Skip to main content

Municipal Corporations—Ireland

Volume 48: debated on Thursday 4 July 1839

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

The House in Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.

On clause C, section 20, being proposed,

said, that seeing the late period of the Session at which this bill was brought forward, and considering that many Irish Members had left town in the hope (which he confessed he did not think a very unreasonable one) that the Government would not proceed with this bill during the present Session, he must say that he could not approve of its being now brought on. As it was, however, he felt bound, under all the circumstances, to apply himself strictly to the clause under the consideration of the Committee. It related to the amount of the franchise, and he could not easily overrate its importance. It might be well to state shortly to the Committee what it was that the bill proposed in the way of qualification, to which he (Mr. Shaw) objected, and what qualification he proposed to substitute, by way of amendment. If the Committee would indulge him for a few moments on a very dry subject, he would endeavour to express himself as briefly as he could. The qualification proposed by the bill was twofold. First, the bill proposed, that for the ensuing three years the qualification should be a tenement valued for the purpose of being rated at the net annual value of 8l. It proposed, that the parties qualifying for the franchise should be six months' occupiers—in other words, that they should be six months resident as inhabitant householders; and it proposed, that they should be allowed to be only six months in arrear of their taxes up to the time of going to the poll. The second qualification was the occupancy of premises of no matter what value, provided they were rated for the relief of the poor for a period of between two and three years, that they were resident as inhabitant householders of the same period, and that they paid their taxes up to within six months of the time of going to the poll. He (Mr. Shaw) objected to the franchise contained in the bill, and proposed to substitute a 10l. franchise composed of the net annual value to which the tenement shall be rated under the Poor-law, and of the amount of the sums at which the repairs and landlord's insurance should be estimated. He proposed a twelvemonths' occupancy and a six months' residence as an inhabitant householder; and an arrear of only three months in the payment of taxes. He would deal first with the latter of the Government's two propositions. The gist of that proposition was, after the expiration of a certain time, to give what was termed, and what was in effect the English franchise, to Irish municipal voters. He was quite aware that this franchise—a franchise founded simply on the principle of being rated—was now fully in operation in England. But he did not think that it could be applied with safety, or would it be at all satisfactory, in Ireland. For the present, however, he should content himself with observing, that it had this vice, in common with almost all the Government measures of the present Session—that it would not come into operation until the year 1842. When they should have acquired a two years' experience of the working of the Poor-law Act in Ireland, and as to the persons who would be rate-payers under the bill, then they might apply themselves to the consideration of the question, whether they would make this rate the ground-work of the franchise. From some of the elections of guardians under the Poor-law Act which had already taken place in Ireland, be was not inclined to form any very sanguine expectations, that the persons who would be elected under such a system were likely to become useful officers for the administration of parochial affairs, independently of party and of all other considerations. While this was his strong individual opinion, he at the same time admitted, that it would be quite competent to them to entertain that proposition in three years' time, but certainly not sooner. With respect to the franchise which was proposed for the ensuing three years, he was anxious to clear the ground of all extraneous matter, and come at once to the real point at issue. He would not now apply himself to the consideration of whether twelve months or six months should be the period of occupation, or whether six months or three months should be the arrear of taxes. He apprehended that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not insist on these, provided they could agree as to the amount of the franchise which was the chief point at issue. What he proposed was a 10l. franchise, and that "such value should be a sum composed of the net annual value at which the premises so occupied shall be rated (as they are required to be) to the relief of the poor, and of the amount of the sums at which the landlord's repairs and the landlord's insurance shall be estimated in any such rate." He assumed, that what was desired to be obtained was a real bonâ fide 10l. qualification, and the question appeared simply to be this—whether this would be the best obtained by adopting the 8l. qualification proposed by her Majesty's Government, or by adopting a 10l. qualification, composed in such manner as was provided by the amendment which he (Mr. Shaw) was about to submit to the consideration of the House? At the end of one of the last angry disputes respecting Irish affairs, those who had sat on that side of the House had consented to a 10l. franchise. It had been urged, that it was a franchise thoroughly understood, as having been adopted both in England and Ireland in the election of Members of Parliament; and it had been moreover said, that a municipal franchise ought not to be higher than a Parliamentary franchise. Now arguments against the latter of these propositions might have been found in the circumstances, that the persons to be elected would have the power of expending the money of the boroughs by the raising of borough rates, while they would be comparatively removed from public observation, and would probably belong entirely to one party. A 10l. franchise had, however, been consented to, but upon the express understanding that it was to be a bonâ fide franchise. It was especially desirable in an institution which like the present was to be established for the first time, that the bill should state upon its face what the amount of franchise was really intended to be. For this reason, and because he did not think, that the 8l. qualification fixed by the bill, when increased by the amount of landlords' repairs and insurance, would substantially afford a 10l. qualification, he thought it his duty to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the words of clause C, section 20, from the word "that" to the word "provided" should be omitted, and that the following words should be inserted in their stead: "And be it enacted, that after this Act shall have come into operation in any borough named in the said schedule (A), every man of full age, who on the last day of August in any year shall be an inhabitant householder, and shall for six calendar months previous thereto have been resident as such within such borough, or within seven statute miles of such borough, and who shall occupy within such borough any house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop, which either separately or jointly with any land within such borough occupied therewith by him as tenant, or occupied therewith by him as owner, shall be of the yearly value of not less than 10l., to be ascertained and determined as hereinafter mentioned, shall, if duly enrolled according to the provisions hereinafter contained, be a burgess of such borough, and a member of the body corporate of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of such borough, and such yearly value shall be ascertained and determined in manner following, and not otherwise—that is to say, such value shall be a sum composed of the net annual value at which the premises so occupied by such man shall be rated (as they are hereby required to be) to the relief of the poor under an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, entitled 'An Act for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland,' and of the amount of the sums at which the landlord's repairs and the landlord's insurance shall be estimated and stated in any rate to be made in pursuance of the said Act; provided always, that no such occupier shall be admitted to be enrolled under this act unless he shall have occupied such premises within said borough, or other premises of the like nature within the said borough, and rated as aforesaid, for the space of twelve calendar months at the least next preceding such last day of August, nor unless such occupier shall, on or before the last day of August in such year, have paid or discharged all rates for the relief of the poor, and all municipal or other local cesses, and all rates and taxes which shall have become payable by him in respect of such premises, except such as shall have been imposed or become payable within three calendar months next before such last day of August."

said, the Government intended to adhere to the plan of adopting an 8l. franchise for three years, and of introducing, at the end of that period, a franchise similar to that existing in England. In all the preceding discussions upon this subject it had been stated by the friends of what was called, and he hoped properly called, a liberal policy in Ireland, that it was very desirable to assimilate the institutions of that country to those of England, but above all things, they protested against the adoption of a different and more restricted franchise in Ireland than that which was enjoyed in England. However, as it was said that on account of there being no legal rate to refer to in Ireland corresponding to the poor-rate in this country, the adoption of the English franchise would give rise to loose statements and inaccurate calculations, and open a door to innumerable frauds and perjuries, the Government had consented to adopt a settled rate. In fixing this rate, they had taken into consideration the circumstance, that the tendency of every system of rating was to produce a return lower than the actual value of the property rated, and that greater accuracy of calculation would be produced by the Poor-law valuations; and with reference to these circumstances, it had not been considered expedient to screw up the franchise to the same amount as had been proposed in the absence of the same means of obtaining proper valuations, especially when it was considered that no deduction from the required amount of an 8l. franchise was to be made in respect of landlord's repairs or insurance. In order to show the number of voters which would be afforded by different rates of franchise, he would refer to some towns comprised in schedule A of the bill. Clonmel contained 15,000 inhabitants and 1,867 houses; the number of houses of the yearly value of 10l. and upwards was 683, or not much more than one-third of the whole number. In Drogheda there were 17,000 inhabitants and 3,371 houses, of which, in 1833, 261 only were of the annual value of 10l. and upwards. The number of inhabitants in Londonderry was 19,000; out of the 3,074 houses which it contained, 408 were of the annual value of 10l. and upwards, and only 735 of the annual value of 5l. and upwards. Sligo contained 2,666 houses, of which 411 were of the annual value of 10l. and upwards, and 874 of the annual value of 5l. and upwards. So that it appeared, even a 5l. franchise would not give an inconveniently large number of persons to exercise municipal privileges. He was, however, anxious, as soon as it was practicable, to assimilate the franchises in England and Ireland, because he was convinced that such a course would tend to remove the heart-burnings between the countries, and he confessed, that he anticipated that both in England and Ireland, when the inhabitants of boroughs had to select persons who should have the disposal of their money, they would lose sight of religious and political differences and animosities. This had taken place to a great extent already, as he (Lord Morpeth) had it in his power to show, and he confidently expected that the electors in municipal corporations would soon only look to the character, experience, and abilities of the persons whom they selected to regulate their common interests.

said, that as he understood the clause of the bill, at the end of three years the franchise would be conferred on every householder rated for the poor-rates. That being the case, persons would have a right to vote who did not contribute to the borough fund. If the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, should carry his amendment, he should feel it his duty to propose upon that amendment a 10l. rated value. His objection to the franchise, as it was to be at the end of three years was, that it was not the English franchise. In England the borough-rate and the poor-rate were levied off the same persons, and, small as might be the part paid as the borough-rate, the persons paying it might be said to have a right to vote. In Ireland they were not to be levied off the same persons. The borough-rate was levied off persons having houses of 5l. value and upwards, and, by the Act of last Session, the poor-rate was to be levied off every house; from which circumstance arose the difference between the two countries. Now, the noble Lord had told them that in Londonderry, the town which he had the honour to represent, the number of houses was 3,074, and that of those there were but 735 of the value of 5l. and upwards. According to that statement they were to have at the end of three years, in addition to 735 persons who paid the borough-rate, 2,300 voters for the election of persons to dispense that borough-rate. He was sure the noble Lord could not intend to propose anything so unfair as that.

said, he entered into the objection made by the hon. Gentleman to the bill as it at present stood. He apprehended it to be that persons would have a right to vote who would not be rated for the borough rate, and he was prepared to alter the clause, so as to meet that objection.

had last year taken a part in this measure with reluctance, because he had differed from those with whom he usually acted. He then regretted that what appeared to him to have been so favourable an opportunity for the settlement of this great question should have been allowed to escape, and he was sorry to say, that that feeling of regret had been much increased by what had since taken place. Not many days ago a volume had been put into his hand, containing speeches delivered at a meeting in Dublin during the spring of the present year, which he had read with feelings of sorrow and surprise. The spirit which was manifested in the language and sentiments of those speeches was such as, in his opinion, was likely to create a corresponding feeling of bitterness in the minds of the people of Ireland. Some of those speeches were delivered by Protestant clergymen, who openly declared their determination not to admit their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to the enjoyment of civil rights; that having gained the ascendancy, they were resolved to keep it. They stated that Roman Catholics were idolators, worshippers of Baal, and followers of anti-Christ, and they asked what right the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, being an idolator, had to demand to be placed upon an equality with them as Christians. These were sentiments which could not be too severely deprecated. Those persons went the length of saying, that if a Roman Catholic Lord Mayor were placed at the head of the municipality, the time would have arrived when the Protestants of Ireland must be ready, like the covenanters of Scotland, to appear with swords in their hands and hallelujahs on their lips. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, had come in for a full share of the censure of those Gentlemen, who had even menaced him with the loss of his seat in that House, which he on the other hand hoped he would long continue to fill with his accustomed usefulness and ability. He sincerely regretted that the deliberations of the meeting to which he had referred had not been marked with that moderation and good sense which became the station of those of whom it was composed. They objected even to the principle of this bill, which had already been affirmed by that House, They declared that the exclusive character of the Irish corporations must be retained, and that whether the franchise was a 20l., or 30l., or a 50l. franchise, they were all equally inadmissible. It therefore appeared to him that they would gain nothing by the minute difference which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. He believed he had the authority of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somersetshire for saying, that the usual deductions made by the valuers in England averaged from 7 to 14 per cent. Well, if they called it 10 per cent., it followed that the difference between the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the noble Lord opposite amounted to only 1l. upon the qualification; or in other words that the noble Lord proposed a qualification of 8l., and the right hon. Gentleman in his amendment one of 9l. He thought it scarcely worth while to squabble about a point of so trifling a character. He did not know if these corporations would become, under this bill, normal schools of agitation; but it was quite clear that if they did, the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would not prevent that result. After the best consideration he could bestow upon the subject, he had come to the conclusion of supporting the bill in its present shape. He felt it right, however, to add, that as the qualification it proposed appeared to him upon the whole the least objectionable that could be devised, he should not feel inclined to change it at the expiration of three years. The Irish people, he conceived, would have no right to complain, if placed at least upon as good a footing as the people of Scotland.

had heard the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down with considerable regret. He had ventured to hope that the details of this measure would have been discussed without reference to topics which were calculated to excite angry feelings in the House or divert the attention of hon. Members from the more immediate and important points under consideration. He did not know what meeting the noble Lord referred to, he believed he must be correct in saying, that no Member of that House had taken a part in it; no reference had been made to it by his right hon. Friend, it had nothing to do with his right hon. Friend's amendment, and he really thought it would have been infinitely better if the noble Lord had abstained altogether from noticing it. The noble Lord had been greatly cheered by the noble Lord and hon. Members opposite, because he was of opinion that the difference between the two propositions was of a very trifling character. If so, he thought her Majesty's Government could not do better than give up the point in dispute. It either was or was not a trifling point. The noble Lord who last addressed the House so considered it, and hon. Members opposite appeared by their cheers to agree with them. Would those hon. Members refuse to concede that trifling point in order to secure the settlement of this question, great as it was called—a question by which Ireland was to be tranquillized and agitation put an end to? Surely it would be unworthy of the professions-of her Majesty's Ministers, and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were to keep that country in a state of turmoil and discontent, by withholding this bill upon a mere trifling point of difference. He certainly thought it was desirable to have the question settled. The spirit which had been manifested by the noble Lord opposite had been met by hon. Gentlemen on his ('Mr. Jackson's) side of the House. Hon. Members on his side of the House were of opinion, that it would be far better for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, that there should no longer be corporations in that country. They had thought that by reconstructing them they would only be legalizing establishments for the purposes of agitation and speech-making; and, notwithstanding that, their opinion, having been assured that a very strong feeling prevailed in favour of corporations throughout the country, and that if the existing ones were not reconstructed a still stronger feeling would be created in the shape of discontent, they abandoned their own opinion and consented to their reconstruction. That having been done, his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth had declared that he would require a 10l. qualification; that more he would not ask but that less than a 10l.bonâ fide qualification he would not consent to. Now, he had thought that her Majesty's Government were agreed with them on that point, and their not being so now left them open to the charge of inconsistency, because they said, that this 8l. qualification was to have been proposed as equivalent to 10l. In bringing it forward, therefore, as an 8l. qualification, and not a 10l., her Majesty's Ministers were acting with great inconsistency. They had offered to the House a 10l. qualification, but when he (Mr. Jackson) and those acting with him proposed to make that a bonâ fide qualification by rating, they were told that the effect of their proposal would be to make it a 12l. or 15l. qualification. Now they were told they were not to have a 10l., but an 8l. qualification. Surely it would appear from this, that all the concession had been upon their side, and none on the part of hon. Members opposite. He himself had given much dissatisfaction to persons in Ireland whose good opinion he was very desirous of retaining—hehadeven given offence to many constituencies, and amongst the rest to his own, by the concession he had already made in offering to agree to a 10l. franchise. The House would recollect, that he, and those with whom he was in the habit of acting, had voted for the second reading of the present measure at the hazard of losing the confidence of many amongst their constituents; their having done that, however, did by no means pledge them to supporting every one of the details of the bill.

, in explanation, begged to say that he did not mean to convey any idea that he thought it a trifle to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. With respect to what he had said of the speeches published in the pamphlet, he had only to observe, that no one could be more willing than he had ever been to make allowance for an inconsiderate expression escaping from any one during the heat and excitement of a public meeting; but it was not on speeches of that description that he had been animadverting, it was upon reports of speeches revised and dispassionately correctly, and advisedly published.

said: Sir, I do not intend to protract this debate, because I know that such a course would only lead to a result which, for my own part, I am most anxious to avoid. This, I am aware, is a most unfavourable moment for us to take a division, but still, recollecting the general feeling of the House on the subject in the last Session, I do not mean to protract the debate on that account. Indeed, I feel I could not do so without the risk of introducing topics which are not only irrelevant, but which I am most anxious to avoid; and therefore it is, that I am content to risk a division, which I see must be unfavourable to me, rather than give rise to a discussion such as I have adverted to. My impression, however, was, Sir, that the Government did not mean to persevere with this measure during the present Session, and I was led to entertain this impression from the circumstance of its having been announced in the spring that there were three subjects of immense importance to which the attention of the House was to be called— one relative to improvements in the civil and criminal laws, the other to Canada, and the third to the municipal corporations of Ireland. Now, with respect to the improvements in the civil and criminal laws we have heard nothing; and as all legislation with regard to a constitution for Canada has been deferred to a future period, I naturally thought that the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill would follow the fate of its brethren—and that the Government did not intend to press it forward at this advanced period of the Session. That, Sir, was my impression until I heard it announced the other night that we were to be called upon to proceed with the Irish Corporations Bill. My noble Friend has called the question under the consideration of the Committee a trifle, and I can only say, that if I were wrong I would at once concede it; but, feeling that I am right, I am bound at all events to record my opinion by the vote which I shall give on the division in favour of the proposition of my right hon. and learned Friend, and against the proposition of the noble Lord. With respect to the speeches which have been alluded to by my noble Friend, I feel confident that no one comes in for more condemnation in those speeches than I do myself for the course which I have taken in reference to this bill. Sir, my noble Friend says, that no concession we could make would conciliate those parties; but I can only assure him, that I desire to make no concession to any party—that all I wish to do on this and all other occasions, is what is right. Sir, since I stated my desire to bring about a settlement of this long-agitated question, I have done everything in my power to induce my friends to waive the strong feelings which they entertained upon the subject; but I at the same time, did state to them the ground which I thought would lead to that settlement, and that was, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ban-don has truly stated, that there should be a bonâ fide franchise of ten pounds. If the Government wish to conciliate and satisfy both parties, it is important that they should give up the present trifling difference between them. When the question was the second reading of this bill, I opposed the views of several of my own Friends on this side of the House, by giving the Government my assistance in carrying that motion; and even now, if I thought the noble Lord right and myself wrong, I would consent to his present proposition; but as I know that I am right and the noble Lord is wrong, I am bound to fulfil the promise on which the assistance by which the motion for the second reading has been gained, was given. I cannot, therefore, shrink from the necessity of a division, although I have no wish to protract the debate to a late hour, when those Friends who would support me will be here. Sir, I shall merely state that, as we have deferred providing for the constitution of Canada until a future period, on the same grounds I object to our now deferring what the Irish municipal corporation franchise should be in 1842. Let the noble Lord clearly understand that I hold out to him no hope; for I will make no rash promises of assisting him in his proposition until I see how the Irish Poor-laws work. I will come to no conclusion, but, on the contrary, I will hold myself unfettered to pursue hereafter any course which I may deem expedient. What I object to now is, affirming the principle as to what the franchise in the corporate towns of Ireland shall be at a future period. Now, with respect to the amount of the franchise. What I proposed last year, was a 10l. franchise, subject to the landlord's rates and insurance. This afforded an opportunity for much popular argument and abuse, but it was obvious that the amount of the deductions must vary in different places. In England, they vary from 7l. to 14l. per cent., and in some places, from 5l. to 18l. or 20l. per cent., according as the tenement is composed of land or houses. There must be a difference in the deductions under such circumstances, and it is on these grounds that I intended the 10l., which I proposed should be subject to those deductions. This I proposed in conformity with my own convictions, and in fulfilment of the assurance which I gave to those friends whom I induced to waive their opposition to the measure; and for that reason I now feel it to be my duty to adhere to the 10l. franchise. No arguments that I have heard have convinced me that I ought to forego this proposition, and my only regret now is, that the subject had not been brought under discussion at an earlier period of the Session, when the sense of the House could have been better taken upon it than now.

The House divided on the original ques- tion:—Ayes 104; Noes 54: Majority 50

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.O'Connell, M.J.
Alston, R.O'Connell, Morgan
Anson, hon. Col.Ord, W.
Archbold, R.Oswald, J.
Baines, E.Paget, F.
Barnard, E. G.Palmerston, Ld. Visct.
Beamish, F. B.Parker, J.
Bellew, R. M.Parrott, J.
Bewes, T.Pendarves, E. W. W.
Blake, M. J.Pigott, D. R.
Blake, W. J.Power, J.
Bridgman, H.Price, Sir R.
Brocklehurst, J.Pusey, P.
Brodie, W. B.Redington, T. N.
Brotherton, J.Rice, right hon. T. S.
Browne, R. D.Roche, E. B.
Buller, C.Roche, W.
Busfield, W.Rundle, J.
Butler, hon. ColonelRussell, Lord J.
Cave, R. O.Russell, Lord
Chalmers, P.Russell, Lord C.
Clive, E. B.Salwey, Colonel
Coote, Sir C. H.Scholefield, J.
Craig, W. G.Seale, Sir J. H.
Curry, Mr. SergeantSeymour, Lord
Dalmeny, LordSmith, B.
Davies, ColonelSmith, R. V.
Denison, W. J.Somers, J. P.
Eliot, LordSomerville, Sir W. M.
Elliot, hon. J. E.Stanley, hon. E. J.
Fielden, JohnStuart Lord J.
Fenton, J.Stuart, W.V.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.Stock, Dr.
Finch, F.Strutt, Edw.
Fitzpatrick, J. W.Tancred, H. W.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.Thornley, T.
Gordon, R.Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Heathcoat, J.Turner, E.
Hobhouse, T. B.Vigors, N. A.
Hodges, T. L.Wakley, T.
Hoskins, K.Wallace, R.
Hutton, RobertWarburton, H.
James, W.Ward, H. G.
Macleod, R.White, A.
M'Taggart, J.Williams, W. A.
Marshall, W.Wilshere, W.
Melgund, Lord Visct.Winnington, H. J.
Morpeth, Lord Visct.Wood, C.
Morris, D.Wyse, T.
Muskett, G. A.Yates, J.A.
Nagle, Sir R.
Norreys, Sir D. J.


O'Brien, W. S.O'Ferrall, M.
O'Connell, Dan.Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, CaptainBurroughes, H. N.
Archdall, M.Chapman, A.
Ashley, LordChute, W. L. W.
Ballie, ColonelClerk, Sir G.
Blennerhassett, A.Clive, hon. R. H.
Buller, Sir J, Y.Corry, hon. H.

Courtenay, P.Lincoln, Earl of
Darby, G.Lockhart, A.M.
Dunbar, G.Lygon, hon. Gen.
Eastnor, Lord Visct.Mackenzie, T.
Eaton, R. J.Miles, W.
Egerton, W. T.Parker, M.
Egerton, Sir P.Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Estcourt, T.Peel, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H.Perceval, Colonel
Fremantle, Sir T.Perceval, hon. G. J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.Praed, W. T.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.Round, C. G.
Hale, R. B.Round, J.
Halford, H.Stanley, Lord
Herbert, hon. S.Teignmouth Lord
Hogg, J. W.Tennent, J. E.
Holmes, hon. W.A'C.Vere, Sir C. B.
Hope, H. T.Vernon, G. H.
Hotham, LordVilliers, Lord Visct.
Hughes, W. B.
Jermyn, Earl


Jones, CaptainJackson, Mr. Sergeant
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.Shaw, right hon. F.

moved the omission of the 22d clause, settling the qualification at the end of three years.

The Committee, after a short discussion, agreed to this suggestion, and divided on the question, that it should form part of the bill:—Ayes 96; Noes 50:—Majority, 46.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.Heathcoat, J.
Alcock, T.Hector, C. J.
Alston, R.Hobhouse, rt. h. Sir J.
Archbold, R.Hobhouse, T. B.
Bannerman, A.Hodges, T. L.
Barnard, E. G.Hoskins, K.
Beamish, F. B.Howick, Lord Vis.
Bellew, R. M.Hutton, R.
Bewes, T.Lister, E. C.
Blake, M. J.Lushington, C.
Blake, W. J.Macleod, R.
Bridgeman, H.Marshall, W.
Brodie, W. B.Mildmay, P. St. John
Browne, R. D.Morpeth, Lord Vis.
Bryan, G.Morris, D.
Busfeild, W.Muskett, G. A.
Callaghan, D.Nagle, Sir R.
Cave, R. O.Norreys, Sir D. J.
Chalmers, P.O'Brien, W. S.
Clive, E. B.O'Connell, D.
Collins, W.O'Connell, J.
Curry, Mr. SergeantO'Connell, M. J.
Dalmeny, LordO'Connell, M.
Dashwood, G. H.Ord, W.
Davies, ColonelPalmer, C. F.
Denison, W. J.Parker, J.
Easthope, J.Parnell, rt. h. Sir H.
Evans, G.Parrott, J.
Fenton, J.Pendarves, E. W. W.
Finch, F.Pigot, D. R.
Fitzpatrick, J. W.Price, Sir R.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.Redington, T. N.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.Roche, E. B.

Rundle, J.Thornely, T.
Russell, Lord J.Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Russell, Lord C.Turner, E.
Rutherford, rt. h. A.Turner, W.
Salwey, ColonelVigors, N. A.
Scholefield, J.Wakley, T.
Seale, Sir J. H.Williams, W.
Sheil, R. L.Williams, W. A.
Smith, B.Wilshere, W.
Smith, R. V.Winnington, H. J.
Somers, J. P.Wood, C.
Somerville, Sir W. M.Wyse, T.
Stuart, Lord J.Yates, J. A.
Stuart, W. V.
Stock, Dr.


Strutt, E.Stanley, E. J.
Tancred, H. W.Donkin, Sir R.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, CaptainHotham, Lord
Attwood, W.Hughes, W. B.
Baillie, ColonelJackson, Mr. Sergeant
Baring, hon. W. B.Jermyn, Earl
Blennerhassett, A.Jones, Captain
Buck, L. W.Knatchbull, r. h. Sir E.
Burroughes, H. N.Lockhart, A. M.
Chute, W. L. W.Lowther, J. H.
Clive, hon. R. H.Lygon, hon. General
Coote, Sir C. H.Mackenzie, T.
Courtenay, P.Monypenny, T. G.
Cresswell, C.Pakington, J. S.
Darby, G.Palmer, G.
Dunbar, G.Perceval, hon. G. J.
East, J. B.Praed, W. T.
Eastnor, Lord Vis.Pusey, P.
Eliot, LordRound, C. G.
Estcourt, T.Round J.
Fitzroy, hon. H.Rushbrooke, Colonel
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.Teignmouth, Lord
Grimsditch, T.Tennent, J. E.
Hale, R. B.Thomas, Colonel H.
Hardinge, rt. h. Sir H.Vere, Sir C. B.
Hepburn, Sir T.
Hodgson, R.


Hogg, J. W.Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Holmes, hon. W. A.Ferguson, Sir R.

On Clause 71,

proposed to add the following proviso at the end of the clause —" Provided always that nothing in this Act ontained shall be construed to dispense with the obligation of any person to make and subscribe the oath provided and enjoined by an Act made in the 10th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George 4th, entitled ' An Act for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects.'" In moving to add this proviso he would only observe that there was nothing new in the oath or in the obligation which it imposed, and that it was merely his intention to leave the law as it stood before.

opposed the motion, He wished the clause to remain as it stood. The moment the oath was taken feuds would inevitably arise. The Protestant was not required to take an oath, and why should an oath be required of the Catholic? If the proviso were added, it would put a firebrand into the Act. It was the policy of the Legislature to require as few oaths as possible; he wished to see the number diminished, and he was happy to find that the Act did not oblige any Protestant to take an oath.

The Committee divided on the question that the proviso be added:—Ayes 112; Noes 157:—Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Ackland, T. D.Hepburn, Sir T. B.
A'Court, CaptainHerries, rt. hon. J. C.
Alford, Lord Vis.Hodgson, F.
Alsager, CaptainHodgson, R.
Bagge, W.Hogg, J. W.
Bailey J.Holmes, hon. W. A.
Baillie, ColonelHolmes, W.
Baring, H. B.Hope, G. W.
Baring, hon. W. B.Hotham, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G.Hughes, W. B.
Blennerhassett, A.Hurst, F.
Bradshaw, J.Ingestrie, Lord Vis.
Broadley, H.Irton, S.
Brownrigg, S.Irving, J.
Bruce, Lord E.James, Sir W. C.
Buck, L. W.Jermyn, Earl
Burrell, Sir C.Jones, Captain
Calcraft, J. H.Kemble, Henry
Chute, W. L, W.Knatchbull, rt. h. Sir E.
Clerk, Sir G.Knightley, Sir C.
Cole, Lord Vis.Knox, hon. T.
Compton, H. C.Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Corry, hon. H.Law, hon. C. E.
Courtenay, P.Liddell, hon. H. T.
Cresswell, C.Lowther, J. H.
Darby, G.Lygon, hon. G.
De Horsey, S. H.Mackenzie, T.
Douglas, Sir C. E.Master, T. W. C.
Dugdale, W. S.Meynell, Captain
Dunbar, G.Monypenny, T. G.
Duncombe, hon. W.Nicholl, J.
Duncombe, hon. A.Owen, Sir J.
Dungannon, Lord Vis.Packe, C. W.
East, J. B.Palmer, G.
Eastnor, Lord Vis.Parker, M.
Egerton, W. T.Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Eliot, LordPerceval, hon. G. J.
Estcourt, T.Pigot, R.
Estcourt, T.Polhill, Frederick
Fitzroy, hon. H.Pollen, Sir J. W.
Gordon, hon. Capt.Pollock, Sir F.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.Praed, W. T.
Graham, it. hn. Sir. J.Price, R.
Greene, T.Pringle, A.
Grimsditch, T.Richards, R.
Grimston, hon. E. H.Round, C. G.
Hale, R. B.Round, J.
Halford, H.Rushbrooke, Colonel

Sanderson, R.Vere, Sir C. B.
Scarlett, Hon. J. Y.Verner, Colonel
Sheppard T.Villiers, Lord Vis.
Stanley, E.Waddington, H. S.
Stormont, Lord Vis.Wood, Colonel T.
Tennent, J. E.Wood, T.
Thomas, Colonel, H.
Thompson, Mr. Ald.


Thornhill, G.Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Trench, Sir F.Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

List of the NOES.

Adam, AdmiralHeathcoat, J.
Aglionby, H. A.Hector, C. J.
Ainsworth, P.Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Alcock, T.Hobhouse, T. B.
Alston, R.Hodges, T. L.
Archbold, R.Hollond, R.
Bannerman, A.Horsman, E.
Baring, F. T.Hoskins, K.
Barnard, E. G.Howick, Lord Vis.
Beamish, F. B.Hume, J.
Bellew, R. M.Humphery, J.
Bewes, T.Hutton, R.
Blackett, C.James, W.
Blake, M. J.Jervis, S.
Bridgeman, H.Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Brodie, W. B.Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Brotherton, J.Lambton, H.
Browne, R. D.Langdale, hon. C.
Bruges, W. H. L.Loch, J.
Bryan, G.Macaulay, T. B.
Buller, C.Macleod, R.
Busfeild, W.M'Taggart, J.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.Marshall, W.
Callaghan, D.Marsland, H.
Campbell, Sir J.Martin, J.
Cave, R. O.Maule, hon. F.
Chalmers, P.Melgund, Lord Vis.
Chapman, Sir M. L.C.Mildmay, P. St. J.
Childers, J. W.Milnes, R. M.
Clive, E. B.Morpeth, Lord Vis.
Collins, W.Morris, D.
Craig, W. G.Nagle, Sir R.
Currie, R.Norreys, Sir D. J.
Curry, Mr. SerjeantO'Brien, W. S.
Dalmeny, LordO'Connell, D.
Davies, ColonelO'Connell, J.
Denison, W. J.O'Connell, M. J.
Divett, E.O'Connell, M.
Donkin, Sir R. S.Oswald, J.
Duke, Sir J.Palmer, C. F.
Easthope, J.Palmerston, Lord Vis.
Ellice, E.Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Evans, G.Parrott, J.
Evans, W.Pechell, Captain
Fenton, J.Pendarves, E. W. W.
Ferguson, Sir R, A.Philips, G. R.
Finch, F.Pigot, D. R.
Fitzpatrick, J. W.Power, J.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.Price, Sir R.
Gordon, R.Pryse, P.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.Redington, T. N.
Guest, Sir J.Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Handley, H.Roche, E. B.
Hawkins, J. H.Roche, W.
Hayter, W. G.Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Rumbold, C. E.Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Rundle, J.Turner, W.
Russell, Lord J.Verney, Sir H.
Russell, Lord C.Vigors, N. A.
Rutherfurd, rt hon A.Villiers, hon. C. P.
Salwey, ColonelWalker, R.
Scholefield, J.Wallace, R.
Scrope, G. P.Ward, H. G.
Seale, Sir J. H.White, A.
Sheil, R. L.White, H.
Slaney, R. A.Wilbraham,
Smith, G. R.Wilde, Mr. Sergeant
Smith, R. V.Williams, W.
Somers, J. P.Williams, W. A.
Somerville, Sir W. M.Wilshere, W.
Stanley, hon. W. O.Winnington, H. J.
Stewart, J.Wood, C.
Stuart, W. V.Wood, Sir M.
Stock, Dr.Wood, G. W.
Strutt, E.Wyse, T.
Style, Sir C.Yates, J. A.
Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant
Tancred, H. W.


Teignmouth, LordO'Ferrall, M.
Townley, R. G.Parker, J.

Clause agreed to.

Rest of the bill, with the exception of Schedule B postponed, agreed to.

House resumed. Report to be received.