franchise that he ever remembered either in public
or in private, and therefore he considered it would
be ungrateful and unhandsome if he wero to say
anything against it or to withdraw his support from
them. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He
could not trp,or6v, of the. prop: Alien of the hon. member
for Stroud, because he looked upon it as one that would
restrict the franchise. The change of opinions of hon.
gentlemen opposite that had taken place during the last
twelve months would be looked upon as marvels of the
times. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) It had been
advantageous to them, and it would be advantageous
to the country. They had done a great and good thing,
and he thanked them from the bottom of his heart for the
conclusion at which they had arrived. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham had just
Pi,7014011. the house with one of those speeches remarkable